Rule: Strago may argue that the University curtailed his liberty of free speech found in the First Amendment. One constitutional right in the First Amendment stipulates that every individual has the right to air their views freely on matters of public concern, regardless of whether the views may differ from others (Boyer and Cynthia 215). Therefore, the criticism that Strago gives on how the University handles plagiarism issues is a matter of public concern and hence categorized under protected speech.
Nonetheless, the University could also argue that Strago’s language was unsafe for the institution because it traversed to hate speech. A public university may impose reasonable restrictions on student speech to maintain a safe and respectful campus environment. The University may argue that its policies on civility and respect for others are reasonable restrictions on speech. However, it must demonstrate that those policies may narrowly be tailored to serve a significant governmental interest (Faulkner, LaKeith & Green, 197). Besides, the School’s exposed sanctions, including expulsion and suspensions, are extreme and uneven to the violation. The institution did not show how the media post by Strago invaded other people’s rights or caused disruptions.
Issue statement 2: Violation of Fourteenth Amendment Rights: Strago could also maintain that the institution infringed another of his right in the fourteenth amendment. This is the right to due process. The right necessitates that people be notified prior and allowed to be listened to before being deprived of property, liberty, and life. Nevertheless, this is not the case with Strago because he is on the verge of facing disciplinary action from the institution. The disciplinary action could be suspension or expulsion from the School, which will withdraw him of his liberty and property interests. Consequently, Strago can claim that the University infringed his right to due process by failing to notify him prior and denying him his right to be heard before threatening him with disciplinary action.
Issue statement 3: Infringement of Fifth Amendment rights
The Fifth Amendment usually shields people against self-blame. This guarantee peoples the excellent process that is followed in the law. Supposing the police department compelled Strago into admitting to an offense, it would be established as an infringement of his Fifth Amendment rights. Also, supposing Strago was not given a rational and impartial trial, and then it would be termed as an infringement of the Fifth Amendment rights in the Constitution.
Issue statement 4: Violation of Sixth Amendment rights
The Sixth Amendment stipulates that every person has the right to an impartial and swift trial, the right to neutral judges, and the right to legal guidelines. Supposing Strago was deprived of any of these rights, and then all this would constitute to infringement of his Sixth Amendment rights (Boyer and Cynthia 215). For instance, if Strago were deprived of the right to legal guidelines, he would not be in a position to stand with a vigorous justification in court.
Issue statement 5: Infringement of Fourth Amendment rights
Finally, the Fourth Amendment right safeguards people against irrational annexations and searches. Strago’s constitutional rights may have been infringed through a desecration of his Fourth Amendment rights (Faulkner, LaKeith & Green, 197). If the law enforcement agency attained proof against Strago by conducting an illegal search, it would constitute an infringement of his Fourth Amendment rights. For instance, if Strago’s home was searched without a permit, any proof acquired through the search may not be used against him in court.
On the road to better evaluating the power of Strago’s case, I would require more information from both the University and Strago. For instance, from the University, I would like to learn more about the exact guidelines and policies of the institution that Strago is accused of infringing. Furthermore, I would want to understand the institution’s history better, primarily when regulating the students’ freedom of speech (Boyer and Cynthia 215). I would also want to know if any instances of related cases exist in the University. Moreover, I would want to learn more about the institution’s procedures when dealing with students who have violated the rules. Finally, I would want to learn about the specific procedures used in Strago’s case.
Besides, it would be vital to fathom the institution’s procedures and policies associated with corrective sanctions and actions for code of conduct desecrations. It comprises any desire for notification and a prospect to be heard, especially before any corrective action is taken. It also helps to identify the appeal techniques that may be accessible to learners who are subject to corrective action.
From Strago’s side, I want to understand better the exact message of his public media post. It includes the particular language that he used and the setting in which the post was composed. Besides, there is a need to understand if Strago was having disciplinary cases with the University before he even made the media post. Moreover, it would be vital to collect proof linked to the institution’s allegation that the social media post by Strago was founded on intimidation and harassment. It would comprise any signal of destruction instigated to people or groups because of the media post made by Strago and any proof of an outline of conduct by Strago that could be deemed applicable to the institution’s willpower.
Lastly, it is imperative to reflect on the probable opinions the institution could raise to justify its actions (Faulkner, LaKeith & Green, 197). For instance, the institution argued that its procedures and policies are essential to ensure a safe and respectful environment in the School. Besides, the institution also argued that the speech by Strago was unsafe since it was founded on hate speech according to the First Amendment. Collecting this extra data will develop a complete picture of the lawful matters linked to Strago’s case. A more elaborate strategy for presenting the case in court will be established.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the institution probably infringed on his First Amendment rights for Strago by intimidating him with disciplinary acts and compulsory courtesy training to retort to his media post. Strago condemned the institution’s way of handling the allegations of plagiarism by the professor. However, to conclude the weight of Strago’s case, there needs to be more information gathered. For instance, there is a need to understand the specific procedures and policies on respect and civility for other people that Strago is accused of infringing. Moreover, there is a need to comprehend if the given policies are closely structured to help a critical administrative interest.
Furthermore, there is a need to conduct investigations on the institution regarding the history of subduing the speeches made by students of its practices and guidelines (Faulkner, LaKeith & Green, 197). Supposing the court discovers that the student’s rights were infringed, the court may give directives to the institution to withdraw the threats given to Strago and reward him for the harm and intimidation they made him undergo.
Moreover, if the law enforcement agency conducted an unlawful search or coerced Strago into admitting the crime, his Fifth and Fourth Amendment rights may have been infringed. Correspondingly, if Strago was deprived of his right to rational trial by unprejudiced judges, his Sixth Amendment rights may also have been infringed. It is always vital to guarantee all citizens their rights per the Constitution.
Works Cited
Boyer, Cynthia. “The Supreme Court and Politics in the Trump Era.” Elon L. Rev. 12 2020: 215.
Faulkner, LaKeith, and Christopher R. Green. “State-Constitutional Departures from the Supreme Court: The Fourth Amendment.” Miss. LJ 89 2019: 197.
write