Tag Archives: social

To Kill A Mockingbird is being challenged!

Should To Kill a Mockingbird be banned from schools?

There are schools that believe that To Kill a Mockingbird should be banned from reading. A school district in Mississippi didn’t like how the book used racial issues and how it deals with civil rights. There are numerous instances in which it uses racial slurs about the black community. There was backlash but it was decided that the book would stay in the library. Some say that they could get the same message across using a different book and it has been constantly challenged since 1960, when it was released. Arne Duncan, president Obama’s former secretary of education, said that “When school districts remove ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ from the reading list, we know we have real problems.”.

When it comes down to the 1st Amendment, the right to read for example, all students should be able to read To Kill A mockingbird, even if it has racial slurs. Some parents may want this gone as it is offensive to the black community but as Ben Sasse, a Nebraska Senator, put it, “Engaged parents should call the school district with the clear message: Our kids are tough enough to read a real book.”  There some reasons to remove the book from the 8th grade reading curriculum, but as it stands, it will most likely stay as a shared story in our schools.

Works Cited:

“’To Kill a Mockingbird’ Banned at Mississippi School.” Time, Time, time.com/4983786/biloxi-mississippi-school-ban-to-kill-a-mockingbird/.
Nelson, Karen. “Why Did Biloxi Pull ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ from the 8th Grade Lesson Plan?”Sunherald, The Sun Herald, http://www.sunherald.com/news/local/counties/jackson-county/article178572326.html.
Advertisements

Public Employees and Their Free Speech.

Topic: Free speech rights for public employees

Essential Question: What is classified as free speech for the public employee?

Free speech is something that people are constantly debating and will continue to debate for a long time. When it comes to public employees the Courts currently employ a three-part test to determine whether a government employee’s speech is protected by the First Amendment. The first part is government employees are only protected by the First Amendment when they are speaking as private citizens. If their speech is part of their official job duties, then they can be fired or disciplined for it. The second part is was their speech regarding a matter of public concern? If it is not then the first amendment will not protect them it is of public concern the first amendment may protect them there is still one more test. The final question is whether the government employer’s interest in efficiently fulfilling its public services is greater than the employee’s interest in speaking freely. There have been a few cases involving this system Garcetti v. Ceballos, Pickering v. Board of Education, Connick v. Myers. When it comes to free speech the line of what is protected by the first amendment and what is not is blurry at best. Public employees are in a unique situation and should be careful about what they say or post.

Tags: Media, Social, Freedom-of-speech

Works Cited:

“Free Speech Rights Of Government Employees.” Law2.umkc.edu. N. p., 2018. Web. 20 Feb. 2018.

” Government Employees & First Amendment Overview | Newseum Institute.” Newseuminstitute.org. N. p., 2018. Web. 20 Feb. 2018.

Savage, David. “Supreme Court Strengthens Free-Speech Rights Of Public Employees.” latimes.com. N. p., 2018. Web. 20 Feb. 2018.

Should burning the flag be Illegal?

First off people who say their going to burn the flag are doing it to protest the government.

If burning the flag is not a protected form of speech, is kneeling for the National Anthem protected? Most people would say yes because it is a peaceful way to protest something, but according to thelawdictionary.org, burning the flag is also showing a form of peaceful protest. If burning the flag is illegal, then kneeling for the National Anthem is illegal right? Even though they are both protesting peacefully. But according to cnn.com neither president Trump nor congress can criminalize it.

Flag Burning: Symbolic or an Action that should be Torched

You might not think about it, but the 1st Amendment is much more than the right to practice the religion you choose, it is much more than the right to freedom of the press, and it is much more than the right to freedom of speech. It is all much deeper than just that. Within the freedom of speech, you not only have the right to express yourself verbally, but you also have the right to express your ideas through actions. That is symbolic speech. Like most limits of the 1st Amendment, the limits to symbolic speech are very blurred and not completely understood. This raises many questions, one being is burning the flag of the United States of America protected as symbolic speech under the 1st Amendment?

The simple answer to that question is yes, burning the US flag is protected under the 1st Amendment. While this controversy still exists today, it has been around for a while. This idea first came into question in 1984 in the Texas v. Johnson case. Gregory Johnson wanted to protest President Reagan and his policies at the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. To do so, he burned a flag outside the convention center where it was being held and was arrested when bystanders felt offended by his actions. He was being charged for ¨violating a Texas statute that prevented the desecration of a venerated object, including the American flag, if such action were likely to incite anger in others¨. Johnson’s defense: his actions were protected under the 1st Amendment as symbolic speech. After a trial and an appeal, the case moved to the Supreme Court where they ruled 5-4 in favor of Johnson. Their reasoning, ¨The majority of the Court, according to Justice William Brennan, agreed with Johnson and held that flag burning constitutes a form of “symbolic speech” that is protected by the First Amendment. The majority noted that freedom of speech protects actions that society may find very offensive, but society’s outrage alone is not justification for suppressing free speech¨. This ruling only applied to Texas law, so the federal government decided to enact a law that prohibited all flag burning, ¨with the exception of burning and burying worn out flags¨. In the same 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court voted against this law, ending its enactment. Due to that, the guidelines from Texas v. Johnson are the ones that we follow today regarding symbolic speech, although they are occasionally challenged. When challenged, the prosecutor (often the government) must prove to a court that there is sufficient reason that the action in question should not be protected as symbolic speech. This reason cannot just be that the prosecutor disapproves of the action and finds it offensive.

While not all issues with the 1st Amendment are always crystal clear, the issue regarding flag burning seems like it is set in stone, burning the US flag is protected as symbolic speech under the 1st Amendment. While many may not like it, it offers one to voice their displeasure over problems regarding the state of our nation through actions, not just words.

 

 

Works Cited

Speech Codes: Are They a Scourge or a Savior to Free Speech?

Many people know the First Amendment: the right to expression, the right to peacefully assemble, freedom of the press, the right to petition the government, etcetera. However, not many people know where the boundaries of these rights lie. People push these boundaries all the time and right now college campuses are but one example. Administrators at colleges are attempting to enforce speech codes. Yet, does enforcing speech codes violate the right to free expression described in the First Amendment? How far can speech codes go before the contradict the rights to free expression and peaceful protesting described in the First Amendment?

There are many ways speech codes could be enforced. But depending on how they are applied, they could break the First Amendment. A few forms of expression, specifically in regards to free speech, that are not protected by the First Amendment are slander or libel, fighting words, and obscenity. This means that someone can not go in front of a crowd and defame, insult, threaten, or say anything that may be considered hate speech to someone without consequences. One example of hate speech can be seen in a video of Milo Yiannopoulous at UW Milwaukee. In this video, he verbally attacked and degraded a transgender student. They still were spoken with no point other than to make fun of a subject and way of life that Yiannopoulous did not agree with. Another example of hate speech and fighting words is threats. As stated by Ben Shapiro, some people “greeted the birth of [his] second child by calling for [him, his] wife, and two children to be thrown into a gas chamber”. There was no purpose to this statement other than to express a disagreement with his religion. Under the First Amendment, hate speech is not something you can say without consequences. Speech Codes cannot be used to prevent speakers with controversial opinions from speaking. They cannot prevent people from peacefully disagreeing and debating about topics. However, speech codes can apply consequences if that speech becomes hateful or slanderous since that speech would no longer be protected under the First Amendment.

Some Speech Codes are also attempting to limit the student’s right to peacefully protest a speaker. The First Amendment specifically says “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble”. To restrict the right to peacefully assemble is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Yet, as seen on the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education website, also known as FIRE, some college campuses are restricting the student’s rights to peacefully assemble and protest on the grounds that they are disrupting the speaker’s right to freedom of speech. Furthermore, the Wisconsin Campus Free Speech Act states that “protests and demonstrations that interfere with the expressive rights of others are subject to sanction”. There must be a line drawn as to what qualifies as disruptive and interfering demonstrations. The line is whether or not there is any form of violence or hate speech. If a protester simply said the speaker was wrong, held signs, and argued about right versus wrong, nothing can be done about it because they are protesting peacefully, as the First Amendment says they can. However, if a protestor started doing damage or cursing out the speaker, then they would have to face consequences. Recently at UC Berkeley, protesters became very violent at a speech by Yiannopoulous and had to be escorted off the premises. UC Berkeley encompasses what a protest that is not protected by the First Amendment is, and what Speech Codes can restrict.

In the end, Speech codes can be useful to make speeches more peaceful and clearly define punishments for breaking that peace, however, they must still subject to the First Amendment.

Sources:

EBSCO: The New Battle Over Campus Free Speech

Milo Yiannopoulos verbally attacks a transgender student (1:30-3:05)

The Atlantic: The Glaring Evidence That Free Speech Is Threatened on Campus

Wisconsin Campus Free Speech Act

A few examples of Hate Speech against Ben Shapiro

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)

UC Berkeley

When does protesting step over the line.

          Does creating buffer zones in front of public buildings violate a person’s right to peaceably assemble that is granted to them through the first amendment. In some places around the united states local governments are creating “buffer zones” around public buildings to prevent violent protesters from gaining access to the facility. In the past violent protesters have caused serious damage, for example the Berkeley riots in February of 2017. The people who participated in these riots were brought on by antifa and far-left socialists because they disliked the exercise of free speech by an individual named Milo Yiannopoulos. The “alt-left” were using and abusing the very same right they were trying to suppress. If there were buffer zones the violence could have theoretically been lessened. It is only ok for a local government to introduce buffer zones if they deem in necessary for the safety of the people they are sworn to protect. In 2014 the supreme court dismissed a proposed law from Massachusetts to create buffer zones outside of abortion clinics because people attempting to get inside were being heckled by right-leaning protesters.

          The first amendment should be upheld fully until the point at which its protections hurt the people it was implemented to protect. When protesting peacefully becomes full scale rioting it is time to step in and prevent violence. In general conservatives are known for holding the 1st amendment, and the rest of the constitution, in high regards. On the other hand Liberals are generally known for disliking some of the pillars of the constitution. In conclusion the 1st amendment does protect the rights of the people to protest but it doesn’t protect their right to riot and hurt other people.

Group against proposed Toledo law on abortion clinic access: EBSCOhost

” Group Against Proposed Toledo Law On Abortion Clinic Access: Ebscohost .” Web.b.ebscohost.com. N. p., 2017. Web. 27 Sept. 2017.

EDITORIAL: It’s a crime scene, not a ‘protest’: EBSCOhost

” EDITORIAL: It’s A Crime Scene, Not A ‘Protest’: Ebscohost .” Web.b.ebscohost.com. N. p., 2017. Web. 27 Sept. 2017.

 

Can we trust the news social media?

There are so many examples for “fake news”, from theWeekend Update” from Saturday Night Live to The daily show, from BuzzFeed to  Political Cartoons.  We only like to read stories that have an eye-catching headline but does the story have facts to back them up or is it “fake news” that don’t have the facts?  Web sites make eye-catching headlines for us to click on them, they get money off every time someone clicks on that article. This is called “click bait”. So if companies make money off us clicking on their articles can we really trust them? Freedom of the Press is one of the most important parts of our country, we look to social media to inform us of new issues, and to keep a record of the events that happened and also know what’s going to happen. People go to social media before they do something rational. So is News on social media protected by the press?

On November 23, 2016, Noah Feldman stated that it’s a lot more expensive to generate true news stories than false ones. News requires reporting and research and institutional structures like editors and fact checkers to support them. On Chicago Tribune on December 6, 2016, Clarence Page(3) stated that Entertainment typically sells better than news. News people are limited to reporting reality. Fake news can be as unfair and unbalanced. It doesn’t help that our president calls CNN “Fake news. A lot of people would agree with President Trump because he is a leader.  News on the media it can change or damage your reputation if someone calls you out on that article saying that you published “fake news”. So is news on social media protected by the press?