POL 2241chap5,6

POL 2241chap5,6 - Seth Norton POL 2241 Brown Chapter 5...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Seth Norton POL 2241 Brown Chapter 5: Civil Liberties 1. Please define the following terms: Clear and present danger test- Law should not punish speech unless there was a clear and present danger of producing harmful actions. Due process of law- Denies the government the right, without due process, to deprive people of life, liberty, and property Equal protection of the law- A standard of equal treatment that must be observed by the government. Establishment clause- First Amendment ban on laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” Exclusionary rule- Improperly gathered evidence may not be introduced in a criminal trial. Freedom of expression- Right of the people to speak, publish, and assemble. Freedom of religion- People shall be free to exercise their religion, and government may not establish a religion. Free-exercise clause- First Amendment requirement that law cannot prevent free exercise of religion. Good-faith exception- An error in gathering evidence sufficiently minor that it may be used in trial. Libel- Writing that falsely injuries another person. Prior restraint- Censorship of a publication. Probable cause- Reasonable cause for issuing a search warrant or making an arrest; more than mere suspicion. Search warrant- A judge’s order authorizing a search. Selective incorporation- Court cases that apply Bill of Rights to states. Symbolic speech- An act that conveys a political message. Wall of separation- Court ruling that government cannot be involved in religion. 2. Since the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court has extended free speech protections to include political speech endorsing violent overthrow of the government. In light of the 9/11 attacks and the ongoing security threats posed by terrorists, should the Court continue to protect violent speech, or should the government restrict political views espoused by radical ideologues? It would be unconstitutional to restrain this type of speech. Instead of restricting them from using violent speech with radical ideas that is aimed to harm the country and its people, keep a very close eye on them and who they talk to. With these acts they may even be able to use the Patriot Act to use digital surveillance and thwart any real threat and hopefully get most of the player in the plot. 3. In 2006, the New York Times was widely criticized for exposing details about a secret government program that tracked the financial activities of suspected terrorists while the operation was still in effect. The Times claimed that the program was a matter of public
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
interest and that the operation was not jeopardized by the revelation of the details. In the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has prohibited government attempts to censor publications; however, after the Times publication, some critics alleged that the publisher’s actions were treasonable. Should the Court restrict the publication of details regarding ongoing
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 4

POL 2241chap5,6 - Seth Norton POL 2241 Brown Chapter 5...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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