2.09 write informative essay

User Generated

nvqnanyrknaqre

Humanities

Description


Now, it’s time to write your first draft.

Gather your pre-writing notes and start writing! Remember, you have previously completed the following documents to support you as you write:

I HAVE ATTACHED ALL OF THESE ^

Step 1:

Write your first draft. Remember to include the following:

  • introduction and a hook (include a simile or metaphor)
  • body paragraph 1—history, amendment, and advocate quote
  • body paragraph 2—landmark court case
  • body paragraph 3—contemporary court cases
  • conclusion
  • MLA in-text citations for
    • advocate quote
    • landmark court case
    • contemporary court cases
  • transitions
  • domain-specific vocabulary

Remember, you may use online resources to help create citations, such as EasyBib or Son of Citation Machine.

Step 2:

Highlight all transition words in yellow.
Highlight all domain-specific language in green.
Highlight any metaphors or similes in pink.

In this assessment, your first draft will be graded with the 02.09 Writing your Informative/Explanatory Article rubric. This rubric will check for the content of your draft as well as the organization of your writing. Check the rubric to verify the requirements for your informative/explanatory article.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

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
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

please find the attached file. i loo forward to working with you again, good bye

Surname 1

Name
Course
Tutor
Date

The Freedom of Speech
Introduction
Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental human rights as stated in the supreme
law of the United States of America and during Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1949.
Generally, the freedom of speech comes with responsibility thus it cannot be taken as self
defense in the event that one’s utterances amounts to violation of the fundamental human rights
of another person. The United State of America has taken unprecedented steps in the process of
ensuring that respect of the fundamental human rights especially the freedom of speech has been
fully protected. Judicial precedents have been part and parcel of directing the soci...


Anonymous
Really great stuff, couldn't ask for more.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags