Online Student Speech

It is said that millennials are unlike any other generation then world has ever seen. We were raised on high speed, instant access, and the ability to stay connected to nearly everyone we have ever meet. With the ability to post everything we ever think, and to let people into our lives so readily, it is no surprise that online speech is a hot topic. Not just any online speech, but how students should use online speech. In December of 2013 federal appeals court issues a significant ruling on student online speech. The 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the expulsion of a student who was accused of making a threatening online statement. In this case Wynar v. Douglas County School District Nevada high school student messages, “presented a real risk of significant disruption to school activities and interfered with the rights of other students”. He claimed that the messages that he sent were just jokes to his friend where they would talk about guns and, “shooting people on the anniversary of the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres”. One of Wynar’s friends expressed concern to their football coach, and Wynar was eventually suspended for 90 days.

This opinion is important to and has set the path for student speech in a few different ways. First it shows us that there is a very big debate, and almost an even split, on student speech when they are off campus. The 9^th Circuit Court noted in their argument about how divided The Court was during the Tinker case as well. It is hard to draw the line about how far students are allowed to go when speaking about school in an off campus setting. The opinion is also important because it “relies in part on the oft-ignored prong or the Tinker test”. This meaning that school have the right to limit student speech if it interferes with the rights of other students.  It also shows us the First Amendment applies even when there is expression of violence. “School officials must take care not to overreact and to take into account the creative juices and often startling writings of the students”.

This case stood out to me, because I very much sit on both sides of the fence on this one. As a person wanting to work with kids who show signs of being mass murders and arsonist, it is really hard for me to agree with the court saying that school should not overreact. It is a fact that, children especially, give signs of being unstable or “abnormal”. The only way to stop that act of violence is to know the signs and get that person help. At the same time, he could have just been upset and angry with the school for something, and did not think about what he was posting. I think rather than giving the him 90 days suspension, they should have him working with a counselor because his post do show signs of high aggression levels which could led to future anger issues.  

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/federal-appeals-court-issues-significant-ruling-on-student-online-speech

http://edlawinsights.com/2013/09/10/wynar-ninth-circuit-upholds-discipline-of-student-for-off-campus-online-threat-of-school-shooting/

“So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

“So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!” This is a quote from the 1966 film A Man for All Seasons, when Sir Thomas More, played by Paul Scofield, refuses to have one of the antagonists of the story arrested on the grounds of being evil. Scofield says that he gives the devil the benefit of the law so that the same might protect him.

            How often do U.S. citizens think about the possibility of silencing speech in the name of morality and diminishing psychological attacks to other humans? It can be guaranteed that since humans began to live and survive together, there has also been unpopular opinions or even opinions that violated the conception of another human’s rights. This type of speech and opinion remains rampant in our society with racism, religious bigotry, homophobia, and many other types of stereotypes and fear. The Westboro church, renowned for they’re continued hate speech, received threats of cyber assaults by various groups including “Anonymous.”

            Why is the Westboro church’s speech of hate and pain continually protected by the first amendment? And why are assaults on such hated speech not protected? The simple truth is that the government still has no right to punish thoughts. Thoughts are the essence of what make humans more than the common creature of the Earth; they inspire love, hate, evil, and good. While thoughts may be the roots of evil deeds, they are also the birth of good deeds as well. To deny the expression of one and not the other is to make mutilates a human’s ability to not only make a mistake, but more importantly to learn from that mistake. The beauty of human existence is that we are not proscribed for one particular job or existence, rather we are not bound by our physical or mental predispositions, but rather our willingness to engage and redefine ourselves constantly, so that we might become the creatures of great and noble deeds.

            Not only does this right protect those who consider themselves to be good and righteous, but this also allows us to see when there are problems, to try and convince others that they are wrong or to allow for ourselves to be convinced we are wrong. No one can fix a problem that cannot be understood. And understanding comes at the cost of experience and exposure.  

Creationism in the Classroom

Sarah Mallick 

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court rejected to hear the appeal of John Freshwater, an Ohio school teacher who was fired for teaching creationism. Creationism is defined as “the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.” Greater steps must be taken to ensure that creationism/intelligent design theory ought not to be promulgated in public schools since it’s a religious doctrine.  Currently there is no federal ban on creationism by the Supreme Court.

In  1987, Edwards v. Aguilar, the Supreme Court decided that Louisiana’s Creationism Act—which prohibited evolution from being taught, unless creationism was equally taught—was unconstitutional. The 7-2 majority opinion, Justice Brennan wrote the majority opinion, saying the Creationism Act “does not enhance the freedom of teachers to teach what they choose and fails to further the goal of "teaching all of the evidence." ... The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind.”

This certainly was a step in the right direction, because it permitted schools to teach what was endorsed by science, effectively saying that evolutionary theory was not a religious ideal whereas creationism was. 

However creationists skirted around Edwards by altering their language. Unlike creationism, intelligent design simply removed the biblical element; it’s defined as “the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity”.  In Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, it was decided by the U.S. District Court of Pennsylvania that intelligent design theory was a form of creationism that violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. Scientists criticized intelligent design theory saying it has no factual basis whatsoever, and it’s motives were purely political/religious—therefore it shouldn’t be taught in schools.

 I personally feel that teaching creationism/intelligent design theory undermines the fundamentals of science—testing that which is observable. Not only that, but it’s an embarrassment to the U.S.; we are trailing behind other nations in scientific education, ranking 27^th. One can argue that teaching creationism in the classroom undermines future success and well being, and it is time for the Supreme Court to act. We need to follow the footsteps of the UK—they’ve banned teaching any form of creationism in their public schools and are ranked 13^th in the world. Why is the Supreme Court so reluctant to take on cases about intelligent design theory or creationism? Until a federal law is in place that ensures science should only teach what is scientifically observable, intelligent design theory and creationism will be a disservice to our children.

Sources: 

http://www.inquisitr.com/1535156/supreme-court-says-firing-of-creationist-science-teacher-justified/ 
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/06/teaching-creationism-as-science-now-banned-in-all-uk-public-schools/
http://www.businessinsider.com/pisa-rankings-2013-12
http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism

Freedoms of Expression Found in Music, New and Old

Mary Kate Fitzpatrick

           Freedoms of expression can come in many forms, but for me, the most engaging and thought provoking design comes through music. I love when music tells a story, or considers something real. Songs like “Hurricane” By Bob Dylan and “American Pie” By Don Mclean are so much more than a good hook and catchy lyrics. They are songs that speak to us about social issues in a way the news media simply cannot.  Stephen Stills of Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, and Buffalo Springfield have perfected this art of song writing.

Known most notably for the song “For What It’s Worth”, in 2013 Stills received an award at the American Music Association Honors and Awards show in recognition of the power of free speech set to music. While “For What It’s Worth” is seen widely as a protest song, it speaks about the confrontation between young people and police on the Sunset Strip. The song “Ohio” performed by Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young (written by Neil Young) was another installment of a politically driven song aimed at the government for the brutal killings of four students at Kent State University. On the heels of the Vietnam War, the freedoms granted in the First Amendment allow these songs of social issues and injustices to be written and distributed to the masses, creating a critical critique of America at that time.

            Music in 2014 is not much different. There are more genres now, and many more outlets to receive new music through, but to me, the songs worth listening to are still ones with a message. The genres rap and hip-hop are now seen as a controversial sect of music, and often criticized and censored. Certain lyrics might be brash and insensitive, but these artists often come from a place where life is brash and insensitive. Just as Stephen Stills wrote about wartime oppression, rappers now are discussing inequalities of race and the tensions that come with it. In 2007, on the tail of Don Imus and his racial slur “nappy headed ho’s” rap and hip-hop also became targets in the scandal. Oprah Winfrey spoke out, urging the genre to re –think its use of the words “ho” and “bitch”. As a woman searching for equality among my peers, I may not agree with the use of these words, but I can appreciate the music as a form of art.  

The argument over rap and hip-hop always reverts back to controversy in the lyrics, whether it is over misogynistic views, or the discussion of drugs and violence. But the question shouldn’t be whether or not to censor these artists; the question should be whether or not one supports their music as consumers. Major radio stations already bleep out any words deemed offensive for broadcast, and it is ultimately the consumer’s decision to ignore or support an artist or song.

             However different the lyrics found in rap and hip-hop may be when compared to lyrics written by Stephen Stills does not make a difference. It is still music, and if it is especially good music it has a message. Rap music is completely American and uprooted by social injustices. Creating music is another way to critique the government and the society we live in, a fruitful action necessary for the advancement of our freedoms and civil liberties.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/stephen-stills-honored-for-free-speech-through-music

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/arts/music/25hiph.html?pagewanted=all

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/03/the-conflicn-between-rap-lyrics-as-criminal-evidence-and-the-first-amendment/

Sticking it to the Man

There is a thin line between protected speech and unprotected speech when it comes to telling off the police. Cursing at police could be ruled as unprotected speech and land you in jail because your words are viewed at “fighting words.” The United States Supreme Court defined fighting words in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire as words “which by their utterance inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Fighting words are some of the few categories of unprotected speech. This definition is very broad and has come to mean words confined to personally abusive epithets conveyed face-to-face where the audience or target of the speech is likely to swing back. An article about telling police to f*** off explores different cases of civilians cussing at the police and their legal outcome. The case against Thomas G. Smith was thrown out after the judge threw out the case because his words did not constitute fighting words. Smith wrote, “Fuck the fucking cops they ant shit but fucking racist basturds” on the local police department’s Facebook page. Most cases of being arrested for cussing out police officers are found unlawful; it still is a slippery slope.

However, for minors, it seems to be a little clearer cut. In an article Middle-Schooler T.W. was arrested September 2010. Police officers were investigating a fight among middle-school students. T.W. was making obscene gestures when they arrived and refused to cooperate or answer questions and walked away from the officers. They arrested her and subsequently she unleashed a torrent of profanity at them. The court stated that her words were considered fighting words and therefore not protected. This verdict indicates the more difficult time juveniles have in proving their words protected than adults do.

It is hopeful to see cops being put to a higher level of tolerance for people’s words. Where would we be if we were all highly respectful of police officers and never questioned their actions? There may be a more respectful way of communicating with police officers than cussing at them but in the heat of the moment, people should be allowed to mumble their grievances. As long our words do not incite a crowd to take action against the police officers, it is nice that the police are not civil servant gods. Even though my words may be protected, I do not think I will be cussing out any police officers any time soon.

The Media and Ferguson Police- Jacob Wierson

Since the Michael Brown shooting in early August, the tensions that have begun in Ferguson have further extended to the greater St. Louis area, and have only worsened in recent weeks. The racial divide between White and African- Americans has increased greatly, and the issue of police brutality has been under intense scrutiny. Since the shooting in Ferguson occurred, swarms of television and radio stations have swept into St. Louis, trying to cover every angle and every incident that happens. However, the relationship with the police and the media has been poor, with police trying to force the press out of the situation, preventing journalists from retrieving the truth.

In recent weeks, there seems to have been a war between the press and the police in St. Louis. For example, journalists from Al-Jazeera were covering the protests in Ferguson when police officers laced them with tear-gas, even after the journalists were yelling “press!” KSDK reporters were ordered to leave an area in Ferguson by armed police officers for covering the story. Two reporters from the Washington Post and the Huffington Post were arrested at a local McDonald’s because they were simply charging their equipment in the fast-food restaurant. A policeman slammed one of the reporters on the glass window of the McDonald’s and apologized sarcastically. All of this brutality towards the media from police is aimed to censor what is truly going on in Ferguson. This, however, is in direct contradiction to the First Amendment.

The First Amendment defends the freedom of the press. This means that the press is allowed to produce and report on almost anything without the fear of government intervention or censorship. However, that is exactly what was happening in Ferguson. Police were targeting members of the press, trying to prevent their work from being published. However, what the police were doing to the journalists was wrong for two very crucial reasons. First of all, the press, as mentioned above, has the right to report on the Ferguson shooting. That is their job, and the First Amendment undoubtedly protects this. Second, preventing the press from covering this historical event prevents Americans from learning the truth as well as analyzing the situation from all angles. Both are crucial to the structure of American democracy and both should be protected. 

Sources:

First Amendment Center Source

USA Today Source

Citizen journalists' rights of free speech

Rights of free speech for citizen journalists:

Analysis of Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox

The Internet has been regarded as breaking down the distinctions between audiences and information producers. With various platforms, like social media and blogs, people are able to publish information or news to the public. “Citizen journalist” was generated in the blog era, so that it is not a new term currently when considering the newer things that have been generated with the development of Internet. Citizens are now unconsciously or intentionally play the role as journalists when they publish contents through the Internet. Therefore, it is important to understand the rights of citizen journalists, who are not affiliated to professional media institutions.

Justice White wrote in Branzburg v. Hayes case that “Freedom of the press is a ‘fundamental personal right’ which ‘is not confined to newspapers and periodicals.” In this sense, journalists have the freedom to speech to the public no matter what institutions they are work for. In other words, journalists’ rights determine the levels of freedom of the press, because Journalists are the constituents of the media. Journalists have some specific rights regarding freedom of speech, like the right to protect sources. But as for citizen journalists in the digital world, their rights for speaking and publishing news are still under discussion.

Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox is an in-progress case includes the discussion about whether bloggers should have the same right as professional journalists. Cox posted several blogs to accuse group founders’ corruption and fraudulent conduction. But Obsidian and other cofounders claimed that Cox’s words defame them and resulted in economic loss for their company. Cox lost this case in 2011 because the United States District Court for the District of Oregon thought Cox was not a journalist, so that her speech was not protected by Oregon media shield law. In January 2014, Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox case was partly reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court, which remanded a new trial. Justices in the Ninth Circuit Court applied New York Times Co. v. Sullivan: officials must prove “actual malice” when they think journalists’ defamatory reports hurt them. Actual malice means journalists’ defamatory statements contain “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” So, here is the question, whether Cox should be regarded as a journalist and require Obsidian to prove her negligence for her blog posts? The Supreme Court accurately clarified in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that “with the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media . . . the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.” Therefore, it is safe to say that the Internet grants its users the rights of free speech as journalists.

The importance of Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox case is not only located at protecting bloggers’ speech but also undermining authorities’ possible control of information. Specifically, government might differentiate traditional journalists and amateur journalists “without mainstream affiliation,” aiming at controlling the message of specific events to be produced and delivered as they want (Ingram, 2011). For instance, Chinese government licensing journalists working in traditional media is the same purpose as control information. Just this week, journalists from news websites were licensed in China. This is a big thing in Chinese media because only journalists working at traditional media were licensed in the past. However, I do not sure the key purpose of this new policy is to empower journalists of news websites, or to exert more control to information on news websites.