Criminal Justice Publicly Funded Libraries & the Study of Art Project

Part 1A

This discussion has two parts:

Part 1: Should libraries ban books from their collections? If you agree who should decide, should it be parents, librarians, library users, instructors or library administrators? What criteria should be used to determine if libraries should ban books, language, visual art, or content. Review (Links to an external site.) some reasons listed for banning books. Write a paragraph on your thoughts.

Part 2: Should faculty teach art created by artists, writers, producers who have been accused of misconduct? In other words, would you watch a movie directed by Woody Allen? Should English faculty teach books written by Sherman Alexie or Junot Diaz? Should we separate art from artist? These articles may help you as you consider this question:

Junot Díaz, Feminism and Ethnicity (Links to an external site.)

Separating Art From Author (Links to an external site.)

Sherman Alexie Declines Prize (Links to an external site.)

Art Should Not Be Separated From Artist (Links to an external site.)

Part 2A

Read both of these two attached articles and then use this space to post your answer to the question at the top of the article of one of the articles. (Attached Below)

Part 3A

You are the police chief in an affluent predominately Caucasian-American city of 40,000 people.  At noon on a Saturday, a group of 100 African-American protesters who advocate for a separate nation for blacks gather at a city park and sidewalks.  During the protest a speaker states that the “white oppressors shall be destroyed”, “if the white man brings violence so will we”, “there will never be peace with the whites” and “rise up, do what you must to save our people from the curse of  white devils”.  The crowd is energized by the speech, but do not leave the park.

A group of counter protesters arrive and the situation is becoming tense, but no violence has taken place.  The towns mayor approaches you and indicated the speaker is attempting to arouse anger which will incite immediate violence and is disturbing the peace.  The mayor demands that you as the chief of police declare the protest an unlawful assembly and if the protesters refuse to leave arrest them for disturbing the peace.

Based on your readings of case law, discuss the following questions;

1. As the Chief of Police how would you respond to the Mayor’s demand?  Would your response be legal?

2. If the protesters moved into the street and blocked traffic would that makes a difference? Explain.

Part 3B

Review the following cases Brendin v. California Link (Links to an external site.), Hiibel v. Nevada Link (Links to an external site.)  and Arizona v. Johnson Link.   (Links to an external site.)Focus on vehicle passengers detention, reasonable suspicion and identification requirements.  Review the following scenario then discuss the questions.

You are an officer on routine patrol and observe a vehicle with an air freshener hanging from the rear view mirror.  You determine it is violation of the vehicle code and make a traffic stop.  You approach the vehicle and observe the driver and male passenger in the front seat, and two female passengers in the back seat.  Additionally, you smell the odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from the vehicle, however the driver is not under the influence.  Both male passengers appear to be in their late 20’s, however in your opinion both female passengers appear to be under 21.  You obtain the driver’s identification based on the vehicle code violation (probable cause), and you demand all three passengers provide their identification.

Based on your readings of case law, discuss the following questions;

1. Are the passengers considered seized(not free to leave) during a traffic stop?  Explain.

2. Would the officer be allowed (4th Amendment) to demand identification from none, all or just some of the passenger?

Part 3C

Answer the questions below:

1. The term “Hate Speech” has become a popular social phrase, but what does it really mean in regards to pure freedom of speech. Review the United States Supreme Courts Opinions in Snyder v. Phelps https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/09-751 (Links to an external site.) and Mantal v. Tam Link (Links to an external site.) . Briefly describe

each case and explain the rights, or restriction of rights the courts ruled on.

2. In the Snyder v. Phelps case Justice Roberts wrote; “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

Do you agree with that opinion, or do you support more restrictive laws on speech? Explain your answer in detail.

3. Review the following video of a man arrested in Scotland for a hate crime. Would the video he made constitute a hate crime (speech) under the First Amendment of the American. Constitution? Explain your answer?

https://youtu.be/RRk_FOptcFI