Organization Workshop5

Organization Workshop5 - Bryan Simmons PA 20 November 30,...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Bryan Simmons PA 20 November 30, 2007 Organization Workshop 1. According to the precedent established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) , hate speech is that which “has no redeeming value, can incite violent retaliation, and should not enjoy 1st amendment protection” (Reich, 3). In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) the Supreme Court further explained the basis of hate speech, also claiming that said speech has to be “Directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (Reich, 7). In this case, the reaction of the Muslim Student Alliance could certainly be considered “lawless action” as they were incensed enough to abscond with the totality of “The Voice” and then deposit the copies in a waste receptacle. Although some may claim that you cannot steal free newspapers, “There are states where authorities have successfully treated the confiscation of free papers as theft” (Longley, 14). The Muslim Student Alliance also threatened to potentially disrupt
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 05/14/2008 for the course ENGL 1101 taught by Professor Kurant-rollins during the Fall '07 term at N. Georgia.

Page1 / 2

Organization Workshop5 - Bryan Simmons PA 20 November 30,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online