So I’m driving with my cousin Jad tonight. And well we are driving behind this woman who makes a decision. She pulls over, there is a sheriff near her, and tells the sheriff that Jad and I have been harassing her the whole car ride. That we have been honking at her. This made me stop and think.
People value this "freedom of speech" right? If we value it so much why do we constantly abuse it? The government takes away rights at certain times and well that is how it is but now that I think... they may have their reasons. People blatantly lie every day and we get upset when we believe the government doesn't take the people seriously?
As an Arab I have had the "freedom of speech" used on me many times. Day in and day out it seems that because I’m Arab I have to be plotting to blow something up. One day someone told that to me and I asked... why did you just say that? Their response. "It's freedom of speech."
This phrase echoes through the halls of the capitol building and should be reiterated through sea to shining sea. But people seem to now have forgotten what it has really meant. I have heard many people say mean things just because they are "exercising" their freedom of speech and it is just getting old.
Coming from a family that has not been raised here, the freedom of speech is never a thing we have taken for granted. But coming from many people that have always lived here? It has become a joke.
So I challenge all of you, whoever may read this blog, to stop using that phrase unless it is to express grievances against the government. The freedom was never intended to harass people, to accept the idea of lying, or to impede on the beliefs/ heritage of anyone. As a country our freedom of speech is something we must hold on, something to be proud of. Not a freedom to be abused.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Guilty for saying not guilty
In December 11th news, a Pennsylvania judge cleared four former Pittsburgh-area high school students of harassment for wearing T-shirts with the words "Not Guilty" to school.
The background story was that David Hood of Penn Hills High School argued with a girl about prom expenses. That girl then filed a harassment charge against Hood. Leonard Hromyak, the judge in the case, stated he would dismiss the case provided that Hood stayed out of trouble for 60 days. Hood got into trouble the next day when he, his twin brother, and two friends wore shirts with “Not Guilty” messages on them. As a result all four students were suspended by school officials, and found guilty of harassment by Hromyak. In addition, Hood wasn’t allowed to attend prom or graduate.
The judge’s mishandling of his duties and responsibilities to the First Amendment is almost laughable, if it weren’t for the fact that four students were seriously screwed over, so to say. First off, I’m not an expert on how the lower courts work or even the details of our justice system for the matter. Nonetheless, I think it’s strange that the judge included a “clause” for dismissal of the harassment charge—namely that Hood had to “stay out of trouble for 60 days.” Maybe I’m just ignorant of how things work, but if the harassment charge isn’t legitimate, it should be addressed impartial of Hood’s other independent actions.
It goes without saying that even with the “don’t-get-in-trouble” clause in place; he should’ve never gotten in trouble for exercising his freedom of speech. Wearing a shirt that says “Not guilty” would be just as illegal as wearing a shirt with a Nike slogan, or a shirt saying “I like free food.” In other words, the judge totally got it wrong. There have been complaints of “Islam is of the Devil” shirts worn to school before, and in such cases the defendants were protected under the Freedom of Speech. Keep in mind that we’re talking about the slandering of an entire religion here. In Hood’s case his worst crime was apparently stating his belief that he was innocent. How is that any different or any more illegal than if he said out loud to his friends, “I’m not guilty”?
Fortunately, the students won an appeal on December 9th, and their convictions were overturned. This is a well-deserved redemption for four kids who had their First Amendment rights completely ignored and had to suffer for it.
Siyang Liu
The background story was that David Hood of Penn Hills High School argued with a girl about prom expenses. That girl then filed a harassment charge against Hood. Leonard Hromyak, the judge in the case, stated he would dismiss the case provided that Hood stayed out of trouble for 60 days. Hood got into trouble the next day when he, his twin brother, and two friends wore shirts with “Not Guilty” messages on them. As a result all four students were suspended by school officials, and found guilty of harassment by Hromyak. In addition, Hood wasn’t allowed to attend prom or graduate.
The judge’s mishandling of his duties and responsibilities to the First Amendment is almost laughable, if it weren’t for the fact that four students were seriously screwed over, so to say. First off, I’m not an expert on how the lower courts work or even the details of our justice system for the matter. Nonetheless, I think it’s strange that the judge included a “clause” for dismissal of the harassment charge—namely that Hood had to “stay out of trouble for 60 days.” Maybe I’m just ignorant of how things work, but if the harassment charge isn’t legitimate, it should be addressed impartial of Hood’s other independent actions.
It goes without saying that even with the “don’t-get-in-trouble” clause in place; he should’ve never gotten in trouble for exercising his freedom of speech. Wearing a shirt that says “Not guilty” would be just as illegal as wearing a shirt with a Nike slogan, or a shirt saying “I like free food.” In other words, the judge totally got it wrong. There have been complaints of “Islam is of the Devil” shirts worn to school before, and in such cases the defendants were protected under the Freedom of Speech. Keep in mind that we’re talking about the slandering of an entire religion here. In Hood’s case his worst crime was apparently stating his belief that he was innocent. How is that any different or any more illegal than if he said out loud to his friends, “I’m not guilty”?
Fortunately, the students won an appeal on December 9th, and their convictions were overturned. This is a well-deserved redemption for four kids who had their First Amendment rights completely ignored and had to suffer for it.
Siyang Liu
Protecting Your Image, or Making It Worse?
Two writers for “The Breeze” student publication were charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct, and non-compliance at Hillside Hall, an on-campus dormitory of James Madison University , by the Office of Judicial Affairs. The writers simply wanted to interview some students about a story that had been going around involving a “peeping Tom”. It is their right to pursue this information within legal boundaries
The two journalists simply went to the residence hall to talk to students about the “peeping Tom” incident that had occurred recently. The journalists followed the necessary guidelines so that they would be allowed into the hall and could continue their investigation within the required rules of the university residence hall manual.
One of the interviewers questioned the students outside of the hall, and then requested that they accompany her inside. Later, a resident advisor asked the reporter to leave. The interviewer then brought in her partner, and eventually a resident they were familiar with to clear up any misunderstandings, but the residence hall director still threatened to call the police.
This is a very blatant disregard for freedom of the press. The student journalists behaved within the rules and boundaries set by the Resident Advisors of the dormitory. The RAs had no right to threaten the students with a police call. The reporters were not doing anything wrong and they were following the rules of the residency hall manual.
The RA had no reason to crack down on the students for conducting interviews.
The RA was attempting to censor the journalists to prevent the dormitory from looking bad, so they sought to scare the students away with an unjustified threat of incarceration. This is a major violation of the first amendment and the right to freedom of the press.
Nick Hobbs
The two journalists simply went to the residence hall to talk to students about the “peeping Tom” incident that had occurred recently. The journalists followed the necessary guidelines so that they would be allowed into the hall and could continue their investigation within the required rules of the university residence hall manual.
One of the interviewers questioned the students outside of the hall, and then requested that they accompany her inside. Later, a resident advisor asked the reporter to leave. The interviewer then brought in her partner, and eventually a resident they were familiar with to clear up any misunderstandings, but the residence hall director still threatened to call the police.
This is a very blatant disregard for freedom of the press. The student journalists behaved within the rules and boundaries set by the Resident Advisors of the dormitory. The RAs had no right to threaten the students with a police call. The reporters were not doing anything wrong and they were following the rules of the residency hall manual.
The RA had no reason to crack down on the students for conducting interviews.
The RA was attempting to censor the journalists to prevent the dormitory from looking bad, so they sought to scare the students away with an unjustified threat of incarceration. This is a major violation of the first amendment and the right to freedom of the press.
Nick Hobbs
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Don't Sugar-Coat It
Story by Lucy Farmer
Fused staff writer
McPherson High School’s staff at The High Life in Kansas wrote an article about two pregnant teenagers at the school. The newspaper’s advisor, Todd Brittingham, cut the story from the second issue of The High Life. He assumed that he had the right to remove articles that he felt were too controversial. The issue came out with a blank center spread that was initially meant for the story about the two girls.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Wentling produced a statement to be published in the third issue explaining the blank spread and emphasizing the rights of student journalists.
“I respect the administration’s decision to withdraw the content of the page from the newspaper, however…a free student press is essential to maintaining a healthy democracy…we have an obligation to serve as a voice for the student body” said Wentling.
The High Life wanted to produce an article that dealt with issues regarding their student body. They gave a voice to two teenage girls who were going through something very difficult and very personal. This was not an easy thing to talk about, read about, or write about. If the press only covered sugar-coated truths, the world would be a very dark and ignorant place.
Brittingham is an example of the kind of authority figure that has the power to take control of the press without any questions being asked. High school journalists are faced with this issue everyday. Unlike independent papers, the school newspaper will always be in the shadow of the administration. It is the staff’s responsibility to not allow this to be a hindrance.
In order for a high school newspaper to be successful, the students involved need to be in control of their own rights. It is crucial that they do not lose their voice. The representation of the student body is very important and the opportunity to give a voice to any group of people should never be wasted.
Fused staff writer
McPherson High School’s staff at The High Life in Kansas wrote an article about two pregnant teenagers at the school. The newspaper’s advisor, Todd Brittingham, cut the story from the second issue of The High Life. He assumed that he had the right to remove articles that he felt were too controversial. The issue came out with a blank center spread that was initially meant for the story about the two girls.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Wentling produced a statement to be published in the third issue explaining the blank spread and emphasizing the rights of student journalists.
“I respect the administration’s decision to withdraw the content of the page from the newspaper, however…a free student press is essential to maintaining a healthy democracy…we have an obligation to serve as a voice for the student body” said Wentling.
The High Life wanted to produce an article that dealt with issues regarding their student body. They gave a voice to two teenage girls who were going through something very difficult and very personal. This was not an easy thing to talk about, read about, or write about. If the press only covered sugar-coated truths, the world would be a very dark and ignorant place.
Brittingham is an example of the kind of authority figure that has the power to take control of the press without any questions being asked. High school journalists are faced with this issue everyday. Unlike independent papers, the school newspaper will always be in the shadow of the administration. It is the staff’s responsibility to not allow this to be a hindrance.
In order for a high school newspaper to be successful, the students involved need to be in control of their own rights. It is crucial that they do not lose their voice. The representation of the student body is very important and the opportunity to give a voice to any group of people should never be wasted.
Photos of Shirtless males cut from yearbook by principal's orders
The principle of Chattooga High School in Summerville Georgia, had ordered four pages to be cut out of the 2009 yearbook, because there were photographs of shirtless males playing basketball that he said were inappropriate.
When I first read this I was thinking did they really pull four pages out of a yearbook because some guys didn’t have shirts on??
“She looked at (the book), saw the pictures, brought it to my attention and removed them,” Lenderman said, speaking on behalf of the adviser. “They did not represent the way we want our school portrayed, and the way the community values itself. If it was my son or daughter, it would not be something I would want in there. This is a course for the students.”
The photos of the men were part of a “summer activities” spread for the student life section. It was routinely hard to get the photos; they need to be taken over the summer when school is not in session. The student that took these was able to take pictures of his classmates playing basketball in a church gym. “I was with them playing basketball,” Barker said. “I had the camera with me so I just started taking pictures.”
I would have done the same thing if I was at an open gym for gymnastics and had my camera I would start taking photos to.
Barker who took the photos was upset so he decided to ask why they removed the photos. The new yearbook advisor told him that in one of the photos a male student was smiling and holding a cell phone and dollar bills, which had drug-related implications.
The page removal caused a number of complaints; the yearbook staff got a number of e-mails from angry students. It wasn’t the yearbook’s fault that the photos got pulled, so the student’s shouldn’t be upset with them.
“Everyone who’s seen them says there is nothing offensive here,” Perry said. “If you look back at all the yearbooks over the years, we’ve always had shirtless boys in them. And this year’s book also had some pictures from the chorus musical, and there were some shirtless boys in that play, and their pictures were in the yearbook.” Perry scanned all four of the missing photos of the book and posted them on his Facebook account for his students to see.
I think the whole thing was really dumb. I do not get how shirtless guys holding a cell phone and dollar bills would implicate drugs in any way. If they didn’t want shirtless males in the yearbook maybe they should have said something before hand, so they would know not to take shirtless photos. I think if they let the musical have a photo with a shirtless guy they should let some guy’s hanging out in the summer playing basketball. It would be just like if the yearbook staff took photos of the school basketball team practicing, or if they got photos of the gym class when they did a swimming lesson. I think it was a poorly made choice, especially for the photographer. He worked hard trying to get photos during the summer so that hey students at the school will have a nice yearbook. I think this is a terrible thing that happened and they should try and avoid it next time, maybe have better communication with the yearbook staff because they are the ones doing all the work.
Lindsay McKnight
When I first read this I was thinking did they really pull four pages out of a yearbook because some guys didn’t have shirts on??
“She looked at (the book), saw the pictures, brought it to my attention and removed them,” Lenderman said, speaking on behalf of the adviser. “They did not represent the way we want our school portrayed, and the way the community values itself. If it was my son or daughter, it would not be something I would want in there. This is a course for the students.”
The photos of the men were part of a “summer activities” spread for the student life section. It was routinely hard to get the photos; they need to be taken over the summer when school is not in session. The student that took these was able to take pictures of his classmates playing basketball in a church gym. “I was with them playing basketball,” Barker said. “I had the camera with me so I just started taking pictures.”
I would have done the same thing if I was at an open gym for gymnastics and had my camera I would start taking photos to.
Barker who took the photos was upset so he decided to ask why they removed the photos. The new yearbook advisor told him that in one of the photos a male student was smiling and holding a cell phone and dollar bills, which had drug-related implications.
The page removal caused a number of complaints; the yearbook staff got a number of e-mails from angry students. It wasn’t the yearbook’s fault that the photos got pulled, so the student’s shouldn’t be upset with them.
“Everyone who’s seen them says there is nothing offensive here,” Perry said. “If you look back at all the yearbooks over the years, we’ve always had shirtless boys in them. And this year’s book also had some pictures from the chorus musical, and there were some shirtless boys in that play, and their pictures were in the yearbook.” Perry scanned all four of the missing photos of the book and posted them on his Facebook account for his students to see.
I think the whole thing was really dumb. I do not get how shirtless guys holding a cell phone and dollar bills would implicate drugs in any way. If they didn’t want shirtless males in the yearbook maybe they should have said something before hand, so they would know not to take shirtless photos. I think if they let the musical have a photo with a shirtless guy they should let some guy’s hanging out in the summer playing basketball. It would be just like if the yearbook staff took photos of the school basketball team practicing, or if they got photos of the gym class when they did a swimming lesson. I think it was a poorly made choice, especially for the photographer. He worked hard trying to get photos during the summer so that hey students at the school will have a nice yearbook. I think this is a terrible thing that happened and they should try and avoid it next time, maybe have better communication with the yearbook staff because they are the ones doing all the work.
Lindsay McKnight
Communication is Key
By Naama Levy
About two months ago, a student at Stow-Munroe Falls High School, Ohio committed suicide. The student newspaper, The Stowhion was planning on printing an obituary and a photo of the student, as well as a letter sent from the student’s mother to the other students. Doesn’t sound like a very complicated situation; after all it’s a simple routine that newspapers do all the time.
However, a few days before printing, it suddenly seemed necessary to the school principal (who had been okay with this at first) that the obituary and photo be removed from the newspaper. She did not oppose to the letter from the mother, but insisted that the other elements will not be published.
The Stowhion’s advisor then contacted staff members and students to ask if they had anything else they’d like to include in the paper about the victim. Less than 30 minutes later, Schure objected to this too, sending out a letter saying, “We are not doing this”. She said, “I understand that it’s censorship and I’m OK with that.”
This made no sense to the newspaper editor-in-chief, who said that in 2005, the newspaper ran two pages on student suicides with no pressure from the administration, and that The Stowhion has been a public forum for years.
This case is one of many where journalists have been censored and silenced without justified reasons. The principal might argue otherwise, but I think she simply didn’t know what to do and decided the safe way to go would be to forbid the paper to publish the obituary, the photo, and anything other people would send.
The principal was probably afraid because suicides are a touchy subject, so she disregarded the fact that it could bee seen as disrespectful not to run the obituary and the photo. Whatever her thought process was, this is not an acceptable explanation as to why she so blatantly restricted the newspaper from activating its freedom of press.
Even if the principal had reasons to justify the censorship, she lacked the decency to communicate with the newspaper staff and explain her position. Administrators and adults in general sometimes don’t show the right respect for young journalists. A newspaper is one of the few, if not the only place in a high school where teenagers cooperate in a work environment very similar to having a real job, which requires maturity and dedication and comprises of many responsibilities. The principal at Stow-Munroe Falls failed to recognize this and treated the students as kids instead of adults, causing anger and confusion. Although the students might have disagreed with the principal, providing an explanation was the least she could do. Communication is essential in any matter concerning Freedom of Press rights and can eliminate hostility that will only create more conflicts in the future.
Often conflicts associated with freedom of the press, especially at the high school level, are the result of fear of bad reputation and miscommunication. When a sensitive subject comes up, authorities sometimes panic because they don’t know how to deal with it. The most important thing in that situation is communication.
About two months ago, a student at Stow-Munroe Falls High School, Ohio committed suicide. The student newspaper, The Stowhion was planning on printing an obituary and a photo of the student, as well as a letter sent from the student’s mother to the other students. Doesn’t sound like a very complicated situation; after all it’s a simple routine that newspapers do all the time.
However, a few days before printing, it suddenly seemed necessary to the school principal (who had been okay with this at first) that the obituary and photo be removed from the newspaper. She did not oppose to the letter from the mother, but insisted that the other elements will not be published.
The Stowhion’s advisor then contacted staff members and students to ask if they had anything else they’d like to include in the paper about the victim. Less than 30 minutes later, Schure objected to this too, sending out a letter saying, “We are not doing this”. She said, “I understand that it’s censorship and I’m OK with that.”
This made no sense to the newspaper editor-in-chief, who said that in 2005, the newspaper ran two pages on student suicides with no pressure from the administration, and that The Stowhion has been a public forum for years.
This case is one of many where journalists have been censored and silenced without justified reasons. The principal might argue otherwise, but I think she simply didn’t know what to do and decided the safe way to go would be to forbid the paper to publish the obituary, the photo, and anything other people would send.
The principal was probably afraid because suicides are a touchy subject, so she disregarded the fact that it could bee seen as disrespectful not to run the obituary and the photo. Whatever her thought process was, this is not an acceptable explanation as to why she so blatantly restricted the newspaper from activating its freedom of press.
Even if the principal had reasons to justify the censorship, she lacked the decency to communicate with the newspaper staff and explain her position. Administrators and adults in general sometimes don’t show the right respect for young journalists. A newspaper is one of the few, if not the only place in a high school where teenagers cooperate in a work environment very similar to having a real job, which requires maturity and dedication and comprises of many responsibilities. The principal at Stow-Munroe Falls failed to recognize this and treated the students as kids instead of adults, causing anger and confusion. Although the students might have disagreed with the principal, providing an explanation was the least she could do. Communication is essential in any matter concerning Freedom of Press rights and can eliminate hostility that will only create more conflicts in the future.
Often conflicts associated with freedom of the press, especially at the high school level, are the result of fear of bad reputation and miscommunication. When a sensitive subject comes up, authorities sometimes panic because they don’t know how to deal with it. The most important thing in that situation is communication.
For "Meeps" Sake
By Jessi Rannochio
A news channel reported one night last week that Danvers High School parents were all called because students were using the word “meep” and the school wanted to ban the word because they believed it was used in vulgar content.
“It has nothing to do with the word,” Principal Thomas Murray said. “It has to do with the conduct of the students. We wouldn’t just ban a word just to ban a word.”
Murray didn’t continue to say what content the student were using it in but he did say that the kids weren’t using the word to harass or bully other students. He justified the reason for calling the parents as “were an attempt to stop some sort of “disruption” being planned on Facebook.” This Facebook “disruption” never actually occurred though.
The word “Meep” is a sound that Beaker uses on The Muppet Show. It’s not a bad word, its not a vulgar term, so why ban it?
This is the first question I asked myself and the only reason I can think of is that they do it because they can.
When you give someone the power of a principal or a “top dog” then sometimes they get a big head and think they can do what they want. Banning the word “Meep” takes away the student freedom of speech. They should have the right to say “Meep” when ever they want.
DHS newspaper interviews Sophomore Melanie Crane referring to what “Meep” means and she states “No one really knows.”
“Meep” is defined in the Urban Dictionary as “the most versatile word in the English language, or in fact any language” so why ban it?
It really frustrates me when authority takes away minors rights because at this point in our life we just have to take it and accept what they’re saying because we are minors, but I think something need to change and we should be able to always be able to fight back for ourselves. Clearly that’s not always the case.
A news channel reported one night last week that Danvers High School parents were all called because students were using the word “meep” and the school wanted to ban the word because they believed it was used in vulgar content.
“It has nothing to do with the word,” Principal Thomas Murray said. “It has to do with the conduct of the students. We wouldn’t just ban a word just to ban a word.”
Murray didn’t continue to say what content the student were using it in but he did say that the kids weren’t using the word to harass or bully other students. He justified the reason for calling the parents as “were an attempt to stop some sort of “disruption” being planned on Facebook.” This Facebook “disruption” never actually occurred though.
The word “Meep” is a sound that Beaker uses on The Muppet Show. It’s not a bad word, its not a vulgar term, so why ban it?
This is the first question I asked myself and the only reason I can think of is that they do it because they can.
When you give someone the power of a principal or a “top dog” then sometimes they get a big head and think they can do what they want. Banning the word “Meep” takes away the student freedom of speech. They should have the right to say “Meep” when ever they want.
DHS newspaper interviews Sophomore Melanie Crane referring to what “Meep” means and she states “No one really knows.”
“Meep” is defined in the Urban Dictionary as “the most versatile word in the English language, or in fact any language” so why ban it?
It really frustrates me when authority takes away minors rights because at this point in our life we just have to take it and accept what they’re saying because we are minors, but I think something need to change and we should be able to always be able to fight back for ourselves. Clearly that’s not always the case.
Freedom
November 25
Illinois—Students of Lincolnshire’s Stevenson High School were restricted from printing their November 20th issue. Stevenson’s administration prevented distribution of the issue due to three articles they deemed not “fit to print.” Three articles, one on drug use, one on teen pregnancy, and one on shoplifting were forbidden from being included in the November issue of The Statesman.
“This is nothing but a power game of administrators trying to ‘show the kids whose boss’,” said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center.
Pamela Selman, editor-in-chief of The Statesman, said that if she were to allow a prior review of the paper to the administration, they would require her name who her anonymous sources were. Selman granted anonymity to sources in the article about drug abuse to encourage students to speak up about what was going on around them.
Stevenson High School’s administration is jeopardizing student’s first amendment rights. By preventing the publication of an issue, the administration is stripping students of their right to free speech. This is clearly a breach of our nation’s most important rights.
“It’s truly sad that Stevenson High School is run by people who operate under the principle of ‘what’s the worst thing we can do to our students and get away with it under the law,’ rather than what’s best for the student’s education,” said LoMonte.
The school claims to have not denied the publication of the issue on the grounds of damaging their reputation. If not for this reason, then why would the school be so intent on cancelling the issue? It is clear that Stevenson High School’s administration was intent on barring distribution of The Statesman due to concerns over how the public would receive the articles within.
The right to free speech is always in effect. It is a right that is unconditional. It is a crime that Stevenson’s administration is attempting to thwart the rights of students to freely speak their mind.
--Michael Moates
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Ten-year-old refuses to stand for pledge
Written by: William Liao
Will Phillips, is a fifth grader at West Fork Elementary in Washington County, Ark. Phillips is a perfectly intelligent kid having successfully skipped a grade, even more so, he has a clear outlook on his future and wants to be a lawyer.
With all this in mind, Phillips decided not to conform to what the many students of his school do: the pledge of allegiance. He stood for his rights and chose not to stand for the pledge of allegiance. Instead of blindly reciting the pledge, he firmly believes that there isn't "currently justice and liberty for all." He spoke of this in regards to the lack of rights for gays and lesbians.
As a consequence of Phillips' decision, he was punished by his teacher, and was forced to engage in a parent-teacher conference. The dispute eventually escalated into a court case, challenging his right to not stand for the pledge of the allegiance.
So what's there to say about all of this? Does Phillips have the right to choose not to stand for the pledge? The answer is simple, and the answer is yes. He has bound by the constitution in that he is to have his own beliefs and opinions. While the United States does not currently offer rights to gays and lesbians, he is exempt from such complications as he himself isn't gay.
I find that, furthermore, on a more stretched basis, viewing humanity as itself: we as humans are entitled the right to not conform to a practice so long as it does not inflict deliberate harm one another. Also, we as people are entitled to our own opinion. Phillips' actions have run parallel precisely to his "natural-born" right, and as a consequence Phillips has not committed any wrong-doing in his decision to not conform to the pledge of allegiance.
Speaking strictly in constitutional terms, Phillips has not committed any sort of crime either. He simply utilized his rights defined solely by the constitution.He expressed his own opinion, stood for what he believed in, and he didn’t create any harm in doing so either.
The sum of all this leads to one clear, simple conclusion: There is no reason Phillips should have been penalized for his actions (or rather inaction in this case), as he clearly expressed and utilized his rights as a free human being.
Will Phillips, is a fifth grader at West Fork Elementary in Washington County, Ark. Phillips is a perfectly intelligent kid having successfully skipped a grade, even more so, he has a clear outlook on his future and wants to be a lawyer.
With all this in mind, Phillips decided not to conform to what the many students of his school do: the pledge of allegiance. He stood for his rights and chose not to stand for the pledge of allegiance. Instead of blindly reciting the pledge, he firmly believes that there isn't "currently justice and liberty for all." He spoke of this in regards to the lack of rights for gays and lesbians.
As a consequence of Phillips' decision, he was punished by his teacher, and was forced to engage in a parent-teacher conference. The dispute eventually escalated into a court case, challenging his right to not stand for the pledge of the allegiance.
So what's there to say about all of this? Does Phillips have the right to choose not to stand for the pledge? The answer is simple, and the answer is yes. He has bound by the constitution in that he is to have his own beliefs and opinions. While the United States does not currently offer rights to gays and lesbians, he is exempt from such complications as he himself isn't gay.
I find that, furthermore, on a more stretched basis, viewing humanity as itself: we as humans are entitled the right to not conform to a practice so long as it does not inflict deliberate harm one another. Also, we as people are entitled to our own opinion. Phillips' actions have run parallel precisely to his "natural-born" right, and as a consequence Phillips has not committed any wrong-doing in his decision to not conform to the pledge of allegiance.
Speaking strictly in constitutional terms, Phillips has not committed any sort of crime either. He simply utilized his rights defined solely by the constitution.He expressed his own opinion, stood for what he believed in, and he didn’t create any harm in doing so either.
The sum of all this leads to one clear, simple conclusion: There is no reason Phillips should have been penalized for his actions (or rather inaction in this case), as he clearly expressed and utilized his rights as a free human being.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
First Amendment Ignored by Stevenson High School Administration
by Belle Kim
In yet another blatant disregard of the First Amendment by a school administration, staff members of the Stevenson High School student newspaper Statesmen were forced to publish an issue composed of only administration-approved content.
The issue originated when Editor-in-Chief Pamela Selmon submitted for prior review a front-page article discussing the school's substance-abuse contracts. Because the number of student leaders who had broken the contract of no-drugs-or-alcohol appeared to have greatly increased, the topic had been deemed newsworthy. However, it would also be a topic that students would be reluctant to speak about. Thus, the reporter and editor granted their sources anonymity.
The school administration refused to allow the publication of the story, unless the sources were named. When the staff members chose to remove the article and distribute the issue with a blank front page, the administrative review board refused to allow the issue to print with the blank space, and also censored two other stories in the newspaper covering teen pregnancy and shoplifting. In protest, the staff requested to remove their bylines from the published stories and to include an editor's note explaining the circumstances under which the article was published. Both requests were denied. These students are now being represented by Chicago attorney Gabriel Fuentes through the SPLC's volunteer attorney referral network.
It seems ridiculous that the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no laws...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," is only applicable in the real word and not in schools. The experiences that we have in high school supposed to prepare us for the real world. And in the real world, in the United States, a journalist has a right to cover newsworthy stories without fear of censorship or persecution from the government.
Shouldn't this right apply to the journalists of Stevenson High School, as well?
The school administration failed to do its job: to promote education and to act for the general welfare of the students. The staff of the newspaper had every right to publish the article, and the student body had every right to know the information that went into the paper.
Instead, the administration overlooked its students' rights, deeming that a higher priority would be to protect the school reputation by pulling the issue. But by choosing to do so, the administration only managed to bring more negative attention to itself and to Stevenson High School than could ever have been placed upon them, had the issue been published.
What, really, is the point of censorship? What does it accomplish? What does it show?
Only one answer can be found to these questions: that narrow-minded school administrators are willing to blatantly ignore the freedom of speech and press for its students.
In yet another blatant disregard of the First Amendment by a school administration, staff members of the Stevenson High School student newspaper Statesmen were forced to publish an issue composed of only administration-approved content.
The issue originated when Editor-in-Chief Pamela Selmon submitted for prior review a front-page article discussing the school's substance-abuse contracts. Because the number of student leaders who had broken the contract of no-drugs-or-alcohol appeared to have greatly increased, the topic had been deemed newsworthy. However, it would also be a topic that students would be reluctant to speak about. Thus, the reporter and editor granted their sources anonymity.
The school administration refused to allow the publication of the story, unless the sources were named. When the staff members chose to remove the article and distribute the issue with a blank front page, the administrative review board refused to allow the issue to print with the blank space, and also censored two other stories in the newspaper covering teen pregnancy and shoplifting. In protest, the staff requested to remove their bylines from the published stories and to include an editor's note explaining the circumstances under which the article was published. Both requests were denied. These students are now being represented by Chicago attorney Gabriel Fuentes through the SPLC's volunteer attorney referral network.
It seems ridiculous that the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no laws...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," is only applicable in the real word and not in schools. The experiences that we have in high school supposed to prepare us for the real world. And in the real world, in the United States, a journalist has a right to cover newsworthy stories without fear of censorship or persecution from the government.
Shouldn't this right apply to the journalists of Stevenson High School, as well?
The school administration failed to do its job: to promote education and to act for the general welfare of the students. The staff of the newspaper had every right to publish the article, and the student body had every right to know the information that went into the paper.
Instead, the administration overlooked its students' rights, deeming that a higher priority would be to protect the school reputation by pulling the issue. But by choosing to do so, the administration only managed to bring more negative attention to itself and to Stevenson High School than could ever have been placed upon them, had the issue been published.
What, really, is the point of censorship? What does it accomplish? What does it show?
Only one answer can be found to these questions: that narrow-minded school administrators are willing to blatantly ignore the freedom of speech and press for its students.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Tiger Woods Can't Hide From The Truth
By Caitlin McCoy
There was much suspicion regarding the incident of Tiger Woods. At 2:25 a.m. Woods crashed into a fire hydrant and a tree. What dragged out this issue for so long is the fact that Woods or his wife, Elin Woods, would not give officers any information. Another reason why this dilemma couldn’t be dropped is because he is a celebrity; one that does not have a bad record. Because of this, investigators want to find the juicy information behind this even more.
Before the definite news came out that Woods had an affair, reporters brainstormed different scenarios of what might have happened. They used the clues, such as the impact of the car to the tree and fire hydrant, to put together a possible story of what went on early that morning. One idea that was conjured up was that Woods backed up and hit a tree to try to escape from his wife who was attacking him (maybe with a golf club) because she was mad at him.
Reporters can only investigate this case to a certain extent. Because he is a celebrity, reporters tend to keep the incident on high radar, maybe higher than is needed. At the same time, Woods would not share any information at first. He has his right to say nothing to reporters. At the same time, he has to face the fact that information will get out. This is because reporters have a right to look into the disagreement Woods and his wife had.
These two forces battling each other, one to keep information from getting out, and the other, trying to get as much information as possible, bring about issues of freedom of speech and freedom of press. The reporters must keep their boundaries and Woods needs to accept that information will get out.
There was much suspicion regarding the incident of Tiger Woods. At 2:25 a.m. Woods crashed into a fire hydrant and a tree. What dragged out this issue for so long is the fact that Woods or his wife, Elin Woods, would not give officers any information. Another reason why this dilemma couldn’t be dropped is because he is a celebrity; one that does not have a bad record. Because of this, investigators want to find the juicy information behind this even more.
Before the definite news came out that Woods had an affair, reporters brainstormed different scenarios of what might have happened. They used the clues, such as the impact of the car to the tree and fire hydrant, to put together a possible story of what went on early that morning. One idea that was conjured up was that Woods backed up and hit a tree to try to escape from his wife who was attacking him (maybe with a golf club) because she was mad at him.
Reporters can only investigate this case to a certain extent. Because he is a celebrity, reporters tend to keep the incident on high radar, maybe higher than is needed. At the same time, Woods would not share any information at first. He has his right to say nothing to reporters. At the same time, he has to face the fact that information will get out. This is because reporters have a right to look into the disagreement Woods and his wife had.
These two forces battling each other, one to keep information from getting out, and the other, trying to get as much information as possible, bring about issues of freedom of speech and freedom of press. The reporters must keep their boundaries and Woods needs to accept that information will get out.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Assembly: the First Amendment's Forgotten Right
by Victoria Ison
“Congress shall make no law respecting…the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government…”
– First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
All the other rights listed in this famous clause are separated by semicolons, or at least by the word “or,” designating them as separate entities worth protecting.
This could have contributed to the confusion in the early nineteenth century. While various branches of the government were still figuring out what the Constitution and its expanding Bill of Rights meant in practical application, the wording of the first amendment in regards to the right of assembly was questioned.
Were the rights of assembly and petition separate? Or was assembly only guaranteed if it came about in the course of petitioning? The former was ultimately decided upon by the Supreme Court and various lesser courts of the nation. Today citizens of the United States understand (or they should) that they have the right to assemble as they please, so long as they do so peaceably.
It’s surprising how truly basic this right to assemble is. It goes hand in hand with religious freedom; the right to practice a belief would be futile for many if they didn’t also have the right to commune with others of the same beliefs.
It’s surprising how truly basic this right to assemble is. It goes hand in hand with religious freedom; the right to practice a belief would be futile for many if they didn’t also have the right to commune with others of the same beliefs.
More commonly, we think of the right to assemble in terms of strikes and protests. Both are essential ways of protecting other freedoms: think labor unions.
Especially in the decades before webcams and online chatting were invented, the significance of the right to assemble together can not be understated. Even today, the ability to talk face to face with another supporter of a cause can boost morale and inspire reformers in a way that technological communication can not.
The right to assemble is the right to unite in a common cause. It is an incredibly easy right to take for granted, but it is a right that can not long be forgotten.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
