Capstone cases of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,Lewis v. New Orleans, Bousquet v. Arkansas, United States v. Williams, United States v. Whorley, United States v. Kilbride, and Lawrence v. Texas

For this unit’s Complete assignment, write a comprehensive scholarly essay ( minimum 1500 words) in which you analyze, explain, and apply these concepts in the context of a criminal justice organizational issue. You must incorporate and cite, using correct APA citation format, at least (4) four different scholarly research sources. In-line citations must be used in the body of your essay, and all research sources must be fully cited at the conclusion of your essay. Correct APA citation formats must be used.

Key Concepts: Elements of Offense, i.e., Protected Speech, Obscenity laws

Capstone Cases:  Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,Lewis v. New Orleans,  Bousquet v. Arkansas,  United States v. Williams, United States v. Whorley,  United States v. Kilbride, and  Lawrence v. Texas.

Assignment: In a narrative format for the Complete section, construct one essay which addresses the following points: The minimum requirements for Completes are four (4) scholarly sources including at least one peer reviewed journal article (one published within the last seven years). Your essay must contain a minimum of 1500 words of substantive content, not including the references section. All citations must be listed in correct APA 7th edition format and all other relevant APA rules must be observed.

The narrative essay should clearly define the key concepts of protected speech and the legal concept of obscenity  and will apply these principles to the Capstone cases of  Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,Lewis v. New Orleans,  Bousquet v. Arkansas,  United States v. Williams, United States v. Whorley,  United States v. Kilbride, and  Lawrence v. Texas.

 Your response will include the overview of the cases and will also need to address each question or statement listed below in an essay format.

· In the Capstone case of  Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Appellant was convicted in the municipal court of Rochester, New Hampshire, for violation of Chapter 378, Section 2, of the Public Laws of New Hampshire: “No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation.” The charge was based on the claim that Chaplinsky stated in a public place, “You are a God damned racketeer” and “a damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.”Do you think that the language used by Chaplinsky should be subject to governmental regulation? Why or why not?

· Do you believe that all manner of speech should be protected by the First Amendment? If not, what limits would you put on such protections?

· What are “fighting words”? Why aren’t they protected by the First Amendment?

· Read the two cases from your textbook— Lewis v. New Orleans, 415 U. S. 130 (1974) and  Bousquet v. Arkansas, 548 S. W. 2d 125 (1977)—involving offensive language directed at a police officer. Should these types of disorderly conduct or fighting words cases be treated differently because the target of the language is a public official?

· What factors are relevant to your judgment?

· In the Capstone case of  United States v. Williams, the United States Code criminalizes, in certain specified circumstances, the pandering or solicitation of child pornography. This case presents the question whether that statute is overbroad under the First Amendment or impermissibly vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Should speech in the form of an offer to engage in a criminal act (exchange child pornography) be sufficient to establish criminal liability?

· Does your answer to question 1 change if there is no apparent ability to actually exchange child pornography?

· Read the opinions in  United States v. Whorley, 550 F. 3d 326 (4th Cir. 2008) and  United States v. Kilbride, 534 F. 3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2009). Then consider these two rulings in light of the Supreme Court’s 2003 opinion in  Lawrence v. Texas. Are obscenity laws still constitutional in light of the Court’s opinion in  Lawrence?

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.