Exposing China's Digital Dystopian Dictatorship
Examine how China’s policies as shown in the film would violate both the following Amendments to the US Constitution.
Fill in the yellow boxes below
Link to film (27 mins)
Or this link
US Constitution Online
Portion of the US Constitution
Article I, Section 9, Clause 2,
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
shall not be suspended, unless when in
cases of rebellion or invasion the public
safety may require it."
Article I, Section 9, Clause 3
“No...ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
Article I, Section 9, Clause 3
“No Bill of Attainder Law shall be passed”
Article III, Section 3, Clause 2
“no Attainder of Treason shall work
Corruption of Blood”
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an
This means...
A writ requiring a person under arrest to be
brought before a judge or into court,
especially to secure the person's release
unless lawful grounds are shown for their
detention.
These are laws that make illegal an act that
was legal when committed, increases the
penalties for an infraction after it has been
committed, or changes the rules of evidence
to make conviction easier. The Constitution
prohibits the making of ex post facto law.
A bill of attainder is an act of a legislature
declaring a person or group of persons guilty
of some crime and punishing them, often
without a trial.
Your family members cannot be punished for
your crimes against the state
Meaning religion should not play in the press
or freedom of speech
According to the film, how would the
Chinese policies be violating the US
Constitution?
This one is like they can't deptermine
until they have seen a judge and will
know how the rest will turn out to be until
that court date.
This makes them by breaking the rules if
they change the penalties before judge if
a police officer decides it for the judges
that is breaking the rule for the laws
This breaking from them if they are
making someone guilty just because not
enough money and punishing them for
something they most likely didn't do
I think this would be breaking law if they
were able to get someone or accuse
someone in their family to do their
punishment
I think this could be broken in many ways
if someone has a certain judge that is
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a
capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless
on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
Jury, except in cases arising in the land or
naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
service in time of War or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the same
offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just
compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by
an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been
committed, which district shall have been
previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the
People putting their safety in the person or
their surroundings. The issues of warrants.
The oath of affirmation and when being
searched
No answer for the capital and the crimes. The
jury being able to arise from the land or
forces. The service with the public danger,
putting someone's life in danger. With being
witness or if it was a private resideident
Accusing traffic or if they need to go to jury
because they did not accorparet with what
happened. Not following the law.
string with punishments they don't give
them a chance to be able to tell their
story or sympathy maybe they are in the
wrong but government needs to make
that better
I think this can be breaking when
searching in many ways. I think
sometimes they can lie about what they
find or what they did look for. Sometimes
some departments are serious of what
they do
I think this can be broken by police if
someone is making their situation more
dangerous by trying to interfere with what
they are doing and then charging them
with something they come up with on the
post to make someone get a sentence.
As well as being witnesses how do they
know they are saying true information or
false.
I think with this it can be the public trial if
they don't do this or if its speeding
dashcams I think are important in this
situation as well as police officers having
a camera on their chest without turning it
off.
witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,
and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defence.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the
state wherein they reside. No state shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.
(There are more sections not included here)
Who was born here or not with their judeiest
of what they can or can't do.
I think this get sbroken everywhere no
matter where you are there is people that
went born their and they make it harder
for them I don't understand why there has
to be a division of who goes where, i
understand sometimes safety there is
background checks that can be taken but
not something that can be taken from
someone

The end