Supreme Court Rulings - Potter v. California Essay

Supreme Court Rulings - Potter v. California - Essay Example It is not only prudent for the government to protect the civil liberties of its citizens but it is a contractual obligation to do so as stipulated in the Constitutional Bill of Rights. Civil liberty is in itself a form of natural liberty, part of which is divested and placed in the hands of the government in order to produce more good and bring happiness in the entire community than if it were to remain in the hands of the individual (Cohen 15). Civil liberty as an offshoot of natural liberty for one to do as they please is not restricted by the government to the extent that it does not threaten public welfare. Civil liberty in guaranteeing one’s freedom to do what they want is limited to injury or harm of others by the action done. The concept of civil liberties is grounded on liberal theory. Liberal philosophers believed in a state of nature prior to a political society where individuals were entirely free to do anything, including killing each other. Creation of societies n ecessitated the need to keep people and their possessions secure thus restricting natural liberty as far as necessary for security of everyone. Any natural right that threatened public order was taken away. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States protects rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion from being interfered with by the government. The freedom of expression is constituted by the rights to freedom of press, speech, implied rights of belief and association, assembly, and right to petition the government in order to get a redress of grievances. Interpretation of the extent of protection given to these rights is reserved for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has interpreted The First... The researcher states that the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States protects rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion from being interfered with by the government. The freedom of expression is constituted by the rights to freedom of press, speech, implied rights of belief and association, assembly, and right to petition the government in order to get a redress of grievances. Interpretation of the extent of protection given to these rights is reserved for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has interpreted The First Amendment to apply to the federal government. In this case, the researcher believes that Mr. Potter in pleading the First Amendment referred to the arrest as infringing on his freedom of expression. This freedom basically entails freedom of speech and it would be expedient for us to delve into its intricacies. First, the right to freedom of speech gives individuals the right to express themselves with no constraint or interference and in deed Mr. Potter exercised their freedom in this regard. Second, it is a requirement by the Supreme Court to give justification for interfering with this cases where it makes an attempt to regulate content of speech. Third, is the right to assemble, which allows people to congregate for lawful and peaceful purposes. The right to belief and association is embedded within this right too, which are the First, the Fifth, and the Fourteenth. Fourth, an individual has the right to petition government in order to obtain redress of their grievances.