Question
1.The judge stated that to protect free speech and petitioning is a goal that surely matches the protecting of health and safety, the environment, aesthetics,
1.The judge stated that to protect free speech and petitioning is a goal that surely matches "the protecting of health and safety, the environment, aesthetics, property value, and other social goals." Do you agree with the judge's statement? Is free speech rights the same as the right to health and safety?
7. The judge, in reaching its conclusion, stated that "public interest in peaceful speech outweighs the desire of property owners for control over their property" and that "shopping centers to which the public is invited can provide an essential and invaluable forum for exercising the right to free speech as proclaimed by California Constitution." Therefore, "we conclude that the California Constitution protects speech reasonably exercised in shopping centers even when the centers are privately owned." First, do you agree, and why? Second, even if you agree, play the role of a dissenting justice. How would you make a counterargument?
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Step: 1
Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions
See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success
Step: 2
Step: 3
Ace Your Homework with AI
Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance
Get Started