1 / 161

CIVIL LIBERTIES

CIVIL LIBERTIES. BILL OF RIGHTS #1-#10 FEDERAL…. STATES(#14) INCORPORATION. STUDENT BILL OF RIGHTS. BILL OF RESPONSIBILITIES. 4.KEY CONCEPTS. 1.GUARANTEED. 2.RELATIVE…. NOT ABSOLUTE. 3. APPLY TO ALL. 4.RIGHTS IN CONFLICT… EXAMPLES…. FREE PRESS (1) VS. FAIR TRIAL (6).

lev-fletcher
Télécharger la présentation

CIVIL LIBERTIES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CIVIL LIBERTIES

  2. BILL OF RIGHTS#1-#10FEDERAL….STATES(#14)INCORPORATION

  3. STUDENT BILL OF RIGHTS

  4. BILL OF RESPONSIBILITIES

  5. 4.KEY CONCEPTS

  6. 1.GUARANTEED

  7. 2.RELATIVE….NOT ABSOLUTE

  8. 3. APPLY TO ALL

  9. 4.RIGHTS IN CONFLICT…EXAMPLES…

  10. FREE PRESS (1)VS.FAIR TRIAL (6)

  11. FREE SPEECH (1)VS. PUBLIC ORDER

  12. FREEDOM OF RELIGION (1)VS.NATIONAL SECURITY

  13. CULTURAL CONFLICTS

  14. RELIGIONLANGUAGESEXUAL PREFERENCE hola Hello Bonjour

  15. 1ST AMENDMENT5 PARTS….R-S-P-P-A

  16. SPEECH11 EXAMPLES…

  17. 1.PRIOR RESTRAINT

  18. PENTAGON PAPERSNY TIMES v. US 1971

  19. HAZLEWOOD – 1988SCHOOL PAPER

  20. 2.CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGERU.S. v. SCHENK - 1919

  21. “MOVIE…MOVIE”

  22. GITLOW CASE – 192514TH AMENDMENT“incorporation”“STATES”

  23. 3.“IMMINENT THREAT”BRANDENBURGv. OHIO - 1969

  24. 4.LIBEL AKER IS A *&%$#$%*

  25. 5.SLANDER AKER IS A BUM!

  26. AKER V. NOLCOX2010

  27. “SEDITION”SPEECH VS. THE GOVERNMENT

  28. 6.OBSCENITYMILLER v. CALIF.1973

  29. BETHEL V. FRASER1986

  30. MORSE V. FREDERICK (2007)

  31. 7.PREFERRED POSITION

  32. 8.LEAST RESTRICTIVE RULE

  33. 9.SYMBOLIC SPEECHTINKER CASE - 1969

  34. TEXAS v. JOHNSON1989“FLAG BURNING”

  35. GREGORY JOHNSON AND LAWYER

  36. 10.CORPORATE SPEECH

  37. 11. $$$ “SPEECH”BUCKLEY v. VALEO (1976)CITIZENS UNITED (2010)

  38. RELIGION“FIRST 16 WORDS”E & E

  39. EXERCISE“BELIEF-SPEECH-CONDUCT DISTINCTION”

  40. WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH

  41. 1.POLYGAMYU.S. v REYNOLDS-1898

  42. 2.MEDICAL CARE

  43. 3.EDUCATION“AMISH EXCEPTION”

  44. 4. MILITARY CLAY v. U.S. - 1971

  45. “CONSCIENTIOUSOBJECTOR”

  46. 5. CONFIDENTIALITY

  47. ESTABLISHMENT7 EXAMPLES…“ separation of church and state????”

  48. LEMON v. KURTZMAN –1971THE LEMON TEST

  49. “EXCESSIVE ENTANGLEMENT”

  50. 1. “I PLEDGE…”

More Related