Ariel Boehnlein
For You Editor
Recently, in my World History class, we were discussing our rights as American citizens. Our teacher, Pat Walsh, asked us, "besides your First Amendment rights, what rights do you have?"
He was astounded that the room grew silent and not a single person offered up any other right. He asked us why we didn't know our rights, and said that we have other rights just as important. After we discussed our other rights such as the right to vote, the right to have to an attorney, and our rights to our property, we had a test.
The last question on the test asked us to write an essay about what we believed to be our most important right and why. And I know for sure that not everyone talked about their First Amendment rights.
However, for me, it's clear that my First Amendment rights are the most important to me. It's partially because I'm a journalist. I am completely appreciative that my principal and our school newspaper let me publish anything I feel like writing.
With my First Amendment rights I am able to practice any religion I want to, and when I'm this age I do experiment with other beliefs. I will not be prosecuted for my experimentation either, something unheard of in countries such as the ones in the Middle East.
So, although it's good to know that if I am ever arrested, I have the right to an attorney, I know that the rights I use the most are clearly laid out for me in the First Amendment.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Online Blogging Now Deemed Acceptable
Talia Shifron
To You editor, Fused
Last month, student Avery Doninger was expelled from school for posting harsh comments about her principal on her personal online blog. Her first amendment rights were compromised and it was deemed unacceptable for her to post these comments for all to be able to see. The case is now being rethought and a connecticut lawmaker is writing up new plans, as well as a new legislation being introduced to make sure that students cannot be punished for this in the future. It would prohibit Connecticut school authorities from punishing students for anything that they say on their own personal blogs.
It is extremely important that this case was rethought because freedom of speech is one of the most important first amendment rights, and should never be compromised. This student had the complete right to say whatever she wanted to on her own personal blog. While it may have hurt the principals feelings, there is no reason that she should not have been allowed to post it.
As said in the article, students are now keeping in touch with each other through the internet and personal blogging. This student saying something on her personal blog is the same as her stating this in a text message to a friend or on the phone. Some people feel that children under the age of 18 should not be given their first amendment rights because they are not yet old enough to be responsible for them. However, if students aren't given these rights until they are 18 and already deemed adults, then how they are supposed to learn to use them responsibly? All people no matter what age still have a fright to freedom of speech as long as those rights don't compromise someone else's. It is a very good thing that this case was rethought, and new legislation is being passed for the future.
To You editor, Fused
Last month, student Avery Doninger was expelled from school for posting harsh comments about her principal on her personal online blog. Her first amendment rights were compromised and it was deemed unacceptable for her to post these comments for all to be able to see. The case is now being rethought and a connecticut lawmaker is writing up new plans, as well as a new legislation being introduced to make sure that students cannot be punished for this in the future. It would prohibit Connecticut school authorities from punishing students for anything that they say on their own personal blogs.
It is extremely important that this case was rethought because freedom of speech is one of the most important first amendment rights, and should never be compromised. This student had the complete right to say whatever she wanted to on her own personal blog. While it may have hurt the principals feelings, there is no reason that she should not have been allowed to post it.
As said in the article, students are now keeping in touch with each other through the internet and personal blogging. This student saying something on her personal blog is the same as her stating this in a text message to a friend or on the phone. Some people feel that children under the age of 18 should not be given their first amendment rights because they are not yet old enough to be responsible for them. However, if students aren't given these rights until they are 18 and already deemed adults, then how they are supposed to learn to use them responsibly? All people no matter what age still have a fright to freedom of speech as long as those rights don't compromise someone else's. It is a very good thing that this case was rethought, and new legislation is being passed for the future.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Sexting - a growing trend
Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused
Recently, all across the United States, there has been a dramatic increase in what the media has dubbed “sexting.”
Sexting is when young adults, typically teenagers, send posed nude photographs of themselves and sexually suggestive texts to other people. The term is called “sexting” as a play on words of “texting” -- except instead of merely texting, these teenagers are essentially selling themselves.
The problem of sexting has been featured all across the media, including “Dr. Phil” episodes and on MSNBC. In a “Dr. Phil” episode, a 16-year-old girl was sexting with older men (mid to late twenties). She had met these men online, given them her cell phone number and texted nude photographs of herself to them. She then gave them her personal information, had them come to her house and engaged in sexual intercourse with them. The girl also adamantly defended her actions by claiming that sexting is “normal” behavior because all her friends were also doing it. This specific case is just one among many.
Although teens may think that just sending one “sext” is harmless, whether it is sent to their friends or people they’ve met online, they fail to realize the extent of exposure that they’re subjecting themselves to. Texts of nude photographs typically get forwarded from friend to friend, and sooner or later, their entire social circle has viewed their inappropriate photographs.
Psychologists say that teens who engage in this type of behavior do so because they lack self-esteem and self-confidence. They are young and impressionable, often easily convinced to engage in this self-degrading sexting.
According to “Dr. Phil,” statistics show that 50 percent of teens have sent sexually suggestive text messages at least once in their lifetime. 30 percent of teens have sent nude photographs of themselves via texts.
Though it is true that young teens are vulnerable and easily influenced by adults who “take interest in them,” the root of the problem is the adults who prey on them, like tigers who hunt antelope in the wild. Though everyone, adults and children alike, has the right to freedom of speech, this right should not be license to victimize children in inappropriate and vulgar ways.
Adults should realize the limit that their freedom of speech has, especially when exercising this “right” corrupts and exposes minors. They should have the common sense, decency and nobility to understand the social limitations of freedom of speech. In this way, there will be fewer corrupting tigers and more innocent antelope in the jungle of society.
To You Editor, Fused
Recently, all across the United States, there has been a dramatic increase in what the media has dubbed “sexting.”
Sexting is when young adults, typically teenagers, send posed nude photographs of themselves and sexually suggestive texts to other people. The term is called “sexting” as a play on words of “texting” -- except instead of merely texting, these teenagers are essentially selling themselves.
The problem of sexting has been featured all across the media, including “Dr. Phil” episodes and on MSNBC. In a “Dr. Phil” episode, a 16-year-old girl was sexting with older men (mid to late twenties). She had met these men online, given them her cell phone number and texted nude photographs of herself to them. She then gave them her personal information, had them come to her house and engaged in sexual intercourse with them. The girl also adamantly defended her actions by claiming that sexting is “normal” behavior because all her friends were also doing it. This specific case is just one among many.
Although teens may think that just sending one “sext” is harmless, whether it is sent to their friends or people they’ve met online, they fail to realize the extent of exposure that they’re subjecting themselves to. Texts of nude photographs typically get forwarded from friend to friend, and sooner or later, their entire social circle has viewed their inappropriate photographs.
Psychologists say that teens who engage in this type of behavior do so because they lack self-esteem and self-confidence. They are young and impressionable, often easily convinced to engage in this self-degrading sexting.
According to “Dr. Phil,” statistics show that 50 percent of teens have sent sexually suggestive text messages at least once in their lifetime. 30 percent of teens have sent nude photographs of themselves via texts.
Though it is true that young teens are vulnerable and easily influenced by adults who “take interest in them,” the root of the problem is the adults who prey on them, like tigers who hunt antelope in the wild. Though everyone, adults and children alike, has the right to freedom of speech, this right should not be license to victimize children in inappropriate and vulgar ways.
Adults should realize the limit that their freedom of speech has, especially when exercising this “right” corrupts and exposes minors. They should have the common sense, decency and nobility to understand the social limitations of freedom of speech. In this way, there will be fewer corrupting tigers and more innocent antelope in the jungle of society.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Confederate Clothing
Hannah Nixon, Announcements editor. February 9th
https://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1862
During their 2006-07 school year, three students were suspended from Farmington High School for displaying the Confederate flag on their clothing. Almost two weeks ago today, the administrators who called for the suspensions were ruled as justified by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
As each student was suspended almost three years ago, the others supported each other through showing what they call "rebel pride" on their t-shirts, hats and belt buckles. The students refused to cover or remove their clothing, and because their apparel was considered a "substantial distraction," each was suspended.
These students appealed to a district court but were dismissed. The court ruled that because the suspension was due to a clothing distraction, was not an act of "viewpoint discrimination" by an official and did not go against the First Amendment that the school's ban on the Confederate flag was reasonable. The court cited the Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District case where the Supreme Court ruled that school officials must be able to “forecast substantial disruption” before ruling out expression of viewpoints. The court also included that because race-involved events were not happening just in the school district but in the community as well, that they hold the District’s ban “constitutionally permissible.”
Similar to the Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District, the school's racist acts weren't only in the world of education, but it the neighborhoods of the community. Other violent acts had been recorded previous to the suspensions of the Farmington High students. This includes a fight that broke out during a basketball tournament where racial language was used.
The three students did appeal to the federal appeals court after their case was first dismissed, and now plan to go to the Supreme Court.
Although these students were displaying their beliefs, just as any other student may be doing everyday, it is no doubt that their clothing was a distraction to the students and the environment of their school. It is completely unnecessary to flaunt something so greatly when, no matter what a person's personal beliefs are, may be offensive to other people. Especially because of the issue surrounding this debate, racism, there is no reason that these students should not have been suspended. Their actions were out of control and not appropriate for a learning environment.
https://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1862
During their 2006-07 school year, three students were suspended from Farmington High School for displaying the Confederate flag on their clothing. Almost two weeks ago today, the administrators who called for the suspensions were ruled as justified by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
As each student was suspended almost three years ago, the others supported each other through showing what they call "rebel pride" on their t-shirts, hats and belt buckles. The students refused to cover or remove their clothing, and because their apparel was considered a "substantial distraction," each was suspended.
These students appealed to a district court but were dismissed. The court ruled that because the suspension was due to a clothing distraction, was not an act of "viewpoint discrimination" by an official and did not go against the First Amendment that the school's ban on the Confederate flag was reasonable. The court cited the Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District case where the Supreme Court ruled that school officials must be able to “forecast substantial disruption” before ruling out expression of viewpoints. The court also included that because race-involved events were not happening just in the school district but in the community as well, that they hold the District’s ban “constitutionally permissible.”
Similar to the Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District, the school's racist acts weren't only in the world of education, but it the neighborhoods of the community. Other violent acts had been recorded previous to the suspensions of the Farmington High students. This includes a fight that broke out during a basketball tournament where racial language was used.
The three students did appeal to the federal appeals court after their case was first dismissed, and now plan to go to the Supreme Court.
Although these students were displaying their beliefs, just as any other student may be doing everyday, it is no doubt that their clothing was a distraction to the students and the environment of their school. It is completely unnecessary to flaunt something so greatly when, no matter what a person's personal beliefs are, may be offensive to other people. Especially because of the issue surrounding this debate, racism, there is no reason that these students should not have been suspended. Their actions were out of control and not appropriate for a learning environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
