Angie's Perplexed 2023-07-08a
Angie Prompts:
Bard, please tell me should I be outraged at this man, Mark Espinoza, a San Jose resident, for his contempt for the law on fireworks because of his free speech right? Here is the new link: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/man-arrested-san-jose-illegal-crackdown-speaks-out/3268143/Bard Responds:
Whether or not you should be outraged at Mark Espinoza is a personal decision. There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of the issue.
On the one hand, Espinoza was arrested for violating a city ordinance that prohibits the sale and use of illegal fireworks. The ordinance is in place for a reason: illegal fireworks can be dangerous and can cause property damage and injuries. In addition, the noise from illegal fireworks can be disruptive and disturbing to people who live in the area.
On the other hand, Espinoza argues that he was exercising his First Amendment right to free speech. He says that he was selling the fireworks as a form of political protest against the city's ordinance. He also claims that he was not selling the fireworks to be used, but rather to be displayed as art.
Ultimately, it is up to you to decide whether or not you believe that Espinoza's actions were justified. There is no right or wrong answer, and both sides of the issue have valid points.
Here are some additional factors to consider when making your decision:
* The severity of the ordinance violation. Was Espinoza selling a few illegal fireworks for personal use, or was he running a large-scale operation?
* The intent of the offender. Was Espinoza selling the fireworks to be used, or was he simply displaying them as art?
* The potential consequences of the offender's actions. Did Espinoza's actions put anyone in danger? Did they cause any property damage?
* The offender's criminal history. Does Espinoza have a history of violating the law?
Once you have considered all of these factors, you can make an informed decision about whether or not you believe that Espinoza's actions were justified.
On the one hand, Espinoza was arrested for violating a city ordinance that prohibits the sale and use of illegal fireworks. The ordinance is in place for a reason: illegal fireworks can be dangerous and can cause property damage and injuries. In addition, the noise from illegal fireworks can be disruptive and disturbing to people who live in the area.
On the other hand, Espinoza argues that he was exercising his First Amendment right to free speech. He says that he was selling the fireworks as a form of political protest against the city's ordinance. He also claims that he was not selling the fireworks to be used, but rather to be displayed as art.
Ultimately, it is up to you to decide whether or not you believe that Espinoza's actions were justified. There is no right or wrong answer, and both sides of the issue have valid points.
Here are some additional factors to consider when making your decision:
* The severity of the ordinance violation. Was Espinoza selling a few illegal fireworks for personal use, or was he running a large-scale operation?
* The intent of the offender. Was Espinoza selling the fireworks to be used, or was he simply displaying them as art?
* The potential consequences of the offender's actions. Did Espinoza's actions put anyone in danger? Did they cause any property damage?
* The offender's criminal history. Does Espinoza have a history of violating the law?
Once you have considered all of these factors, you can make an informed decision about whether or not you believe that Espinoza's actions were justified.
Comments
Post a Comment