1. Lou Zar's action regarding to sewing a replica of the U.S. flag to cover the backside/seat of his uniform pants was not unconstitutional. There needs to be compelling reason to restrict Lou from wearing that uniform that caused negative emotion. It would be unconstitutional if the government restricted Zar from wearing his uniform without a compelling reason. The government cannot prove that Zar's intentions were to commit or threaten any act of violence through his speech. It is true that Zar's action caused other people to get angry at the message he was trying to send and caused violence against him. But, Zar had every right to express his message by wearing his uniform. Also, there was no evidence the people are provoked by the uniform
2. Aiken will not be successful in his claim against Dr. Jass. There needs to be three elements of defamatory: Defamatory language, of or concerning an individual, and a communicative to a third party intentionally. Although Dr. Jass was communicating to a third party and used defamatory language against homosexuality, he did not target a specific individual regarding to his study. All of these three elements need to be present in order for the language to be defamatory. Even though Aiken felt that his sexual orientation has been insulted by Dr. Jass remarks regarding by his studies of soy products, Dr. Jass was only targeting to a group of homosexuality, rather than targeting a specific. Although Dr. Jass findings sound odd and absurd, but there is no law about conducting a study on the broadcast just as long no individual is being defamed.
3. In this case of scenario, no rights have been potentially violated. The government has the right to prevent Helen Weills from using the device to penetrate a person's brain to achieve spiritual awareness, which is constitutional. The Supreme Court has to put some limits on the freedom to practice religion for the public's safety. The government has the right to regulate any...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document