Ali San

01/25/15
Period: 6
Civil Liberties Questions
1. Pornography, in a sense abuses the rights of the first
amendment. The Founders understanding and implementation
of liberty made sure to differentiate between freedom and
license, which created the contrast that freedom does not
compromise the abuse of the first amendment. Some argue that
it is a form of expression, which is an invalid statement under
constitutional law. The no harm argument is also a doubtful
though since pornography has proven to influence rape,
prostitution, and sex trafficking. Even though sexuality and its
interpretation are considered private, the collective sexual
behaviors and its effects exposed reaches out to public. I agree
with the MacKinnon-Dworkin argument that pornography is a
violation of womens civil rights, which is basically expressed by
my arguments. I think that a limitation on pornography with its
intended purposes to the First Amendment should be reevaluated.
2. The reason of an emergency/hot pursuit is probably the most
acceptable exception to the requirement of a search warrant. If a
fleeing suspect or criminal is in a pursuit and enters a property,
law enforcement should have the right disorientate the criminal

no matter what the limits consist of because the property

damages can be reimbursed but the actions of that criminal
cannot be taken back. In an emergency pursuit, officers have a
right to seizure without a warrant, especially taken into
consideration the danger of the criminal and security of citizens.
Search incident to lawful arrest is the least acceptable exception
because officers have abused its rights many times. The racism
or stereotypical thoughts of officers have caused death to
innocent victims. Recently, these incidents have sparked a
national outrage and protests. The 4th amendment protects
citizens against unlawful seizures and the rights of citizens are
being abused in some critical cases.
3. Exclusionary rule states that evidence obtained by violating the
defendants constitutional rights may not be introduced by the
prosecution, at least for purpose of providing direct proof of the
defendants guilt. This rule is occasionally referred to as a legal
technicality because it allows defendants a defense that does not
address whether the crime was actually committed. Thus,
sometimes, criminals are left free of charge if an officer collects
illegal evidence from the criminal. This gives rights to the
accused and limits the control of officers. However, I think this
rule should be re-evaluated.
4. The 14th Amendment asserts that, State and federal citizenship
for all persons regardless of race both born or naturalized in the

United States was reaffirmed. No state would be allowed to

abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens. No person
was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
"due process of law." No person could be denied equal protection
of the laws" (Americanhistory). This law was passed to protect
the rights of African-Americans, thus was passed in the
Reconstruction Era and was ultimately concerning former slaves
in the southern states. The case of Plessy vs. Ferguson revealed
the notion of separate, but equal. In 1875, Supreme Court
established the limitations of the federal govt to that of states,
which in southern states still established segregation.
5. The case of Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg was one of the first
major Supreme Court cases that involved the busing of students.
Busing was found to be a coherent solution to cope with the lack
of racial balance. The notion assured that schools were racially
integrated and students received equal education. I think that
these cases dealing with busing to desegregate schools involves
a constitutional interpretation. The 14th amendment stated that
all people naturalized or born in the U.S. are entitle to be equal
citizens. Although, this implies indirectly to promote
desegregation, the implementation of busing is a constitutional
interpretation that can be argued. The Constitution promotes
amendments that equalize the right of citizens regardless of
different race and etc, for example the right of voting.

6. In gender-based discriminations, decisions are usually between

reasonable and strict scrutiny. In civil rights cases, inequalities
were present and separation concluded inequality was
established. Gender and racial equalities were established in the
1900s. Rulings on gender were closer than the ruling on racial
cases. It important to take into consideration that Civil Right
were recognized later that Womens rights. I think that the
equalities for race should be taken into more consideration since
right for race were more bias, for example the Trail of Tears for
Native Americans and Slavery for African-Americans were more
important civil laws that resulted discrimination. Womens rights
were less extensive in contrast to that of race rulings.
Irvine 11 Essay
In February 2010, Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the United
States, came to the UC Irvine campus to give a speech that dealt with
his refusal to acknowledge the attack on Gaza as a violation of
humanitarian law. Disagreeing with Orens speech, 11 Muslim students
stood up and expressed their freedom of speech. However, these
students were taken out of the room and were arrested. The students
were not violent nor did they propose misconduct. This has opened a
controversy over the limitations of the first amendment. Is the
speakers right superior to the right of the listener? I think it matters on

the content of the speech. In this case, Oren asserted a crucial subject
of matter and issues with Gaza and Israel, and that the Israeli crimes
were not subject to the mistreatment of humanitarian law. Due to the
fragility of the speech, Oren should have been prepared to hear
disagreement from opposers of his views and thus the 11 students
expressed their dissent. In the result of the case, 1 student had to
complete 40 hours of community service, while the other 10 students
received a 3-year probation and a misdemeanor. The democracy
America presents influences immigrants and citizens to live here,
however the verdict of this case proved that freedom of speech has
many limitations. The first amendment was created to protect
individual or group thoughts whether they are popular or unpopular. I
think it is the right of peaceful protest and standing up for what is right
for you. Thus, the 11 students had practices their freedom of speech
by disrupting the speaker, which I think is wrong in a sense, however
the extent of the students punishment were extremely high. I disagree
with the verdict. If everybodys views were the same we would have a
restricted society, not a diverse one. The students were supposedly
convicted because they disrupted Orens speech. The disruption might
have been an example of disrespect done to the speaker, however it
was an unlawful act to convict the students with a misdemeanor. What
was the point if they expressed their ideas at the end of the speech?
The verdict has probably made citizens frightened to practice their

freedom of speech and thus will create a limiting society if verdict in

cases like this have similar results. Some argue that the students were
not exercising freedom of speech and rather were trying to complete
an end to the speech, resulting in the limitation of the speakers
speech. However, the speech was controversial enough for other
people that they decided to intervene and practice their own freedom
of speech. In this case, I think the students or listeners rights should
have been protected. Also, some think that the students disrupted the
other people who were listening to Orens speech. The first
amendment was created to allow people with minority view or
unpopular views to be protected. In addition, it didnt mean that other
students were against Orens views; the 11 students were brave
enough to exercise their freedom of speech by criticizing his speech,
not to mention it was not the statements were not hate speech, but
in opposite what Oren was trying to imply was hate speech against
Gaza, specifically his problematic concern against Muslims.