I need help in answering the following questions for my POS222 course.
- The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) has generated a great deal of controversy. Cite at least one news source, and explain what SOPA is. (Examples of news sources are cnn.com or abcnews.com.) Then, decide whether you believe this act violates the First Amendment protection of free speech because of the power given to the government under the bill.
- In the 2014 Supreme Court Case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court ruled that “closely held for- profit companies” may enact religious exemptions as they
- pertain to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) provision requiring contraception coverage for their employees. In the case, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4, that the ACA’s provision violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFA), as well as the Free Exercise of Religion clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court in its majority decision stated that “applying the ACA’s requirement is not the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.” Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling that “closely held for-profit companies” such as Hobby Lobby can be exempted from federal mandates or laws on the First Amendment “free expression” religion grounds? Why or why not? Use the lesson notes, the key terms, the first amendment, and at least one news source for your answer.
- The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has come under public and political scrutiny recently due to methods it uses while conducting airport security. Some commentators argue that these methods and scanners violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unlawful search and seizure. Read “The TSA Is Invasive, Annoying – and Unconstitutional.” (Click on preceding link.) Summarize the article, and then argue whether you believe the TSA’s methods constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Your personal experiences and or specific case examples can be included as a part of your answer if you like.
- In Weeks v. United States (1914), the Court established the Exclusionary Rule, which was incorporated to the states in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), and the Court established the concept of a “Good Faith Exception” to the Exclusionary Rule in United States v. Leon (1984). In their opinion, the Supreme Court pointed out that compliance with the Exclusionary Rule can have a cost to society (criminals can go free) that outweighs the benefits (stopping illegal searches by police). Ultimately, the Court determined that despite the Exclusionary Rule, evidence can still be admitted in situations where police made genuine “good faith” efforts to act legally, but technically acted illegally, in obtaining the evidence. Explain the exclusionary rule good faith exception and explain and support whether you agree or disagree with the concept of a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule? Why or why not? Use the lesson notes and/or one news source to help support your answer.
- Summarize the arguments offered by the Supreme Court in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) against application of the Bill of Rights to the states. Then, discuss how the Court has applied the Bill of Rights to the states since that time. Do you agree with the Doctrine of Incorporation? Why or why not? What are some arguments for and against using the process established by the courts to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states? Use the lesson notes and/or one news source to help support your answer.
The following are answers that I need to have re-written.
a The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) has generated a great deal of controversy. Cite at least one news source, and explain what SOPA is. (Examples of news sources are cnn.com or abcnews.com.) Then, decide whether you believe this act violates the First Amendment protection of free speech, and explain why.
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) purpose is to help stop illegal coping/streaming of established and copyright films and music. SOPA states that if a person(s) illegally streams more than 10 or more times within a six month period, that they could face up to five years in jail. One website states, “The US government and rights holders would have the right to seek court orders against any site accused of “enabling or facilitating” piracy. This could theoretically involve an entire website being shut down because it contains a link to a suspect site (“Technology,” 2012, p. 1).” SOPA calls for search engines to remove sites that promote piracy from their search results, and many other U.S. service providers from doing business with these infringing sites.