« Discussion 3 (Due 6/11 by 11:59pm)

Mary Marques

Discussion 3

3 replies
Kathryn Graphos GP Mary Campbell
Last
1. I do agree with Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. First, free speech and free thought are essentially the building block for the rest of our civil liberties. Taking away these rights, could unravel the rest of our civil liberties stated in the Bill of Rights and 14th amendment. Also, whether you agree that the United States has always been successful at protecting the first amendment, I think we can mostly agree that the first amendment is the most obvious symbol of freedom for many Americans. Americans tend to value free speech more than some of our other civil liberties.


2. Privacy is one of the rights granted in the U.S. Constitution even though it is not explicitly stated. It comes from the 14th amendment with the right to liberty, the 9th amendment that mentions rights that might exist beyond the Constitution, and the 4th amendment rights that prevent unlawful search and seizure and also rights against quartering. Through cases like Roe V. Wade and Griswold V. Connecticut the idea of privacy has expanded and been legitimized.


3. Terrorism suspects' civil liberties should be protected and they should be tried in civilian courts. But only if they are American citizens. My reasoning for this is due process. I think that they are still innocent until proven guilty and should be treated as such. Everyone that is an American citizen deserves a fair trial regardless of the accusations against them. However, if they are not American citizens they are not protected by the U.S. constitution. They are still protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights so no human rights violations against them should occur. 

3 replies
  1. Post by Mary Campbell
    Discussion reply
    I agree that free speech is very important in American society. I also agree that by limiting free speech, it would also take away many of our other liberties. I think that the only reason speech should be limited is if it causes a clear and imminent danger. These cases are extremely rare, and I think that the Supreme Court should limit speech very sparingly. I also agree that privacy is not specifically granted although the constitution hints at it. I like what you said about the Supreme Court rulings because I think a large part of the protection of privacy comes from the interpretations of the Supreme Court. I agree with your answer to number three and I think that people should be given the protections of the Constitution only if they are citizens. I think that people who aren't citizens should still be treated with respect, but they are not entitled to the freedoms and protections that the United States fights to protect.
  2. Post by Gracyn Pires
    Discussion Reply
    I do agree with you on everything you stated about the retired Supreme Court Justice and privacy rights. If you take away our basic rights, the rest of our civil liberties away.  I also agree that people value freedom of speech better that other civil liberties. People think that their freedom of speech can be used for anything and everything and not get you in trouble. This can turn into many discrepancies.  

    I do agree with you that Terrorism should only be protected in civil court if they are American citizens. People should have protection under the court of law and be tried fairly if you are a citizen. People who are not citizens of America should be respected and treated okay, but should not be tried with the up most protection that America fights for in their constitution. 

  3. Post by Kathryn Graphos
    Re: Discussion 3
    I agree that our freedom of speech is integral to our identities as Americans, but I do not feel like it should be held in such a higher regard than our other freedoms. All of our rights as Americans are important, and unravelling even one could cause great detriment. I agree with your third point that American suspects's trials should be held in civilian courts, but I think there should be some exceptions allowed dependent on the severity of the accused crimes. I also definitely agree with your point that all humans, regardless of citizenship, should be be treated with their universal human rights in mind.
Older discussion
Newer discussion