9.a In a case a number of years ago, an individual who was unhappy with the result of his court case emailed pictures of dead animals to the judge several days in a row. He was ultimately arrested and charged with terrorist threats. He defended against the charge by claiming freedom of speech. Should he have prevailed? If not, why not? What is a terroristic threat? Would the result be any different if he had put dead animals on her doorstep?
b. Donald Trump has recently claimed that when he is president, he will act to change the libel laws to make it easier for a public figure or celebrity to sue someone for defamation. Is that a good idea? Why or why not?
Both of these cases in 'a' and 'b' are pertaining to a common thread of laws on civil liberty and Freedom of Speech which are all governed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment guarantees Freedom of Speech among other civil liberties and individual rights. The First Amendment restricts any laws or interference to these rights by the government.
Having said that, Freedom of Speech does not mean that caution can be thrown to the wind and say anything they like which comes to the mind without responsibility and discretion. After all, while exercising one individuals rights doesn't mean undermining/infringing on another individuals rights.
Though it is a guaranteed individual right to all citizens, Freedom of Speech puts great responsibility on the exercise of this Right and seeks to create a few exceptions or limitations which must not be crossed while exercising this Right. These exceptions are not protected under Freedom of Speech and can attract prosecution under various provisions/sections of the law in the event of its violation.
Some of the limitations or exceptions to the Right to Freedom of Speech would be inciting violence, making defamatory and unsubstantiated allegations against anyone, intimidating or threatening anyone, child pornography, violation of intellectual property rights, infringing on any religious freedom, etc.
Even under international laws, the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression is enshrined and contemplated under various international treaties, conventions, customary laws, common law, etc. But, the most widely known and basic is of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) wherein Article 19 guarantees this Right. However, even in international laws, there are limitations to this Right of Freedom of Opinion and Expression.
In case 'a', it was a clear violation of the law and cannot be protected under the Freedom of Speech. The court was fair and justified in initiating criminal action against the accused and the exception or limitation to the Right in this case was the direct and implied threat or intimidation strategies against the judge by sending photos of dead animals. This is a direct threat and provocation to breach the peace and incitement of violence which are not protected under the law. The accused sent photos repeatedly thereby showing a deliberate criminal mindset and mental imbalance. The threat was realistic and being reinforced. One cannot take the law into their own hands and attempt to intimidate the judiciary in the event of adverse judgments or orders, after all the judiciary must remain independent and free to exercise its Constitutional duties and responsibilities and cannot be coerced or influenced or else its role becomes compromised.
While charging with accused with terroristic threats was definitely fair and just as it was definitely a violation of the law to use intimidation and threatening strategies that cannot be protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution (Right to Freedom of Speech) as it would fall under the limitation or exception category. The implication of the criminal act was of mala fide intent to cause terror or strike 'fear' and cause untold anxiety, harassment, nuisance and concern in the mind of the judge. A terroristic threat includes such acts of direct unprovoked threats against any individual.
In case 'b', it is a political context to dilute laws that uphold and safeguard individuals rights. A common practice exercised by politicians is to try and restrain Freedom of Speech and Expression through dilution of existing safeguarding laws and/or creating or strengthening other laws which can restrict or limit such a Freedom for example by strengthening the libel law acts as a counter measure and looks to limit the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press. This in an indirect strategy employed to protect political leaders and allows them to silence critics and intimidate whistle-blowers. This would go against the very premise of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. An effective leadership must act ethically and transparently and serve the nation and its citizens. To quote from Abraham Lincoln, a government should be "of the people, for the people, by the people." A society open to open and free dialogues, a government open to fair criticism in order to remain a healthy and robust nation. To sum it up aptly (and conclude) from one of the Founding Fathers and 3rd President of the U.S., Thomas Jefferson, "No government should be without critics. If its intentions are good then it has nothing to fear from criticism."
9.a In a case a number of years ago, an individual who was unhappy with the...
Please read the article and answer about questions. You and the Law Business and law are inseparable. For B-Money, the two predictably merged when he was negotiat- ing a deal for his tracks. At other times, the merger is unpredictable, like when your business faces an unexpected auto accident, product recall, or government regulation change. In either type of situation, when business owners know the law, they can better protect themselves and sometimes even avoid the problems completely. This chapter...