Civil Liberties and Tort Law.

Civil Liberties and Tort Law
Student Name
Institution

Question 1
Does the ban of bercenimide in food constitute violation of Suchai people?
Introduction
The question follows the ban of foods containing a chemical substance known as bercenimide by
the California Department of Public Health. Bercenimide refers to a natural component found in
plants such as the Campion flower used by the Suchai people as part of their religious believes
and practice. In effecting the ban that has now been passed as law, the department rationale was
based on evidence conducted by scientists1. First, it is said that the chemical increases the level
of cholesterol in individual’s body and therefore resulting to a rise in levels of contracting heart
diseases. Secondly, the public health department intention is towards protecting the public from
the dangerous substance so as to ensure effective control of cost spend on States health and not
to shorten citizen’s lives. Finally, the argument is that; the ban is aimed specifically for purposes
of protecting the public’s health condition and not frustrating in any way the practice of Suchai
people.
Bercenimide in food and violation of Suchai people
Therefore, following the occurrence of the above events, there is need to determine whether the
rights of the Suchai people have been violated in accordance with the provisions of the First
Amendment rights. In this regard it is important to note that; the United States citizens enjoy
most of their rights subject to the provisions of the first ten amendments of their Constitution
oftenly referred to as the, Bill of rights2.

In this regard, amendment 1 provides that: the Congress should not make any law that is against
ones religion or one that prohibits their free exercise or one that is against their freedom of
speech or that of the media. Neither shall it make a law that interferes with individual’s right to
assemble peacefully and to petition government for a redress of their grievances. Therefore, the
United States Bill of Rights protects their citizens, freedom of speech; freedom of religion;
freedom of assembly; freedom of the press and right to petition for violation of their rights.
In considering the violation of the rights of Suchai people, it is important to consider whether all
rights are fully enjoyed without any limitation4. Which the answer is no, since there always
seems to be a limitation on the enjoyment of one’s right. For instance considering the freedom of
speech, one cannot say that the right is fully qualified since there is a caveat in regards to the
commission of slander of libel which therefore limits the enjoyment of freedom of speech. In
addition, in justifying limitation of individual’s right, States are always of the argument that the
public interest has to take precedent over the interest of an individual or certain group of
individuals. Therefore, the health department is justified for putting a ban on foods containing
the bercenimide chemical as it cannot put the life of the whole state at risk over that of a small
religious group5.
Similarly, considering that California risks spending a lot of cost on the health sector by allowing
the continuous use of foods containing the chemical, it will be proper not to lift the ban so as to
ensure that, the cost is used to benefit the residents in securing other services.
On the other hand, the state is normally tasked with ensuring that the life of their citizens is
protected at all cost and this therefore justifies why the public health went ahead with the ban

provisions as it ensures protection of all citizens right to life over that of religion of a small
group.
Conclusion
In conclusion therefore, although the rights of Suchai people in regards to religion have been
violated by upholding the ban, the California public health department is justified in doing so in
terms of limitations placed upon enjoyment of individual’s rights. This is so because, the rights
of the whole State cannot be put at risk for the enjoyment of a small group of people who
contrary to their religious believes are at danger of contracting diseases due to use of the
substance they are in defense of as proved by the scientists who are experts.
Similarly, since the right to life is to be protected by the government, the public health is justified
in limiting the Suchai people’s rights as to freedom in order to ensure the protection of their
rights.
Question 2
Issue
The issue in question is whether Johan Smith, a well known Suchaki Priest can sue the Daily
Equivocator for libel following the publication of some defamatory material alleging that; he was
the one who led the protest against the new law; and that he had embezzled his congregation

funds. In doing so, he prays for damages for harm suffered and an injunction to stop the
publisher from engaging in the conduct.
Rules
Following the provisions of laws in regards to libel, it is a state law where injury is to be
presumed from the facts of the publication. Also, each individual State subscribes to its own
provisions in regards so slander and libel thou some such as the Communicators Decency Act
applies in general. Therefore, in order for one to succeed in a libel suit the Plaintiff is required to
prove: the published or broadcasted unprivileged false statement: that the information caused
material harm and that the publisher acted with actual malice6.
Analysis
Following the provided provisions, in this scenario Smith being a prominent priest would have
to suffer harm due to the publication as was in the case of Celebrity v. Gossip Magazine7
defamatory information was published about Cecilia a celebrity abandoning her daughter.
In regards to suffering harm, Smith thou being prominent has not really proved the harm he has
suffered due to the publication which if he fails to show the actual harm he is most likely not to
succeed in the libel suit.
Further regarding the prove of actual malice, Smith will be tasked with bringing up the said
evidence thou as it stands the editor and publisher had some malicious intention since they are
alleging the source to be from Smiths congregation yet there is nothing to corroborate the same.
Conclusion

In conclusion therefore, although Smith is able to prove the intent of actual malice and likelihood
of harm suffered by virtue of him being a prominent priest, he does not stand a chance to be
awarded the damages since for one to succeed in a libel suit all the three requirements must be
proved of which smith has not proved the harm suffered but an injunction to stop the publication
will be granted in his favor since there is no one to corroborate the information.

Bibliography
Journal Articles
1. Kysar, Douglas A. "The Public Life of Private Law: Tort Law as a Risk Regulation
Mechanism." European Journal of Risk Regulation 9, no. 1 (2018): 48-65.
2. Matsuda, Mari J. "Public response to racist speech: Considering the victim’s story." In
Words that wound, pp. 17-51. Routledge, 2018.
3. Hirschl, Ran. "The great economic-juridical shift: The legal arena and the transformation
of Israel’s economic order." In The New Israel, pp. 189-215. Routledge, 2018.
4. Hartsock, Jane A. "Provider Conscientious Refusal, Medical Malpractice, and the Right
to Civil Recourse." The American Journal of Bioethics 18, no. 7 (2018): 66-68.
5. Lee, Lily Xiao Hong, and David H. Rosenbloom. A Reasonable Public Servant:
Constitutional Foundations of Administrative Conduct in the United States:
Constitutional Foundations of Administrative Conduct in the United States. Routledge,
2015.
6. Richards, Neil. Intellectual privacy: Rethinking civil liberties in the digital age. Oxford
University Press, USA, 2015.
Case Law
7. Celebrity v. Gossip Magazine, 135 S. Ct. 1039, 576 U.S., 190 L. Ed. 2d 908 (2015).