Business Law: Freedom of Speech and Stare Decisis Report

This report delves into the intricacies of business law, focusing primarily on the concept of freedom of speech as enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It examines the limitations and permissible restrictions on this freedom, referencing cases such as FCC v. Pacifica Foundation and Brandenburg v. Ohio. The report then transitions to discuss the doctrine of stare decisis, its origins, and its implications for legal decision-making, explaining its role in upholding precedents set by higher courts while also acknowledging its limitations, particularly when precedents are biased or poorly decided. The report provides a comprehensive overview of how these legal principles impact business operations and decision-making.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW 1
Business Law
Student’s Name
Date

BUSINESS LAW 2
Right to Speech
The citizens of the United States are strongly protected from the government by the First
Amendment to the US Constitution regarding freedom of speech. As such they have the freedom
to freely speak and express their opinion to the government according to article 1 of the
amendment. This amendment, however, does not include individual persons or businesses in the
restriction unless they are government representative.
There are however permissible restrictions on this freedom of speech in the following
manner, the government has the power to control the venue, time and mode of speech in claim of
maintaining law and order and that the restrictions are not related to the speech this may limit the
manner and conditions of people expressing their speech as seen in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation
(1978) and Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969).
Other restrictions include abusive words, obscenity, threats, and incitement. The
government has the power to stop "incitement" speech which could lead to a state of harm as
seen in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and Schenck v. the United States (1919). Defamation is
against the law whether slander or libel and so is lying under oath as per United States
defamation law. This, however, should not restrict the right of a person to air their opinion.
We truly have a right to freedom of speech as we are protected by the first amendment to
the constitution of the United States, however, there are limitations to this freedom of speech on
the justification that the speech is incitement, defamation or fraud amongst other crimes against
fellow citizens as indicated by United States law.

BUSINESS LAW 3
The doctrine of stare decisis
This doctrine originates from Latin terms which mean “to stand by things decided”. It is a
doctrine that dictates that courts should look at the previous same issues that were decided by
other higher courts within a similar court system in order to make decisions. It advocates for
upholding of precedence or maintaining former adjudications (Perju, 2017). Precedence means
that the ruling that is made by a higher court should be followed in similar cases.
An example would be if Bob took Tom's bicycle without his consent and then
accidentally he destroyed his bicycle. If Tom went to high court in which a decision is made that
he should buy a new one next time there will be a similar case where say Dave takes Paul's car
without his permission having an accident, the judge will refer to Bob v. Tom’s case in the high
court in making the decision that Dave should buy Paul a new car.
This doctrine has limitations, however, to lower courts with assumptions that the
precedence was unbiased and well-founded at the time of its occurrence. A poorly decided
precedence as a result of the failure of judges or other factors can be the basis of decisions in the
future courts in different context and possibilities (Barrett, 2016). From the following research, it
is clear that stare decisis has several limitations in the process of decision making by courts
especially in instances that the precedence was biased and legally questionable.

BUSINESS LAW 4
Reference
Barrett, A. C. (2016). Originalism and Stare Decisis. Notre Dame L. Rev., 92, 1921.
Perju, V. (2017). Proportionality and Stare Decisis: Proposal for a New Structure.