Vērtējums:
Publicēts: 14.12.2003.
Valoda: Angļu
Līmenis: Vidusskolas
Literatūras saraksts: Nav
Atsauces: Nav
  • Eseja 'Hypocritical Law', 1.
  • Eseja 'Hypocritical Law', 2.
  • Eseja 'Hypocritical Law', 3.
  • Eseja 'Hypocritical Law', 4.
Darba fragmentsAizvērt

Facts:
Bridges president of the union against whom the trial judge had ruled, published a copy of a telegram he had sent to the Secretary of Labor describing the judge's decision "outrageous" and suggested that if the decision was enforced, his union would call a strike and tie up the port of LA and involve the entire Pacific Coast.
He was found guilty of contempt of court.
Legal Standard:
"Clear and Present Danger"- that the substantive evil must be extremely serious and and the degree of imminence extremely high before utterances can be punished.
The substantive evil here is to be double:
1. Disrespect for the judiciary
2. Disorderly and unfair administration of justice
Questions:
Is it possible to say that the act in question could have threatened to change the nature of legal trials?
Should the judiciary be shielded from public criticism?

Atlants