Students of Our Nation

What rights of free speech do students have?

Do the same basic constitutional rights apply in a classroom setting? Or does this call for some deciphering of the First Amendment?

The answer to these questions are more difficult than simply 'yes' or 'no'. This is because rulings and results vary upon each case. Either way, constitutional rights and codes of conduct are two seperate things, and are topics that should be addressed within schools. I believe that if school staff and authorities can clearly differentiate and teach these ideas, many cases that have reached the Supreme Court could have easily been avoided. Not only that, but I found that many of the cases were in regards to sexual or verbal harrassment. So, if a clear line between a proper code of conduct and exercising our rights can be established, bullying and harassment would diminish. Also, school authorities would know how to properly handle cases where the rights of students are being abused.

I recently found an article that listed a number of cases that involved the rights of students. The article, "Mock Trial: A Window to Free Speech and Abilities" argued that students need to have a clear "understanding [of] the nature and history of free speech, as well as developing the skills of effective and thoughtful communication, should be an educational priority in all our schools". I couldn't agree more with this statement, because these cases show the abusement of the First Amendment and students need to understand the difference between effectively communicating their thoughts openly rather than just saying what is on their mind in the name of free speech. Below I provided a list of cases directly from the article. I'm curious to know if you all agree with the outcomes and also if you all think the case shouldn't have even reached the Supreme Court level. Also, I would like to know if you think, in regards to the cases below, if you believe the rights of students were violated.

(To view the photo better I advise to magnify by pressing (ctrl) and (+) at the same time until readable.)

Source(s):

Article: Mock Trial: A Window to Free Speech and Abilities

Pornography

When the freedom of speech is utilized appropriately, it can benefit us in many ways. It can help to get our ideas known, make a change, help fix ongoing issues, allow for open discussion causing more results and ideas to build off of, and so forth. In the last post I focused on how this system can fail us, and today I'm interested in the same idea. I found an article analyzing the stance a woman holds against pornography, stating "that the addiction caused by pornography perpetuates the cycle of abuse against women". I was immediately intrigued and am curious as to what you all think about the topic.

In the article "Why Phyllis Schlafly is Right (But Wrong) About Pornography" by Andrew Koppelman, he speaks on the thoughts of Phyllis Schlafly and how she believes pornography should be suppressed. Schlafly defines pornography as the "degradation of women" and also argues that pornography desensitize men and correlates pornography addiction to violence. I was somewhat baffled by her statement. I do agree that pornography can become degrading and desensitizing to a certain point, but not to the extent in which she claims. She is viewing all pornographic industries as abusive towards their female porn stars, when this usually only occurs in the black market. Not to say it is okay, but it isn't fair to place porn under one label when there are plenty of female porn stars who love what they do and are treated like queens. Another flaw in her argument was that she categorizes porn under strictly man with woman. There were no regards to the many other "choices" or "genres" of pornography that don't even regard women.


Schlafly's argument as to why porn should be suppressed was even more peculiar than her stance alone. She believes that women are dependent on men, so women must suck up to men, this makes the men feel in control, when the women are really controlling the situation. In a nutshell, "it is therefore necessary for a woman to inflame her man's desire by catering to his vanity". I feel like this directly contradicts her take that women should not be made to feel subordinate to men in pornography. Even though her argument as to why is because women need to cater to man's vanity in order to receive his respect.

Her argument makes little sense, but is a substantial topic, nonetheless.

So what does all this have to do with the freedom of speech? The freedom of speech allows pornographic industries to publish what they want. Free speech also allows for Phyllis to publish how she feels about pornographic industries. My question to you is, do you agree with Phyllis or Andrew, the author of the article? Do you believe that pornography should be suppressed? In lieu of my last post, do you think the suppression of pornography would also help with the safety of children?

Source(s):
-Article: Why Phyllis Schlafly is Right (But Wrong) About Pornography

When Free Speech Crosses the Line

I'm proud to be an American.
Where at least I know I'm free.
I'm free to do as I please. I'm free to think the way I do. I'm free to say what I want and say as I feel.
But nothing in life is free.

So where is the line drawn?

Recently, after studying more in depth the thoughts and ideas of George Carlin and how he exercised his freedom of speech and expression, I thought, "Wow! This guy really pushed his limits. He acted as if there were no limit at all, and nearly got away with it!" Carlin being such an animated person, can paint a vivid picture of vulgar words and still get let off easy. This was the case when it came to the "7 Dirty Words" and this is when the freedom of speech did not fail him. This made me curious as to how the freedom of speech has failed and how it can contradict itself.


Although the freedom to say, think, and feel the way we do seems like a beautiful idea, it can become ugly very quickly. Take for instance the younger audience, more specifically, children. Children are the most naive of all age groups and for the majority very curious. With easy accessibility to information on nearly any subject they hold interest in, they are free to explore at their will. Even with regulations as in the Parental Control option with most cable providers, blocking the access to certain sites, locking your system with a password, and so forth, it causes children to stumble across websites, films, literature, etc. that can harm them.

The negative effects the freedom of speech has on the development of children is an idea that was brought to my attention by Amy B. Jordan in her article "Children's Media Policy". When I had begun my research on how the freedom of speech can cause harm rather than help, I was honestly short for ideas. There are some more obvious ones, as in explicit speech and how this can offend certain people. But, I never looked at the matter in such a light as the one Jordan illuminated.

I hadn't realized or stopped to think how the freedom of speech can halter a child's development and cause psychological effects. It seems a bit dramatic, I know. But, think about it when you used to watch films like Chucky or It, it made you terrified of dolls and or clowns. The same idea goes. Although I believe that what children watch should be up to the parents' discretion, the parents are not always available to regulate every single piece of material their child absorbs. Because of this the freedom of speech doesn't have to be altered, but the availability to certain information should be far more regulated.

Source(s):
- Article, "Children's Media Policy"

Carlinesque

"There are some words you can go to jail for! There are some words that we have decided that we just won't say all the time."
                -George Carlin, 7 Dirty Words You Can Never Say On Television

George Carlin was such a versatile person. He could make a statement while making you laugh and you paid attention the entire time whether you agreed with him or not, because he was a say-as-he-pleased type of guy. He was a satiric comedian who told his jokes so well and scripted that he was recognized for his skill by winning 5 Grammy awards. I mention “scripted” because every word uttered on stage was practiced, and purposeful, and a part of his act. What this means is that Carlin was always aware of his audience, bringing  him great success and recognition as a comedian.

He was most known for his jokes about politics, the English language, and religion. In the context of the "7 Dirty Words" or "Filthy Words", the joke was centrally around the 1st Amendment on our freedom of speech. It was a political joke on how there are certain words that we can’t publicly say, but, as it goes, there are exceptions. These exceptions are due to the peculiar way the English language works. For example, there are some words that have dual meanings and in some contexts it’s perfectly non-offensive but on the contrary it can be vulgarly offensive.

Carlin argues that these “offensive” words are not always known because what constitutes as offensive may range from person to person. The meaning of offensive can also vary upon person. Another variable is that the meanings of words are often transforming into something entirely different from its original meaning. As you can see there are many variables that come into play. And that was all part of the joke as well.

The joke caused so much controversy because it was publicly broadcast. When Carlin was first arrested for this act he was let off clean, with the judge declaring that it was his freedom of right so long as he wasn’t causing a disturbance. Apparently, this disturbance was made the day the act aired on WBAI-FM when a father and son sat through Carlin’s segment and were utterly offended.

Once again Carlin found himself facing the system. This time it wasn’t aimed directly at him but directed more to his segment, which was central to the supreme court case FCC v. Pacifica. His material was found indecent but not obscene.  What’s interesting about this case is how much controversy Carlin’s joke caused. Although this was done back in 1973, there are still shows, documentaries, movies, radio segments, social media, billboards, ads, commercials, etc. with vulgar language or material either containing the same words Carlin used, or material suggestive of those words. Yet, these are stilled aired.

The article,  “Children, Indecency and the Perils of Broadcasting: The ‘Scared Straight’ Case”, speaks on this by comparing Pacifica (George Carlin) to the TV documentary show “Scared Straight”. The documentary takes juvenile offenders to penitentiaries to essentially scare them “straight”.  The article argues that “both Carlin and the convicts employed a vocabulary intended to “shock” the listener; both used offensive language repeatedly and deliberately”.  Although this portion of both parties equals out, the results didn’t. Carlin was found indecent by the Supreme Court and “Scared Straight” was not found indecent by the FCC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbZhpf3sQxQ

I provided a link to a segment of Carlin’s “7 Dirty Words” , take a look and let me know what you think. Do you find it offensive? Or is Carlin harmlessly exercising his freedom of speech? If you find this clip offensive, why? And, do you find shows like “Scared Straight” offensive?

Sources:

Article: "Indecency in the 21st Century: Revisiting the Assumptions Underlying the Reguation of Indecent Broadcasting in Light of Empirical Evidence"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbZhpf3sQxQ


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlin

Facebookistan

 

What has a population of over 900 million, coming third after China and India, but unlike China and India isn’t a country? The answers folks is, Facebook. It is a social media site that recently signed on with the Global Network Initiative (GNI). This organization is designed to protect online users’ freedom of expression and privacy. With Facebook’s many and worldwide users, joining with GNI is a great way to assure their members that they are respected and will be treated just as human as if the business were face-to-face. And they did this at such a crucial time for them because they are getting terrible feedback from users whose freedom of expression and privacy were violated.

The article “Ruling Facebookistan”, perfectly executed the idea that online networking and any telecommunication industries need to remember that on the other side of the screen are flesh and blood and we need to be treated with the same humanistic mentality. The article shared an eyewitness’ story of a Taiwanese retired activist whose Facebook account was deleted, along with other Taiwanese activists and politics, the night before the commemoration of the June 4 Tiananmen Square massacre. This immediately ignited conspiracy theories and an uproar. What this means for Facebook is a decrease in users, the loss of users’ trust, a bad rep for their name, and most of all the violation of human rights.

The particular man the article was on, Ho Tsung-hsun, posted an angry blog in response to his deactivation. Tsung-hsun was so upset because he depends on Facebook for networking and for business, without it his connections are cut short. He uses Facebook to pass his ideas, to connect with others who share the same point of view, or even to inform other people of his views.  In any case, this is how many people utilize Facebook, and it is a right we have. Because of this and because of Facebook’s popularity, they need to start exercising our human rights, or they’ll end up Facedown and out of business.  

Sources:
 
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/13/governing_facebookistan