Section 1 focuses on the use of fighting words and disorderly conduct. When does a person’s free speech become restricted or even criminal?      Section 2 involves offensive speech against police officers.

Welcome to Week 6 of the course.  Similar to all weeks, please complete the read and attend sections before producing the discussion assignments. The Complete essay relates this week to comparing seven (7) cases. These are 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.  This is a large number of cases, but do not feel overwhelmed, most are comparisons of findings. 

       The topics this week are primarily concerned with the first amendment’s freedom of speech declarations (fighting words) and the concept of obscenity. 

        Section 1 focuses on the use of fighting words and disorderly conduct. When does a person’s free speech become restricted or even criminal?      Section 2 involves offensive speech against police officers. As most of you are in the profession, I am certain you have heard angry words from citizens from time to time. Are fighting words treated differently if directed at police officers? Hmmmmmm?

Sections 3 and 4 approach the idea of obscenity, or the legal definition of obscenity in particular.  Keep in mind, what may be obscene to you personally, could be legal (or not legally obscene).  

     The Complete assignment has a minimum expectation of 2,000 words (total assignment) and five scholarly sources, one of these must be a peer reviewed journal article published in the past 7 years.  One source can be the textbook provided in the course.   

       Your Complete assignment should be in essay format and include a title section, introduction paragraph, appropriate headings, conclusion, and reference section.

      Below I have provided an outline for your Complete essays. 

Week 6 Essay (add descriptive words)

Your Name

Bethel University

Introductory paragraph (introduce briefly the essay parts)

Capstone case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Lewis v. New Orleans, 415 U. S. 130 (1974) and Bousquet v. Arkansas,

Capstone case of United States v. Williams

Analyzing United States v. Whorley & United States v. Kilbride in Comparison with Lawrence v. Texas.

Conclusion

(Summarize briefly what you said-remind your reader of your topics)

References

(as this is a graduate program, perfect APA technique is expected)

General Instructions

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: The completes must be in essay format and include a title section, introduction paragraph, appropriate headings and Reference section. I expect perfect APA technique. The minimum requirement is five (5) scholarly sources, one of these must be a peer reviewed journal article published in the past 7 years. The textbook may count as one source. In Complete essays 1-7, there is a minimum of a 2,000- word count overall. Word counts are based on content only; references are not included in the word count assessment

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?