You're on the Jury: The Case of the Politically Incorrect Sign
Disturbed by the number and variety of signs that individuals were putting up within its borders, a City passed an ordinance prohibiting all signs on private property except in commercial areas for advertising. Sam, a homeowner, pasted a sign on the front door of his house containing an American flag with these words underneath the flag: "Down with the Mayor and the City Council - Our rights are being violated". He then went door to door in his neighborhood passing out copies of this sign and asking his neighbors to display it as well. Sam was arrested for violating the ordinance.
During the trial, a witness for the City described how many signs had appeared in the past on homes and on lawns for commercial home businesses, ruining the appearance of the community. He explained that many other cities and towns had experienced the same problems and that the ordinance was reasonable and the only way to solve the problem. Sam testified that the sign he had put up was a small one and that other City residents had raised flags on national holidays and put up signs showing their patriotism. None of these residents had been arrested.
The Arguments at Trial
The City's attorney argued that a city had the authority to regulate signs within its borders to protect the appearance and value of properties. She further argued that the ordinance did not unduly restrict free speech as there were other ways for residents to express their views: radio, television, and the newspapers. Sam's attorney argued that the regulation violated the freedom of speech provisions of the federal constitution, was too broad, too vague, and was unreasonable. He argued that the City could have limited the ordinance by restricting signs over a certain size and in certain locations. He further argued that it was unreasonable to restrict the expression of opinions except for the use of the media.
Discussion (analysis) Questions to be answered.
Who has the stronger arguments, the City or Sam? Why?
What are the laws here that are being applied and is their application proper?
If you were the on the jury hearing this case, for whom would you decide? Why?
Let me know if you have any question. Thank you.
In the legal process, having stronger arguments is essential for having proper jurisdiction. In the jurisdiction of cases, the role of the jury also has a very crucial role. In this context, in the following discussion, a case has been selected, titled as, 'The Case of Politically Incorrect Sign' in order to examine its arguments, application of law and role of jury.
Person Giving Stronger Argument
In my opinion, Sam has the strongest argument in the case. As advocated by Sam's attorney, freedom of speech of a person is bestowed on every citizen of the United States by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the same line, Sam has the right to express his views and opinions in general public. The argument of the city's attorney that the defendant had other ways to exercise his right to ...
The response addresses the query posted in 536 words with APA references.