Final Exam

OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF LAW To: Michael Heindl, Attorney From: Jane Doe age: May 7, 2009 Case: wild Dog refreshen v. Jonesville urban center Council Office File no: HCC-05-2009 Docket No: HCC-2008-2009 Re: First Amendment; Freedom of Expression assertion of Assignment You keep open asked me to prepare a legal office history on the question of whether our client Mad Dog Review’s First Amendment Freedom of Expression recompenses were violated when they were violated when they were ban from playing in the metropolis of Jonesville. display board of confine rapscallion I. disclose2 II. Brief Answer2 III. argument of Facts3 IV. Analysis3-4 V. Conclusion4-5 Table of Authorities Page CASES Atlantic Beach Casino v. Morenzoni 2,3,4 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U. S. Const. amend. I2,3.4 STATUTES municipal principle section 355-202,3,4 Issue fit to the First Amendment of the unite States Constitution, has the hip-hop pile Mad Dog Review rights to liberty of style been violated by the Jonesville urban center Council by proscription the from performing in their confederacy under section 355-20 of the municipal regularization? Brief Answer Yes. It is a violation of the band’s right to freedom of expression.

According to the First Amendment of the join States Constitution, all individuals have the right to express themselves without interference or restraint from the government. Statement of Facts Mad Dog Review is a local bump band. The lyrics to one of their songs, “Mad Dog City Council” allegedly describes their city cou ncil in explicit terms, using “ waterl! ogged” words and style generally considered obscene. Based upon the language in their song, and specifically that in “Mad Dog City Council”, the city of Jonesville has banned the mathematical group from performing in their community based the enacted Municipal Ordinance section 355-20. Analysis According to the...If you want to get a effective essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay