Aidan Oosterwijk
Laurel Springs
Step 1
Topic: Freedom of Speech
Landmark Case: Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643; 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081; 81 S. Ct. 1684
Advocate example: expression of individual opinions and views without any form of interference
from the state or any other party.
Contemporary Case #1: Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz, 135 S. Ct. 2218, 576 U.S., 192 L. Ed. 2d
236 (2015)
Contemporary Case #2: Elonis v. US, 135 S. Ct. 2001, 575 U.S., 192 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2015)
Are the subtopics equal in importance?
The subtopics address the pertinent issue of respect and protection of the freedom of
speech as enshrined under the supreme law of the land hence equal in importance.
Are there relationships of time between subtopics?
Yes, there is the relationship of the chronological flow of events relating to protection and
enhancement of the freedom of speech.
Are any subtopics a result of other subtopics?
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
!2
Some of the subtopics are: the right to personal privacy and illegal search and seizures done
by law enforcement agencies.
Step 2: Outline
I.
Introduction of the Topic : The Freedom of Speech
Thesis: freedom of speech is the fundamental human right that should be associated with the
responsibility hence should not be used as a defensive mechanism in the event that utterances
hurt the other party.
II.
Informing-The personal liberty and the amendment
A.
History
a. The freedom of speech traces its rich history to the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights in 1949.
b. Freedom of speech is comprehensive principle that enables individuals and people to
express their personal views and opinions without any form of political retaliation of
censorship.
B.
Definition
a. Freedom of speech states all human beings have the right to freedom of opinion and
express and people are free to hold their opinions without any form of interference from
people and this should be done through available media channels.
b. Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
!3
C.
Advocate
a. Freedom of speech was agitated by Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights; advocating for freedom of people to air out their personal views and
opinions without interference and any form of censorship.
III.
Landmark case: Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643; 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081; 81 S. Ct. 1684 (1961)
a. The challenge of the case was to determine if police officers violated the requirements of
the 14th amendments by entering house of Dollree Mapp without notification and a search
warrant.
A.
Focus of the Landmark case
a. Police officers are guardians of law and protect fundamental rights of the citizens as
enshrined in the supreme law of the land.
b. This case was intended to determine if police officers who unlawful entered and seized
house of Dollree Mapp fuelled gross violation of the fundamental rights as enshrined in
the 4th amendment of the constitution.
B.
Evidence Of The Landmark Case
a. Proof of the case was yielded in the infringement of the constitution.
b. Various judicial precedents such as Boyd v. the United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) and
Court in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) were used to argue out the case.
C.
Result And Impact Of The Landmark Case
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
!4
a. The presiding judges in this case found out that “evidence which is illegally yielded is
inadmissible and in effect, the deployment of evidence garnered illegally is neglection of the
right regarding the due process of legislation and the right to protection of persons against
un-meaningful searches contained in the Fourth Amendment”.
b. The case was historic milestone against any form of state violation of the legitimate rights
of the citizens.
IV.
A.
Two Contemporary Cases
current case 1- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz, 135 S. Ct. 2218, 576 U.S., 192 L. Ed. 2d
236 (2015)
a. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that restriction of the information in form of
signboard is violation of the freedom of speech as enshrined in the constitution.
B.
Current Case 2- Elonis v. US, 135 S. Ct. 2001, 575 U.S., 192 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2015)
b. An individual was convicted for issuing interstate death threats.
c. According to the findings, freedom of speech ends when it violates fundamental rights of
other people.
V.
Conclusion
a. Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that is inborn that cannot be taken away
from the individual.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
!5
b. Freedom of speech should come up with responsibility to prevent chances of infringing
on the fundamental rights of people.
c. The 4th amendment is the custodian of the principle and freedom of speech.
Works Cited
Oosterwijk, A. Basic Information: Title of landmark case (including case number): Mapp v.
Ohio, 367 U.S. 643; 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081; 81 S. Ct. 1684 (1961). Laurel Springs.
Oosterwijk, A. The Freedom of Speech.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
!6
Aidan Oosterwijk
The freedom of speech
The first amendment details the freedom of speech as a fundamental right. Freedom
of speech comes with the responsibility in the utterances that one makes. Thus, it cannot
emerge as a defense when the speech amounts to slander or unjustified attack on the character
of another person.
Case laws
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz, 135 S. Ct. 2218, 576 U.S., 192 L. Ed. 2d 236 (2015)
The Supreme Court ruled that the restricted the information portrayed in a signboard
by the municipal council amounted to restriction of the freedom of speech. The case applies
to the matter as it involves the scope of the freedom of speech.
Elonis v. US, 135 S. Ct. 2001, 575 U.S., 192 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2015)
The case involves a matter on a conviction of a person who issued intestate threats.
The case applies as it involves the limitation of the freedom of speech. The freedom ends
when it involves the infringement of the rights of other persons.
Statements on the limitation of the freedom of speech
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 135 S. Ct. 1656, 575 U.S., 191 L. Ed. 2d 570 (2015)
Justice Scalia’s statement about the freedom of speech
The judge indicated that “The first axiom of the First Amendment is this: As a general
rule, the state has no power to ban speech on the basis of its content” (Williams-Yulee v.
Florida Bar, 2015). Thus, it is evident that there is an inclination to allow free speech. The
source has great value in establishing default approach to freedom of speech.
Michael moore stated that Freedom of speech is useless without freedom of thought.
The statement indicates that freedom of speech involves assessment of the repercussions. It is
relevant to the case as freedom of speech involves responsibilities.
Contemporary cases on freedom of speech
Booker v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections, 855 F.3d 533 (4th Cir. 2017)
The case involved the privacy of the communication. A third party opened an envelop
containing private information from an inmate. The court ruled that speech has private
aspects. The case applies as it sheds light on the nature of freedom of speech and the privacy
thereof.
Gaines v. Wardynski, 871 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2017)
The case involves the appellant who argues that she was denied a promotion on the
basis of her exercise of her freedom of expression. The court jealously guards freedom of
speech since it is involves a fundamental right which makes the case relevant the topic of the
paper.
Constitutional provision on the first amendment
The freedom of speech relates to the first amendment of the constitution of the United
States. It provides for the freedom of expression among other freedoms. The constitution
provides for the elimination of the “prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press” among.
"What College Students Really Think About Free Speech." The New York Times - Breaking
News, World News & Multimedia, 13 Mar. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/us/collegestudents-free-speech.html.
The colleges need to guard the students’ freedom of speech. At the same time, there is
need to provide for the freedom of inclusivity. Nevertheless, it is necessary to guard the
freedom of speech as long as it is exercised responsibly.
Aidan Oosterwijk
Laurel Springs
Basic Information
Title of landmark case (including case number): Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643; 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081;
81 S. Ct. 1684 (1961)
Plaintiff: Ohio, United States Supreme Court
Defendant: Mapp
Date case argued and decided: 1961
Judgment Affirmed or Reversed: The judgment was reversed
Case Evaluation
Issue/Charges being Discussed
A close observation of the case provides that police officers entered the house of Dollree
Mapp so as to search for someone was needed for questioning concerning recent bomb. The
police entered the house without the permission or search warrant (4th Amendment Supreme
Court Cases, n.d). While searching the house, the police officers came across obscene pictures,
books, as well as photographs after which the accused or defendant was eventually convicted and
prosecuted. As a result, the issue that is to be determined in this scenario is whether or not the
evidenced garnered at the time of the seizure or search carried out in infringement of the Fourth
Amendment regarding the Constitution will be permissible in a State Court?
Evidence Presented during the Arguments
LANDMARK CASE
!2
It was argued that when evidence or proof is yielded in infringement of the constitution,
then it is regarded as permissible within the state court. At the same time, it was emphasized that
any evidence garnered during the government’s invasion of the right to privacy of a person
infringes both the Fifth and Fourth Amendment. By using the case of Boyd v. the United States,
116 U.S. 616 (1886), it was noted the evidence obtained would not be deployed without
infringing the right pertaining to the constitution (4th Amendment Supreme Court Cases, n.d).
Observably, the case of the Court in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) was used in the
argument since it showed that the evidence assorted due to unreasonable seizure or search was
not permissible against an accused within the federal court as the exclusion of the evidence
would be the primary approach to upholding the rights stipulated in the Fourth Amendment (4th
Amendment Supreme Court Cases, n.d).
Conclusions of the Judge/Judges
The judges concluded that the evidence which is illegally yielded is inadmissible and in
effect, the deployment of evidence garnered illegally is neglection of the right regarding the due
process of legislation and the right to protection of persons against unmeaningful searches
contained in the Fourth Amendment. The right to privacy of the Fourth Amendment had been
established as being juridical against the States as a result of the Due Process Clause concerning
the 14th Amendment, a similar sanction about exclusion is applicable against them. Otherwise a
State, through accepting illegally assorted evidence, fails to obey the Constitution which it has
affirmed to uphold.
Connection with Amendment/Personal Freedom Topic for your Informative/Explanatory
Article:
LANDMARK CASE
!3
A close examination of the case provides that it is closely related to the informative or
explanatory article. In regards to this, it is noted that the protection provided by the Fourth
Amendment against the establishment and utilization of the evidence garnered from the
inappropriate or illegal seizure and search is utilized in the rest of the states based on the 14th
Amendment. Markedly, this case has connections with the case of Missouri v. McNeely as well as
that of the Maryland v. King (Maryland v. King, n.d). As pertains to the case regarding Missouri
v. McNeely it was observed that warrants were important due to the actuality that alcohol can
evaporate quickly. On the other hand, in the case about Maryland v. King, it was concluded that
while the police got samples from apprehended persons relative to comprehensive crimes which
had been pursued and making the results available within the national database would not be an
infringement of the Fourth Amendment (Missouri v. McNeely, n.d). However, by analyzing the
case of Mapp v. Ohio, the right concerning privacy is infringed in this scenario.
LANDMARK CASE
!4
References
4th Amendment Supreme Court Cases., (n.d). Retrieved from http://www.knowmyrights.org/
knowledgebase/case-law/4th-amendment-supreme-court-cases
Maryland v. King., (n.d). Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-207
Missouri v.McNeely., (n.d). Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-1425
Aidan Oosterwijk
Research Web
!
Your topic: 4th Amendment (specific Amendment/personal freedom from Bill of Rights)
Fill in the list of resources relating to the topic you selected. Two sources have been provided for
you to assist in your research. Explore the provided sources and add sources from your own
research. Use your Research Process Notes from this lesson if you need help remembering the
research strategies introduced in this lesson.
Multi-media Sources: videos, audio, slideshows, or
graphics
Source 1: Video, http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/the-story-of-the-bill-of-rights (use the
video related to the Amendment you chose for your research), “The Story of the Bill of Rights,”
Part __4__.
Source 2:Audio, https://www.fletc.gov/audio/definition-government-agent-under-4thamendment-mp3 Definition of a Government Agent Under the 4th Amendment (MP3)
Source 3: Slide shows, https://www.slideshare.net/jenvogt/fourth-amendment-and-racialprofiling-1 Fourth Amendment notes
Landmark Case Articles: find articles related to the landmark case you intend to use in
your article
Source 1:article with list of landmark cases, http://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educatorresources/landmark-cases/ (choose one case in support of your topic)
Source 2: 4th Amendment Supreme Court Cases. http://www.knowmyrights.org/knowledgebase/
case-law/4th-amendment-supreme-court-cases Source 3: The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 10), https://nccs.net/blogs/americas-founding-documents/bill-of-rights-amendments-1-10
Contemporary Court Cases: find articles on cases related to your
topic
Source 1: 4th Amendment Supreme Court Cases, http://www.knowmyrights.org/knowledgebase/
case-law/4th-amendment-supreme-court-cases
Source 2: Maryland v. King, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-207
Source 3: Missouri v.McNeely, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-1425
Advocacy Articles: find articles or documents with statements from presidents,
politicians, or advocates about the topic you selected
Source 1: Libertarian Party: Defending the Fourth Amendment for 42 years, https://www.lp.org/
blogs-staff-libertarian-party-defending-the-fourth-amendment-for-42-years/
Source 2: Rand Paul says the Fourth Amendment 'was what we fought the Revolution over,
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/07/rand-paul/rand-paul-saysfourth-amendment-was-what-we-fought/
Source 3: Advocate: Police bypass Fourth Amendment with license plate readers,
https://www.watchdog.org/news/advocate-police-bypass-fourth-amendmentwith-license-plate-readers/article_ed849fee-c8f7-5cd9-b769-d917be513f27.html
Purchase answer to see full
attachment