Laws Adapting

The case of twitter anarchist brings up the argument on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not for everything. There are certain things that are prohibited like yelling “Fire” in a crowded movie theatre and yelling “Bomb” on an airplane. From my understanding police scanners are legal in most parts of the country, but with that come some responsibilities that you have to follow. For example, if you have a police scanner you can’t try to rush to the scene where the police are being dispersed because you may interfere. I think this is what happened in the twitter anarchist case he interfered with the police being able to perform his job. This risked the safety of many of our world leaders, it made the job of the police officers a lot harder, and I feel like he should be punished for this. I think a legal realist would understand the situation and feel like that the situation calls for an arrest. The social benefit of having the proper security would outweigh the constitutional rights. Certain situations call for new laws. After September 11th new laws were passed such as the Patriot act. If September 11th never happened do you think that law would be passed? It would never have because it invades our freedom, the circumstances of September 11th made us want to find more terrorist and keep us protected. This was one of the solutions. I think this is a similar situation to the twitter case and the law has to be adapted to the solution.