Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
DRNC Scenario
The author of this report is to answer to three major questions as it relates to the DRNC scenario advanced by the story that preceded it. The first question is the legal claims relating to the use of the LRAD. The second question is the basis that should be used to deny Amnesty International from getting their permit and the implications that this could cause. The final question requires the identification and analysis of any legal claims that might arise if Greenpeace has a protest in the shopping mall and how pat-downs and other security measures may lead to legal or protest-related issues. While the Miami and other personnel have a responsibility to keep the peace and keep people safe, they need to tread very carefully when limiting free speech and/or freedom of assembly as well as over-aggressive use of less-lethal technologies and interventions that can still maim and hurt and/or lead to lawsuits (Stephens, 2012).
Analysis
Regarding the use of the LRAD, it may seem like a good thing to do but it probably would not be wise. Despite the assertions from the manufacturer that the product is safe, the possibility of injury and/or litigation has been proven prior to be an issue and facts are often not needed for a lawsuit to be filed as frivolous or over-exaggerated lawsuits are filed and argued every day. As such, the LRAD can be used but only in extreme circumstances where unrest is truly happening and only when things get truly violent and crowd dispersal needs to happen as soon as possible. Using it too easily and in an unlimited...
Given that, it should only be a last resort. It should be used with caution but the legal liability would fall with the people who ultimately make the choice and not the individual officers or officer managers (sergeants, etc.) that authorize the use of the product. The officers are agents of the city and the planners and if they are permitted to use the product and it is made clear under what circumstances the product can be used, then the officers are just agents and the leader and director of the agents would be made to answer to legal liability problems relating to the use of the product.
Regarding Amnesty International, it has been established that the Torch of Freedom is a First Amendment zone but there are clear exceptions to the First Amendment and that would include the need to provide security and secure the public interest and a political conference that involves the Secret Service would certainly rise to that standard. Since the restriction on using that area would be based on its proximity to the conference and because that limitation has no direct correlation to limiting free speech as the conference and city leaders would not care if it were further away from the festivities, then any legal challenge should be squashed because the intent is to provide security and safety and not quell First Amendment rights (Granick, 2014).
As for Greenpeace and their permit, the desire to protest in a public mall area is a security headache. If one needs proof of that, one need look no…
References
Granick, J. (2014, March 20). Obama Press Attacks Degrade the First Amendment In The Name of Security. Forbes. Retrieved June 26, 2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennifergranick/2014/03/20/obama-press-attacks-degrade-the-first-amendment-in-the-name-of-security/
Hutchinson, B. (2013, April 16). Boston Marathon bomb devices were pressure cookers filled with nails, ball bearings: report. NY Daily News. Retrieved June 26, 2014, from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/boston-marathon-bomb-devices-made-pressure-cookers-filled-nails-ball-bearings-report-article-1.1318278
Stephens, A. (2012, July 24). A Closer Look at Less-than-Lethal Weapons Fired at Anaheim Residents on Saturday Afternoon. Navel Gazing. Retrieved June 26, 2014, from http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2012/07/naui_huitzilopochtli.php
National Security Council or NSC was created and established by the National Security Act of 1947 (The White House 2006). Later, it incorporated the National Security Act Amendments of 1949 and placed in the Executive Office of the President as part of the Reorganization Plan in the same year. Its chairman is the President and its regular attendees are the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the
Sir, we would argue that while the government interest in protecting national security is an important interest, the Roth case does not justify the government encroachment on our Freedom of the press. The Roth case provides that the government can encroach on the freedom of the press only if it is attempting to protect other rights from being infringed on. In our case, Mr. President, none of our rights
The media has brought many important issues to life for the American public. For example, during the American civil rights movement, many areas of the country that had been hesitant to endorse full equality for African-Americans were horrified when they saw their fellow Americans being beaten simply for demanding their rights. The media was also highly influential in mobilizing the American public against the Vietnam War. Pictures showed more powerfully
right to privacy is wrongly assumed to be expressly protected by the Constitution; in fact no right to privacy clause exists but is implied in the Bill of Rights. Privacy is implied, for example, in the freedom of religious beliefs and practice guaranteed in the First Amendment. The Fourth Amendment's provision against unlawful search and seizure refers to the right to privacy, as does the Fifth Amendment right to
Technology and national security / privacy issues / Edward snowden The massive 9/11 attacks revealed some obvious flaws in our security system. Terrorists not only managed to slip through the immigration and airports but also managed to live, train and plan within the United States for many years. The resulting fear of other terrorist groups who might have been living and training in U.S. were justifiable. In this regard, congress came
The courts found that the FBI had shown a marked tendency to issue gag orders arbitrarily -- "a March 2008 Office of Inspector General (OIG) report revealed that, among other abuses, the FBI misused NSLs to sidestep the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). In one instance, the FBI issued NSLs to obtain information after the FISC twice refused its requests on First Amendment grounds. The OIG also