A:Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama" (1958), that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in "Roberts v. United States Jaycees" (1984) that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends". The court's decision in "Roberts v. United States Jaycees" held that groups could not exclude members for any reason, such as gender, that had no bearing on the group's own identity. B:If one thinks back to the case of Rachel Dolezal, an NAACP chapter president who was later revealed to be white, if the organization had tried to abolish her membership explicitly because she did not fit with their avowed mission, would this have been legal under the Roberts decision? Answer: josh
A:The show further lampooned the controversy surrounding its use of profanity, as well as the media attention surrounding the network show "Chicago Hopes singular use of the word "shit", with the season five premiere "It Hits the Fan", in which the word "shit" is said 162 times without being bleeped for censorship purposes, while also appearing uncensored in written form. In the days following the show's original airing, 5,000 disapproving e-mails were sent to Comedy Central. Despite its characters' 43 gratuitous uses of the racial slur "nigger" (which were technically allowed to air, but which the writers ostentatiously censored in all versions of the episode), the season 11 episode "With Apologies to Jesse Jackson" generated relatively little controversy, as most in the black community and the NAACP praised the episode for its context and its comedic way of conveying other races' perceptions of how black people feel when hearing the word. B:From what we can learn about the writers' intentions for this episode, is it possible that they might have considered jokes such as a restaurant patron asking for vinegar, or a character chiding the notoriously-selfish Eric Cartman for being "niggardly," with the punchline in both cases being nothing but a deafening beep from viewers' tv speakers? Answer: josh
A:Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama" (1958), that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in "Roberts v. United States Jaycees" (1984) that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends". In "Roberts" the Court held that associations may not exclude people for in-born characteristics such as gender, unless the reason for such an exclusion was not in any way linked to the group's expression. B:Under this 1984 ruling in "Roberts", would the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America continue to be able to restrict membership only to their respective sexes, as long as the group's kept those names and their existing mission statements that explicitly refer to young men and young women respectively? Answer: philip
A:Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama" (1958), that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in "Roberts v. United States Jaycees" (1984) that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends". In "Roberts" the Court held that associations may not exclude people for in-born characteristics such as gender, unless the reason for such an exclusion was not in any way linked to the group's expression. B:Under the Roberts decision, could a gentlemen-only social club continue to function only if the group had managed to put together a carefully worded mission statement that (while effectively excluding women) made it clear that the group had some other purpose and identity aside from just being a place for men to come together? Answer: josh
A:Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama" (1958), that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in "Roberts v. United States Jaycees" (1984) that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends". In "Roberts" the Court held that associations may exclude people for reasons such as gender, so long as these reasons were fully unrelated to the group's expression. B:Under the Roberts decision, could a gentlemen-only social club continue to function only if the group had managed to put together a carefully worded mission statement that (while effectively excluding women) made it clear that the group had some other purpose and identity aside from just being a place for men to come together? Answer: josh
A:Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama" (1958), that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in "Roberts v. United States Jaycees" (1984) that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends". In "Roberts" the Court held that associations may exclude people for reasons such as gender, so long as these reasons were fully unrelated to the group's expression. B:Under this 1984 ruling in "Roberts", would the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America continue to be able to restrict membership only to their respective sexes, as long as the group's kept those names and their existing mission statements that explicitly refer to young men and young women respectively? Answer: philip
A:Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama" (1958), that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in "Roberts v. United States Jaycees" (1984) that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends". The court's decision in "Roberts v. United States Jaycees" held that groups could not exclude members for any reason, such as gender, that had no bearing on the group's own identity. B:Under the Roberts decision, could a gentlemen-only social club continue to function only if the group had managed to put together a carefully worded mission statement that (while effectively excluding women) made it clear that the group had some other purpose and identity aside from just being a place for men to come together? Answer: philip
A:Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama" (1958), that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in "Roberts v. United States Jaycees" (1984) that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends". In "Roberts" the Court held that associations may exclude people for reasons such as gender, so long as these reasons were fully unrelated to the group's expression. B:If one thinks back to the case of Rachel Dolezal, an NAACP chapter president who was later revealed to be white, if the organization had tried to abolish her membership explicitly because she did not fit with their avowed mission, would this have been legal under the Roberts decision? Answer: philip
A:Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama" (1958), that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in "Roberts v. United States Jaycees" (1984) that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends". The court's decision in "Roberts v. United States Jaycees" held that groups could not exclude members for any reason, such as gender, that had no bearing on the group's own identity. B:Under this 1984 ruling in "Roberts", would the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America continue to be able to restrict membership only to their respective sexes, as long as the group's kept those names and their existing mission statements that explicitly refer to young men and young women respectively? Answer:
josh