Midtern_Essay

Question 1: Describe at least three kinds of speech that are not protected speech under the FIRST Amendment. Provide examples, and explain the impact of not having these types of speech protected under the First Amendment. Three kinds of speech that are not protected under the First Amendment are: perjury, defamation, and child pornography. The before mentioned are very important to not being protected because their type of action can cause harm to others or themselves. The First Amendment was in place so that we the people would be able to express them without government interference, but these speeches are the exception. The first speech: perjury is defined as the willful act of swearing a false oath or affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding. An example of perjury would be if a witness lies on stand under oath and it is known that the witness is lying. The impact of this speech not being protected under the First Amendment is actually if this speech was protected who knows how many guilty parties would be out free or persons who are either criminally or civilly responsible not being held accountable and clouding the judge or jury. The second speech: defamation is defined as the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. An example would be defamation of character, would be if a person falsely accused of sexual harassment. The impact of this speech not being protected under the First Amendment would be the fact that if it was protected then whenever someone would have hard feelings or are vengeful then people’s reputation would be tainted everywhere and any and every one would talk and defame one another left and right. The third speech not protected by the First Amendment: child pornography is denotes images or films and, in some cases, writings depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child. An example would be an adult filming or taking pictures of a minor child in a sexual way. The impact of this speech not being protected by the First Amendment would be so many children would be abused, taken advantage, and harming them in ways many couldn’t imagine. Question 2: Describe and explain at least three circumstances when a search warrant is not required for a valid search. Provide examples, and explain the impact of this issue Three examples of circumstances when a search warrant is not required for a valid search would be: when police search a vehicle they stop on the road or in a non-residential area if they have a probable cause, where consent is given by a person, and when evidence is in plain view. All of the before mentioned; do have certain criteria that is in place to protect the individual being searched and the person who is searching. The first circumstance is: a police officer can search a vehicle they stop on the road or in a non-residential area if they suspect that they have probable cause. An example would be if there was a bolo out on a car and an officer spots the alleged vehicle and pulls it over. The officer has a right to search the vehicle because it may contain evidence of a crime. The impact of this is a catch 22 in most people’s eyes, because there is very few one of a kind cars and an officer may search a vehicle of a person who is completely innocent and they may feel violated. Why should law abiding citizens be harassed and feel violated' The second circumstance: consent given by a person who is in control of the evidence in question. An example would be if the police would like entrance in someone’s apartment, the police could have the landlord give consent to enter into the domicile. But there are certain rules that need to make such searches hold up in a court of law. Any evidence found must be in plain view, because even though they were given entrance to the domicile anything in closets or in drawers would be inadmissible because the owner of the property did not give consent. The impact of this issue could be a violation of privacy on behalf of the person in question. But it can also be a primitive strike to prevent a disastrous event. The third circumstance: would be evidence in plain sight, which has criteria as well such as, if an officer is legitimately on the premises, his observation is from a legitimate vantage point, and it is immediately obvious that the evidence is contraband. An example would be if a police officer makes an arrest at someone’s home and while they were there a gun was in plain sight on a coffee table.