Court Case Summary: In 2009, Massachusetts state legislature passed a law that created a 35-foot buffer zone outside of hospitals and clinics, that removed the right of assembly in that area. The supreme court determined that this was too heavy of a burden on protesters first amendment rights and their ability to express their opinion. Due to this hindrance upon the first amendment. This ruling reinforced the idea that states are unable to pass laws that hinder or stop the process of freedom of expression being expressed. With this one simple law, if passed, would open the gates for other laws to be passed against freedom of speech and other forms of expression. By stopping this new kind of law being passed in the first place, the supreme court has effectively stopped a possible outbreak of new laws.
Hobie Jamison History Mrs. Sickel October 21st 2017 Charlottesville KKK Rally Part 1: Background Information: Key Players Invovled: KKK/Neo-Nazi’s, BLM Protestors, and the local police. KKK was legally demonstrating freedom of expression and speech BLM and Police Forces stood in opposition of the KKK group Confrontation eventually turned violent with the KKK attacking and injuring several BLM protesters. When the KKK gathered in Charlottesville, VA to protest the removal of a confederate war monument, memorializing the confederate General Lee. In addition to the removal of the monument, the town's mayor is black, further motivating the KKK to spread their message in this town. The confrontation between the BLM, KKK and Police forces eventually turned violent and several people were injured. Part 2: Sources and Summary https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ku-klux-klan-rally-set-to-begin-amid-tension-in-charlottesville/2017/07/08/c000a8ec-63fd-11e7-a4f7-af34fc1d9d39_story.html?utm_term=.9db0e37946ea 2. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-virginia-overview.html 3. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/08/alt-rally-charlottesville-braces-violence-170810073156023.html Paragraph Summaries: Source 1: This first source is written in a very clear and concise manner where the author describes the events both from quotes and interpretation from those quotes. I could not pick up on an obvious bias or charge associated with two parties at this rally other than direct quotes being used more on the KKK side than their counterpart. This could be an attempt to shove the KKK under a bad light and keeping the counter-protesters under a good light, whereas in fact they both might have been equally disruptive. All in all, a very professional and clear summary of events. This source is a second-hand source where many direct quotes and pictures of the event were used to help guide the reader along with the account of what the author was reconstructing. Towards the end of the article, the author mentions that several KKK members had been arrested for unlawful assembly and other small crimes that happen in a rally-gone-bad. However it is to be noted that at no point are any of the Klansmen arrested due what was being said or demonstrated in a legal manner. Source 2: The author of this piece starts off by mentioning the reaction from the President, singling him out as an alt-right supporter. This leads me to believe that the author has a bias against the right, later reading supports this. Further down the article we are introduced to the aftermath of what happened, the injuries from fighting, the car drove into counter-protesters and the two state troopers who died. We learn in this article how a protest and rally turned violent and lead to 34 people being injured in some fashion and a total of 3 dead. The author then concludes that this rally and subsequent violence was all sparked by the city attempting to remove a confederate war memorial. This source, is also second-hand source, where the author used photos from the event but did not include many direct quotes. This article did a fantastic job at explaining why this rally took place, what happened and why, but all in relative terms from the past. Additionally, it also felt that the author was attempting to put the KKK in the sense of mind that they immediately started with violence, this may be due to this being a summary. With that being said, this source also acknowledges that the legal gathering and speech portion of the rally was in fact legal and acceptable, the following violence and crime, not so much. But this indirectly highlights an important piece of the 1st Amendment, that being, the rally, shouting, and speech were all legal but the following violence was not, reaffirming that public demonstrations by extreme groups like the KKK are in fact legal, as long as they stay peaceful. Source 3: Source 3 started off with a quote from the town’s mayor about the online events leading up to the rally. The author then goes on to talk about who, when and where this rally took place, all in a very professional manner. We also learn that a third party was at the rally, a motorcycle gang, the Warlocks, who were protecting the KKK. Due to the mayor of this town being black and with the city voting to remove a confederate war monument, the KKK descended on to the city for rally after rally. The author then emphasis a quote that sums up the counter-protesters stance on the matter quite well; “We are not opposed to their free speech; we are opposed to their bigotry and their violence.” Overall, this is the least opinionated piece out of the three and I believe this is due to it being a middle-eastern news article rather than an US one. It gave me the facts and nothing else. There was no opinion that I picked up on at all. Like the other two, this source is also second-hand and the author did a fantastic job using quotes and explaining things to the reading all while using good pictures for emphasis. This article did something that the other two had failed to do, it went on both sides of the argument and provided insight, in a very level playing field of judgement. We learned that the protesters against the KKK did not care about what they said, but about how they acted, and we also learned that the KKK turned violent first, which lead to escalation and following fights. Overall this was the best piece and a fantastic article. Part 3: Supreme Court Case: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-1168 Court Case Summary: In 2009, Massachusetts state legislature passed a law that created a 35-foot buffer zone outside of hospitals and clinics, that removed the right of assembly in that area. The supreme court determined that this was too heavy of a burden on protesters first amendment rights and their ability to express their opinion. Due to this hindrance upon the first amendment. This ruling reinforced the idea that states are unable to pass laws that hinder or stop the process of freedom of expression being expressed. With this one simple law, if passed, would open the gates for other laws to be passed against freedom of speech and other forms of expression. By stopping this new kind of law being passed in the first place, the supreme court has effectively stopped a possible outbreak of new laws.