After reading both websites, you should be able to see how the discovery of sorting signals paved the way for utilizing these signals to provide information on the localization and functionality of proteins. Based on the Reading & Study for this module/week, propose an experiment for localizing a protein (of your choice) to an alternative cellular compartment. Then, speculate what characteristics or symptoms this would create on a cellular, tissue/organ, and organismal level. Lastly, comment on how this level of organization and exacting localization demonstrates God’s wonderful design in creation (Psalm 139).http://www.jlr.org/content/45/10/1826.longhttp://www.jlr.org/content/45/10/1826.long

Jimmie post- The topic concerns the antiquated community standard outlined in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) over speech and its interpretation of the First Amendment protections regarding obscenity. The issue lies with the Supreme Court has not overruled the Miller Standard. This leaves the lower courts contending to apply the Miller standard to new court cases. The Miller case centers around mailing unsolicited sexually explicit material that was in violation of California statute at the time. The lower court instructed the jury to apply the contemporary community standards of the state in rendering a verdict that would later become known as the Miller standard (Clancy, 2019). This deals primarily with the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. The court took the precedent of Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 383 U. S. 418, 1966 (plurality opinion) and applied the findings to this civil equity action in Miller, supra, 413 U.S. 15. The court broke the Miller standard into three parts to test validity. The court reaffirmed a prior law which has the fact that obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment. The first test of the Miller decision is whether the challenged law regulates speech (Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 1957). The idea of this first part hinges on does the law regulate speech. If a particular violation of law is not issue to the First Amendment, then the Miller test will not apply. The test's second prong is guidelines for the trier of fact of "the average person, applying contemporary community standards," which appeals to the interest laid out in Roth, supra, at 354 U. S. 489. Furthermore, if the object in question is offensive and holds sexual conduct which violates applicable state statutes as defined in law is a prescribed element of the Miller standard. The third prong is to the particular item in question to its authenticity if it "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" and additionally to the regulation of legitimate government interest (Miller, supra, 413 U.S. 15. 1973). The third test is based on legitimate government interest and the preponderance narrowly tailoring this regulation. The Miller standard has not been overturned and is still used in court decisions. Until the Supreme court takes issue and reverses its findings with modern communications, the lower courts must rely on this decision. So, the answer would be yes if this case law is still adequate for modern case law. When comparing the Miller decision with United States v. Kilbride, No. 07-10528 at 14492 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2009), the decision in Kilbride adds more guidance on how to apply the Miller standard. This ruling was to apply "contemporary community standards" to the assessment of the average person rendering a decision based on community standards citing the Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564 (2002) case as a precedent in this decision. The courts broadened the community standard as to what a community standard is in one geographical area might not be the same standard in another, so the courts must weigh it through the lens of what would be obscene in all communities. This would be a complex standard to actually make sense of because what would be a community standard in a more liberal area would not be the same standard in a Bible-belt community of conservatives. Without clear-cut case law that is not showered in ambiguities, can law enforcement define issues? With the aid of the internet and social media, man's morality has become an issue as to watering down what should be prohibited in the category of free speech and what standards apply to obscenity. The old cliche of "sex sales" is the mantra of business, and with the vivid graphics and acceptance of obscenity, one sees this as the norm in society. So the question lies as Christain public safety officers can we perform as Daniel in the illicit society of King Nebuchadnezzar? In the Book of Daniel in the Bible, one can find the account of Daniel's strong faith in God while living and working in a society of ungodly unbelievers. In Babylon at the time, most worshiped pagan gods of idolatry. Daniel never lost faith in God through all the trials and tribulations, even at the cost of being sentenced to death (English Standard Bible, 2016). As law enforcement Christain leaders, one must strive to be like Daniel and stand firm in God's faithfulness even in peril to do the "right thing" as God would have us do, even if we have to enter the lion's den. Would we, as Christians, have the same trust and faith in God to get us through this peril? Babylon's society is comparable to today's society as to the sinful nature and the avoidance of God's Word. One should strive to be like the Hebrew meaning of Daniel's name, which is "God is my Judge" and not society is my judge. One does not assimilate into society's norms but is a shining faithful beacon for God.References:Clancy, T. K. (2019). Cyber crime and digital evidence: Materials and cases (3rd ed.). Carolina Academic.English Standard Bible. (2016). Crossway Bibles. (Original work published 2001)Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 383 U. S. 418, 1966 (plurality opinion)Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 1957United States v. Kilbride, No. 07-10528 at 14492 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2009) George post- The courts have continued tackle the application of law in terms of the changing technology. Marvin Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) provided a standard for addressing obscene material, commonly termed the Miller test. There are three prongs of the Miller test: Whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The ”community standards” through the Miller test was the basis for the standard of defining obscene material. Of course, this standard was applicable and useful, until the Internet came into existence. With the vast capabilities of the Internet, including the ability to reach virtually every location in the world, almost instantaneously, the Miller test became complicated. United States v. Robert Alan Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996) was one of the first prosecutions involving obscene material being distributed on the internet. United States v. Robert Alan Thomas declined to redefine “community”, stating that the defendant could control where the images could be accessed. So, despite the courts addressing the potential capabilities of the Internet, the ruling failed to address the true impact of having numerous communities connected. With United States v. Jeffrey A. Kilbride, 584 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2009), the court finally addressed the issues with having numerous communities connected. The courts held that a national community standard must be applied in regulating obscene speech on the Internet. The courts finally began to address the far-reaching capabilities of the internet. The courts addressed the difficulty of applying obscenity to so many different communities. The justices felt that applying constitutional issues to a national community standard would be less issues, while applying towards local community standards could create constitutional issues. Both United States v. Robert Alan Thomas, and United States v. Jeffrey A. Kilbride raise issues with regards to determining what the “standards” should be with regards to obscene materials. Especially in terms of a “national community standard”, the question is raised as to who the deciding authority for the standard is. It can be unrealistic as to expect a Midwest farmer to have the same ideas or beliefs as a Westcoast Silicon Valley resident. This is a complicated topic that not only applies to determining obscenity, but also numerous other politically charged topics. The Bible provides direction as to the proper way individuals should conduct themselves. A good example of this proper way of living is described through the story of Daniel, with regards to how he served Nebuchadnezzar. Even though corruption surrounded Daniel throughout his captivity under Nebuchadnezzar he maintained his devotion to serving and honoring God. Daniel served Nebuchadnezzar with honor keeping focused on God’s plan. The Bible discusses the sacrifices that Daniel makes by stating: “But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore, he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself” (King James Bible, 1769/2017, Daniel 1:8).ReferencesKings James Bible. (2017). King James Bible Online. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Links to an external site. (Original work published 1779)Marvin Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/15/Links to an external site.United States v. Jeffrey A. Kilbride, 584 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2009). https://casetext.com/case/us-v-kilbride-4Links to an external site.United States v. Robert Alan Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996). https://casetext.com/case/us-v-thomas-333. Directions: The student must then post 2 replies of at least 250 words. For each thread, students must support their assertions with at least 3 scholarly citations in APA format. Each reply must incorporate at least 1 scholarly citation in APA format. Any sources cited must have been published within the last five years. Acceptable sources include peer reviewed journal articles, textbooks, the Bible, etc.