Fghdfgh

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

Name: Aziza Alam

-------------------------------------------------

Re: Rho Gamma Rho v. Wasowzki

-------------------------------------------------

Client: Rho Gamma Rho

-------------------------------------------------

Date: December 4, 2013

I. Question Presented

Were the fraternity’s expressed viewpoints on homosexuality protected by the First Amendment rights?

II. Brief Answer

Likely, yes. Although the fraternity subjected Michael to certain tasks due to his sexual orientation, their viewpoint was protected by the First Amendment freedom of speech because; it guarantees the right to express ideas and opinions both verbally and symbolically (actions).

III. Facts

Michael Wasowzki started the pledge period on October 8, 2012 with 19 others which lasted for a week. Within 3 days of the pledge period, Michael had to undergo certain activities which the other members of fraternity had not because of the sexual orientation. These activities involved a lot of physical activity and work. The fraternity also made him drink intoxicated beverages and this lead to ridicule upon him. Later on, he was sent to the hospital with a poor blood alcohol and he sued the fraternity. His reasons for this were that the fraternity had led him to emotional sadness and disturbance. The court then later denied paying for the medical bill and $3.5 million to Wasowzki due to his emotional distress. The court had found that Wasowzki would not have been put into emotional distress if the fraternity treated him equally.

IV. Discussion

A. Argument

The fraternity’s actions gave an insight on their freely expressed opinions on homosexuality, which were protected by the First Amendment. Both federal and state law support the state’s position:

1. Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 531 (1945)

"[T]he...