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.
Monday, January 26, 2009
ending terrorism without compromising rights
Talia Shifron
To You Editor, Fused
On Tuesday January 20, 2009, President Barack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States. After Obama took the presidential oath, he spoke to the American people about how we as a nation are going to move forward and change the problems with this country.
During his speech, Obama makes sure to discuss that the task ahead to change this nation is great however that we all need to work together to make it happen. He mentions that not everything can be done by the government and that all Americans need to come together to bring about change. One of the things that he discusses is terrorism and that we will say no to terrorism together as a nation, and that the government can not keep instilling fear into people trough the patriot act to take away their first amendment freedoms.
Since September 11, 2001 former president George W. Bush has convinced Americans that through the patriot act, they can all be safe and nothing can go wrong. However, Obama understands that this is not the case and wants to change this and let the country know this. We can no longer live in fear while our rights are being compromised in front of our very eyes. Bush was able to convince Americans that if rights just keep being taken away and the government can monitor our phone calls, and our conversations, and ultimately our every move, we will no longer have any terrorism. However, eventually if this continues, Americans will lose all of their first amendment freedoms that they should automatically be guaranteed in the first amendment.
Obama wants to change the way the patriot act works, and work together with all American people to stop terrorism instead of compromising their rights that should be guaranteed. If Obama is able to do this, slowly Americans will gain back their rights that have been compromised for the last eight years under former president Bush. The sad part is that Americans haven’t even realized how many rights they have lost because of the way Bush has been able to twist people’s mindsets.
Ultimately, the question ahead remains how Obama will be able to stop terrorism and stop compromising Americans freedoms. There is a different way that terrorism can be stopped and Obama needs to find it while working alongside with the American people. Change needs to happen in the next four or eight years, and with this change Americans should start gaining the rights they’ve sacrificed for the last eight years.
To You Editor, Fused
On Tuesday January 20, 2009, President Barack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States. After Obama took the presidential oath, he spoke to the American people about how we as a nation are going to move forward and change the problems with this country.
During his speech, Obama makes sure to discuss that the task ahead to change this nation is great however that we all need to work together to make it happen. He mentions that not everything can be done by the government and that all Americans need to come together to bring about change. One of the things that he discusses is terrorism and that we will say no to terrorism together as a nation, and that the government can not keep instilling fear into people trough the patriot act to take away their first amendment freedoms.
Since September 11, 2001 former president George W. Bush has convinced Americans that through the patriot act, they can all be safe and nothing can go wrong. However, Obama understands that this is not the case and wants to change this and let the country know this. We can no longer live in fear while our rights are being compromised in front of our very eyes. Bush was able to convince Americans that if rights just keep being taken away and the government can monitor our phone calls, and our conversations, and ultimately our every move, we will no longer have any terrorism. However, eventually if this continues, Americans will lose all of their first amendment freedoms that they should automatically be guaranteed in the first amendment.
Obama wants to change the way the patriot act works, and work together with all American people to stop terrorism instead of compromising their rights that should be guaranteed. If Obama is able to do this, slowly Americans will gain back their rights that have been compromised for the last eight years under former president Bush. The sad part is that Americans haven’t even realized how many rights they have lost because of the way Bush has been able to twist people’s mindsets.
Ultimately, the question ahead remains how Obama will be able to stop terrorism and stop compromising Americans freedoms. There is a different way that terrorism can be stopped and Obama needs to find it while working alongside with the American people. Change needs to happen in the next four or eight years, and with this change Americans should start gaining the rights they’ve sacrificed for the last eight years.
Riot Photographer Charged with Misdemeanor
After Penn State beat Ohio State in the October 25 football match, a large riot broke out. The Daily Collegian, the Penn State student newspaper, sent out a phtographer to capture the scene and photograph it. The photographer, Michael Felleter, is now asked to appear in court to face misdemeanor charges.
Felleter was taking photographs, and when he was asked to leave he identified himself as a member of the press and was allowed to stay. The events that followed are still being discussed, however it is sure that an additional polic officer asked him to leave. Felleter says he left at that point, yet police officers say that that he was asked again, refused and then charged with a misdemeanor. The case has yet to be completed.
The editor-in-chief of the Daily Collegian believes that the polcie officers became angry because as Felleter walked away, he kept on taking pictures. Though taking photographs after the police officers were already angry may not have been the smartest thing to do as far as Felleter's record goes, it was his right and it should not have caused him to be charged with a misdemeanor. Photographers have a righ to capture the news, and photographers are the ones that put images of events into people's minds. A picture is worth a thousand words, and Felleter was trying to capture a student riot in a few pictures. It is important to mention that the first officer let Felleter stay because he was part of the press. The fact that the law force is recognizing the improtance of the press is an important step toward a first amendment fulfillment.
Tamar Shachaf
About You Editor
Felleter was taking photographs, and when he was asked to leave he identified himself as a member of the press and was allowed to stay. The events that followed are still being discussed, however it is sure that an additional polic officer asked him to leave. Felleter says he left at that point, yet police officers say that that he was asked again, refused and then charged with a misdemeanor. The case has yet to be completed.
The editor-in-chief of the Daily Collegian believes that the polcie officers became angry because as Felleter walked away, he kept on taking pictures. Though taking photographs after the police officers were already angry may not have been the smartest thing to do as far as Felleter's record goes, it was his right and it should not have caused him to be charged with a misdemeanor. Photographers have a righ to capture the news, and photographers are the ones that put images of events into people's minds. A picture is worth a thousand words, and Felleter was trying to capture a student riot in a few pictures. It is important to mention that the first officer let Felleter stay because he was part of the press. The fact that the law force is recognizing the improtance of the press is an important step toward a first amendment fulfillment.
Tamar Shachaf
About You Editor
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Privacy in the library
Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused
Act 455 of 1982, commonly known as “The Library Privacy Act,” applies to establishments that receive federal funds, such as public elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities. This means that North is also subject to this act.
The Library Privacy Act makes certain library records confidential and provides for the selection and use of library materials. According to the Act, “library record” means “a document, record or other method of storing information retained by a library that contains information that personally identifies a library patron, including the patron's name, address or telephone number, or that identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific materials from a library.”
This does not include materials which don’t identify any particular library patron that may be gathered to study or evaluate the circulation of library materials.
Because of this act, release or disclosure of library record without consent, procedure or a hearing is prohibited—meaning that the Act is not subject to the freedom of information act of the Public Acts of 1976.
Though the Act may be a hassle if a teacher or student simply wants to know if another library patron has checked out specific material due to overdue fines or to find the location of the material, it can be very beneficial.
If someone were to ask an employee of a library about a particular library patron’s record, and in doing so found out information they didn’t like about that person, many problems could arise. For example, by merely judging the titles of the material disclosed, a person’s religion, political opinions or general interests could become evident. And not necessarily everyone may agree with them.
Not every school completely respects its students’ rights of privacy granted to them by the First Amendment. This is why North, as well as any other school subject to The Library Privacy Act, should be aware of and appreciate every little thing that helps protect their privacy.
To You Editor, Fused
Act 455 of 1982, commonly known as “The Library Privacy Act,” applies to establishments that receive federal funds, such as public elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities. This means that North is also subject to this act.
The Library Privacy Act makes certain library records confidential and provides for the selection and use of library materials. According to the Act, “library record” means “a document, record or other method of storing information retained by a library that contains information that personally identifies a library patron, including the patron's name, address or telephone number, or that identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific materials from a library.”
This does not include materials which don’t identify any particular library patron that may be gathered to study or evaluate the circulation of library materials.
Because of this act, release or disclosure of library record without consent, procedure or a hearing is prohibited—meaning that the Act is not subject to the freedom of information act of the Public Acts of 1976.
Though the Act may be a hassle if a teacher or student simply wants to know if another library patron has checked out specific material due to overdue fines or to find the location of the material, it can be very beneficial.
If someone were to ask an employee of a library about a particular library patron’s record, and in doing so found out information they didn’t like about that person, many problems could arise. For example, by merely judging the titles of the material disclosed, a person’s religion, political opinions or general interests could become evident. And not necessarily everyone may agree with them.
Not every school completely respects its students’ rights of privacy granted to them by the First Amendment. This is why North, as well as any other school subject to The Library Privacy Act, should be aware of and appreciate every little thing that helps protect their privacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
