Supreme Court Rulings - Potter v. California - Essay Example

Supreme Court Rulings- Potter v. California (2004) The Ruling Background to the case: “In a public park in Brentwood, California, a group of college students staged a peaceful demonstration against the Iraq War. The protest comprised of peaceful songs, banners condemning the acts of the U.S. government, and finally the use of several “barrels of oil” that were in essence large containers filled with colored water. A city ordinance stated that large groups must have a permit to gather in the park in question, and that all gatherings must cease by 11.30 p.m. The students chanted and marched all day on January 20, 2004, and continued until 11.30 p.m., when local police told them they had to vacate the area. Then, around midnight, the leader of the group, John Potter, stood on a podium and shouted, “U.S., we condemn you for a war that is only meant to save your precious oil—we spit on your efforts!” (Cohen 12). At that instant, he pushed over five “barrels of oil” and shouted, “We do not need oil if it is going to kill our brothers and sisters!” The police arrested Potter and several others for their actions. They were charged with violating the terms of the permit because they had remained after 11.30 p.m., even though they were warned to leave. They were also charged with destruction of public property because the dye used to color the water in the symbolic barrels destroyed several, the grass, a park bench, and two picnic tables. Potter claimed his First Amendment rights were violated, and the ACLU brought his case to this Court” (Cohen 13). 2. Case build-up; Liberal Theory – The First Amendment: “In determining the case before us it is good to have profound understanding of liberal theory in distinguishing between civil rights and liberties. We will further examine the details of the case before us in light of the First Amendment as pleaded by Mr. Potter in his defense. To begin with, rights make claim on equality of citizens. A right is applicable to all parties/people concerned in a certain fundamental respect regardless of race, gender, economic status, or religion. Grounded on the liberal theory is the concept of civil liberties. Civil liberty is the ability of an individual to act the way they want without being restricted by the government. It is not only prudent for the government to protect the civil liberties of its citizens but it is a contractual obligation to do so as stipulated in the Constitutional Bill of Rights. Civil liberty is in itself a form of natural liberty, part of which is divested and placed in the hands of the government in order to produce more good and bring happiness in the entire community than if it were to remain in the hands of the individual (Cohen 15). Civil liberty as an offshoot of natural liberty for one to do as they please is not restricted by the government to the extent that it does not threaten public welfare. Civil liberty in guaranteeing one’s freedom to do what they want is limited to injury or harm of others by the action done. The concept of civil liberties is grounded on liberal theory. Liberal philosophers believed in a state of nature prior to a political society where individuals were entirely free to do anything, including killing each other. Creation of societies necessitated the need to keep people and their possessions secure thus restricting natural liberty as far as necessary for security of everyone. Any natural right that threatened public order was taken away. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States protects rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion from being interfered with by the government. The freedom of expression is constituted by the rights to freedom of press, speech, implied rights of belief and association, assembly, and right to petition the government in order to get a redress of grievances. Interpretation of the extent of protection given to these rights is reserved for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has interpreted The First Amendment to apply to the federal government despite being applicable to Congress expressly. In this case, (Potter v. California), I believe that Mr. Potter in pleading the First Amendment referred to the arrest as infringing on his freedom of expression. This freedom basically entails freedom of speech and it would be expedient for us to delve into its intricacies (Cohen 18). First, the right to freedom of speech gives individuals the right to express themselves with no constraint or interference by the government and indeed Mr. Potter and his friends exercised their freedom in this regard. Second, it is a requirement by the Supreme Court for the government to give enough justification for interfering with this right in cases where it makes an attempt to regulate content of speech. The test is less stringent for legislation that has neutral content. In line with this, the Supreme Court recognizes the fact that the government may disallow speech that may result in breach of peace or result in violence. The categories of speech that are less protected or unprotected by the First Amendment include obscenity, advocating for illegal action, commercial speech, and fighting words. This right to free speech encapsulates other expression mediums, which imply or communicate a message. It is also good to note that the level of protection that a speech receives is dependent on where it takes place (the forum). Third, is the right to assemble, which allows people to congregate for lawful and peaceful purposes. The right to belief and association is embedded within this right and the Supreme Court expressly recognizes that such a right is implicit in the following amendments, which are the First, the Fifth, and the Fourteenth. This is however, limited to right to associate in lieu of purposes connected with the First Amendment. Thus, it excludes social association right. The government is allowed to prohibit people from associating in a group which they have knowledge of its promotion of and engagement in illegal activities. Fourth, an individual has the right to petition government in order to obtain redress of their grievances. This guarantees people a right to request the government to accord them relief for wrongs done to them via the courts, which is litigation, or other action by the government. This right works in conjunction with the right of assembly, which allows people to come together and seek the change they desire from government.” 3. Examination of case, important precedents and final submission: “Examining the case at hand, in the above respects, we can deduce that: i. Mr. Potter and his friends were expressing their discontent with the government operations in Iraq and were protected by federal law (local ordinance) to the extent of the meeting ending by 11.30 p.m. The local judiciary in making the said law is no way contradictory or inconsistent with the Constitution as Mr. Potter and his friends exercised their right to assemble. The California law regarding meetings held in Brentwood Park clearly states that a large group should obtain a permit in order to assemble and that the meeting should not go past 11.30 p.m. In staying past 11.30 p.m. and not heeding warnings from the police, Mr. Potter and his friends were liable for arrest and legal proceedings to be instituted against them. ii. The right of freedom of speech notwithstanding, Mr. Potter made his speech at the wrong time according to the local ordinance, which cannot be sidelined in this case. Taking into consideration the dissatisfaction of the students in taking part in such demonstration and the security situation being addressed, which is quite volatile at the moment, Mr. Potters words constitute fighting words, which are an incitement to the people against the decisions and efforts of the government to end tyranny in the Middle East. Reference is made to the case of Schenk v. United States (1919) in which the Espionage Act was enforced but in this case it is the speech which is intended to agitate the public that is termed as unconstitutional. Like the case of Gitlow v. New York (1925) referred as: “ an evil disposed and pernicious person with a wicked and turbulent disposition, who tried to excite discontent and disaffection” Mr. Potter is not only lawless in his deeds but also insincere in this whole issue about the war in Iraq by making unfounded claims against the United States government. It should be noted that the Constitution’s protection of the freedom of speech is not without responsibility or absolute for that matter. A state is perfectly within its right to prosecute the people who abuse their freedom of speech by intending to insight crime. It is prudent though to note that Mr. Potter was not even arrested for the content of his speech but for violation of a federal law and unruly actions that were bound to infringe on the comfort and disposition of other park users. This brings us to the third point. iii. Mr. Potter acted in a manner that does not warrant The First Amendment when he rolled the five ‘barrels of oil’ which is an act that tends to communicate rising against the government’s actions by all means and this was somewhat violent and implied violence. Precedence here is given in the case of United States v. O’Brien (1968) where O’Brien’s conduct in burning the draft card was ruled by this Court as constituting speech thus could be argued in view of The First Amendment. It is only pure speech that is unconditionally protected by The First Amendment and not symbolic speech that is concerned with actions. The federal law in Mr. Potter’s case was not inconsistent with the constitution as it had nothing to do with speech and the reason for arrest was purely out of his actions thus pleading the First Amendment does not apply much in this case. The charges read violation of terms of permit and destruction of Government property namely several trees, the grass, a park bench, and two picnic tables. Therefore, this disposition constitutes a criminal case and the Supreme Court upholds the prior judgment. It is so ordered.” Work cited Cohen, Henry. "Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment." Congressional Research Service, 95-815 (2009): 1-39. Print Read More