A protester is arrested in Washington, D.C. for refusing to remain inside the D.C. police-designated Free Speech Zone.
The arrest of a protester who refuses to remain within the D.C. police –designated Free Speech Zone is not a human rights violation. While the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” the Public Forum Doctrine sets some “rules” that govern this free speech. Established in 1939 by Justice Roberts, the “public forum doctrine is an analytical tool used in First Amendment jurisprudence cases to determine the constitutionality of speech restrictions implemented on government property” (Hudson 2017). The Public Forum Doctrine notes that although speech and assembly cannot be banned, the time, place and manner of the protest can be regulated if such regulation serves a “compelling state interest.” If the police have designated a Free Speech Zone, it is assumed that it was established for the safety of citizens and to ensure that the safety of the protesters and counter-protesters can be maintained. When protesters leave the designated area, it does make this task much harder. The protester still has his rights to free speech preserved within the Free Speech Zone and for this reason the arrested protester is not suffering a human rights violation.
A young woman working as an accountant for a major corporation discovers that she is paid substantially less than her male counterparts with the same titles and responsibilities.
While the disparity in pay for the female accountant in comparison to her male counterparts is very unfortunate, it does not rise to the level of a human rights violation based on the information provided. There is no mention of a widespread problem within the major corporation between the pay of females and males. It is noted that she and the males have the same titles and responsibilities, but the males could have higher levels of education and experience that would account for the pay difference. If all things were equal, the female accountant would be protected under Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.
Article 23.
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
An adherent to a fundamentalist religious doctrine refuses to allow her sick child to receive medical treatment.
The adherent to a fundamentalist religious doctrine who refuses to allow her sick child to receive medical treatments is not committing a human rights violation, IF she can show that there is a specific religious tenet that would be violated by the medical treatment. Similarly, the prosecution of this parent would be a human rights violation IF she can show that there is a specific religious tenet that would be violated by the medical treatment (Radcliffe 2018). The child has a basic human right to life and the mother has the right to freedom of religion and while the child is a minor, the mother’s right to freedom of religion prevails. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof.” If the religious views are clearly in violation to the medical treatment, the choice to follow the religious tenet should be respected under the Constitution of the United States. If a clear connection between the religious tenets and the medical treatment cannot be established by the mother, then the medical treatment should be administered. Many States do not allow any medical exemptions and parents are prosecuted.
The Pentagon reprimands and censors a soldier for writing a successful and critical Iraq War blog.
The Pentagon was right to reprimand and censor a soldier for writing a successful and critical Iraq War blog. The freedom of speech and press for this soldier does not extend to speaking publicly against the Iraq War since his profession as a soldier allows him to have access to information that ensures national security. Furthermore, the structure and success of the military lies in the respect for the chain of command and speaking about decisions made by the higher command erodes this structure and further places national security at risk. The free speech of a person can be restricted by the government, even based on content, if that speech is incompatible with the person’s status as a public official. The case that sets this standard is Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968 (Stone and Volokh). The soldier’s right to freedom of speech and press does not outweigh the need to protect national security.
A lawyer is fired from her job at a busy law firm for getting pregnant and putting in for a leave of absence.
A lawyer is fired from her job at a busy law firm for getting pregnant and putting in for a leave of absence. This is a human rights violation if all employees with a short-term disability face termination when needing a leave of absence. While pregnancy is unique to females, having a short-term disability is not. Males could suffer a medical condition that would result in a six week or longer absence as well. If the company is isolating firing to pregnant employees only then it is a clear violation of Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.
Article 23.
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Further, the US Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission and US Department of Labor enforces the rights of pregnant women in the workplace.
Works Cited:
Hayden, P. The Philosophy of Human Rights: Readings in Context. St. Paul MN: Paragon House, 2001.
Hudson, D. (2017). Public Forum Doctrine. The First Amendment Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/824/public-forum-doctrine
Radcliffe, S. (2018). When a Parent’s Belief About Medicine Become Child Abuse. Healthline. Retrieved from
Stone, G. and Volokh, E. The Constitution Center – Interactive Constitution. The Freedom of Speech and of the Press. Retrieved from https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-i/the-freedom-of-speech-and-of-the-press-clause/interp/33
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Pregnancy Discrimination. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/pregnancy.cfm