This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: #1-To commence, the very fact the Megabyte Strangelove has a criminal reputation of a Mafia hitwoman does not help her case at all and leads authorities to believe that her intentions of such a manifesto are true and conceivable in her point of view. Upon descending on her apartment, Megabyte Strangelove should inquire about a search warrant, invoking her rights under the fourth amendment which states her right to be secure against unreasonable searches. If there is no search warrant, she should not be obliged to let the lawyers, criminal prosecutors, RIAA and secret service agents in the privacy of her own home. If such a search warrant exists, the next step in Megabyte Strangelove’s defense would be to pinpoint each of the clauses in her manifesto individually. As for the first clause calling on all Americans to protest the war in Urock by halting their tax payments, the authorities will be very much inclined to perceive this as an immediate call to action as seen before in the infamous Brandenburg vs. Ohio case. If the manifesto were Brandenburg-tested, the results would show that Strangelove indeed did break the law solely on the fact that the words lead to direct action. Continuing to read through her manifesto, her views on the vice president, Phil Haliburton, are indeed protected under the first amendment specifically pertaining to freedom of speech. Unlike the case of the United States vs. Baker, there is no basis on electronic communication which implies her intention to follow through with the said threat of killing him. As for the controversy with Greg Apparatchik, according to the court case of the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Strangelove will be in the clear since the actual malice standard established in this case requires the party in question to prove that the author of a statement knew that it was false or acted carelessly and in disregard of its factual truth. However, noticing that the Redhead Anti-defamation League got involved in her case Strangelove will be more than likely held liable for her other statement on the grounds that it makes a false claim, which she stated, that harms the reputation of the aforementioned organization. false claim, which she stated, that harms the reputation of the aforementioned organization....
View Full Document
- Spring '08
- First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, cell phone, Strangelove