Commonwealth v. Johnson.. 1. List the facts relevant to whether Gail and/or William Johnson’s were protected by the First Amendment

Gail and William Johnson were convicted for criminal harassment in the state of Massachusetts. State statutes outline specific prohibitions on spoken or behavioral harassment, including the types of cyberharassment techniques used by Gail and William Johnson. The Johnsons claimed that the statute violated First Amendment rights to free speech, claiming that their cyberharassment methods were similar to verbal harassment.

2. Summarize the Commonwealth’s arguments that the Johnsons’ and their friend’s conduct was cyberharassment.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts argued that the Johnsons’ behavior constituted cyberharassment based on several incidents. The first incident was posting the politician’s home address in a Craigslist ad. The second posted the politician’s phone number on a different Craigslist ad. The third was an email sent directly to the politician containing his social security number and other sensitive information. The fourth incident was a false report filed with the Child Protective Services (CPS) against the politician. The fifth incident was a false accusation of sexual abuse. The Commonwealth indicated that it was the conduct, and not the speech, which was the important issue and also that malicious intent had been proven.

3. Summarize the Johnsons’ arguments that their conduct was protected speech.

The Johnsons argued that their conduct was an expression of freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment, and also claimed that the Massachusetts statute under which they were charged was overly broad and unconstitutional.

4. In your opinion should it be cyberharassment or an exercise of First Amendment right?

In my opinion, the Courts were correct in upholding the conviction because the conduct was malicious. Harassment cannot be protected as an expression of free speech; otherwise instances of actual violence could be argued as expressions of free speech.

Woollard v. Gallagher

1. Summarize the facts relevant to deciding whether Maryland’s “good-and-substantial-reason requirement” violates the Second Amendment.

Maryland’s “good and substantial reason requirement” restricts handgun ownership with a strict permit application process. A permit application, even one as seemingly arbitrary as that in the Maryland...

The district court initially filed in favor of Woollard, who claimed the “good and substantial reason requirement” violated the Second Amendment. However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the district court.
2. Summarize Raymond Woollard’s arguments that the requirement violated his Second Amendment rights.

Woollard argued that the requirement violated his Second Amendment rights on the grounds that the Second Amendment not only covered the right to own a handgun in the home but also to carry it outside the home. Woollard also referred to the cases District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), and invoked the Fourteenth Amendment too.

3. Summarize the Court’s arguments upholding the requirement against Woollard’s challenge.

The Court argued against Woollard partly on the grounds of intermediate scrutiny, in which a “substantial government interest” can be used to balance or restrict private rights (“Woollard v. Gallagher Amicus Brief,” 2012). In the Woollard case, it was determined that public safety issues outweigh an individual’s right to bear arms in a public place.

4. In your opinion, is the good-and-substantial-reason requirement “reasonably adapted to a substantial government interest”? Defend your answer.

The good and substantial requirement does not necessarily violate the Second Amendment, which offers no explicit protection of an individual’s right to bear arms. Moreover, the good and substantial reason is reasonably adapted to a substantial government interest, assuming that preserving and promoting public safety can be called a substantial government interest.

Lawrence v. Texas

1. State exactly what the court decided regarding homosexual sodomy.

In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court ruled that the Texas statute prohibiting homosexual conduct was unconstitutional based on the right to privacy and equal protection clauses. Prior to the ruling, the Texas Court of Appeals had upheld the statute.

2. Summarize the majority opinion’s argument supporting its decision.

The majority in the 7-2 ruling overturned the convictions of Lawrence and Gardner, ruling that the Texas statute violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion also overruled the prior decision in Bowers…