Story by Lucy Farmer
Fused staff writer
Last March a "XXX" film titled "Pirates II; Stagnetti's Revenge" was shown on the University of Maryland campus. As soon as the University received word of the screening, Maryland state senator Andy Harris was notified. He threatened to withhold funds from the school if similar screenings continued. Harris asked the state Board of Regents to create a policy that would require any screening on campus to have an educational component.
The students had an opportunity to give their opinion on the matter on October 13, at a forum held by the Student Government Association, or SGA. The SGA president and a member of the Board of Regents listened to concerned students and answered their questions. The School's Board of Regents plans to vote on a new "porn policy" this month, restricting these kinds of un-educational films to be shown on campus.
The students are concerned by what could happen if state legislature becomes involved in what forms of speech are or are not allowed on their campus. The government is threatening to take money away from the school, attempting to restrict the viewing rights of legal adults. This could be seen as a small and seemingly insignificant action taken to protect the reputation of the university, when in reality this new policy is a violation of one our basic and inalienable rights. The subject matter of the film is ultimately irrelevant. It is legal for students 18 and older to view the film. If we allow the government to violate these rights, even infinitesimally, we are sending the message that we won't fight these kinds of decisions.
Our first amendment rights are granted without question, but what good are inviolable rights if you don't utilize them? You may spend thousands of dollars on a new weight-lifting machine, but you don't get any stronger until you pick up the weight and begin to work at it. We can't be oblivious to the rights that we are granted. We have to acknowledge these rights and exercise them or they will disappear. As soon as we succumb to this kind of government involvement, we lose our basic freedoms.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
First Amendment concerns are raised regarding Senate passage of hate-crimes bill
Siyang Liu
On October 22, 2009, Senate approved a hate-crimes bill that expanded possible prosecution to hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Even though the name of the bill sounds uncontroversial enough, it has been concerning to some. One noticeable argument from the opposition, namely by 60 conservative leaders in this case, was that this bill would ‘criminalize preaching the Gospel and put preachers in the crosshairs.’
The question is that does this bill really encroach on our First Amendment rights? After all, if what the conservative leaders claim in this case is true, then this bill would be hurting our freedom of religion.
The truth these, such claims by the opposition border more along fear-mongering than appealing to the state of our freedoms. Consider the content of this bill. Once it becomes law, it gives the Department of Justice broader authority to investigate and prosecute violent crimes “motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim.”
The key word here is violent crimes. The First Amendment, or namely freedom of religion and speech in this case, is meant to protect all Americans’ rights to expression. Violent crimes and freedom of expression are two very different things. If these conservative leaders worried about having a basic First Amendment right violated, they shouldn’t be.
With or without this bill, our freedoms of expression and religion go on untouched. Regardless of whether opinions and practices relating to the First Amendment are “good” or “bad” in society’s eyes, the American justice system has stuck to our rights. Just as some people have taken advantage of the First Amendment to voice for social change, there have been some others who attend KKK rallies. The point is that whatever direction we choose to take in our opinion or what we believe in, we can do so without facing legal consequences.
The simple fact is, the First Amendment and this bill do not touch one another in any harmful way. If some wish to, they are still 100% empowered to express dissent based on sexual orientation and gender identity. If one’s religion requires preaching against certain sexual orientations or gender identities, so be it. No one is going to prosecute you for exercising your First Amendment rights; and this bill certainly doesn’t either.
Those who are are still opposed to this bill in light of these realities are entitled to their stances. However, they should take up their opposition to this expansion of hate-crimes prosecution as a political matter, instead of citing the First Amendment for misleading purposes.
Ohio principal censors student obituary and photograph
A students free expression right in journalism can be a issue. In this case the principle of Stow-Munroe Falls High School in Ohio is censoring the student newspaper to prevent the publication of printing an obituary and photo of a recent student who was a suicide victim. They say it has been the schools policy for years to print a obituary and photo of a student of teacher who has passed away.
The editor and chief of the school newspaper said that the suicides victim's mother had wrote a letter to be printed in the newspaper, which was thanking her son's friends and telling them if they needed anything to come because the family would be there for support. Originally the principle said that it was OK and they could run the obituary and photo, however a couple days before the printed the principle insisted they pull the obituary and photo.They stilled ran the letter because the principle thought it was an effective way to show support for the students and family members. The victims mother then sent an email to the staff asking if any students want to include anything in it and 30 min later the principle said no. the principle thought if they would run the obituary and photo it could cause other students to commit suicide. The editor in chief thought it would of been the right thing to do saying they have done this for the other students that have passed away, it would be disrespectful to him if we didn't.
When i read this it blew me away, i mean that is not the right thing to do in that situation. If you right obituary's and put photos in for others that have passed away you should do the same even though he committed suicide. I mean it was the kids choice to do what he did, and if he would of died of a illness they prolly would of wrote a obituary and put in a photo. I think it would of done the students and family member better if they would of published it, that the respectful and right thing to do well actually its the humane thing to do. If i were to commit suicide i would want a obituary written about me. I wonder if a teacher were to commit suicide if they would write a obituary about them? I think the family and Friends would and should have more say in if they published an obituary, i mean they are the people they grew to love the kid and they know who he really was, and those people would put aside that he committed suicide in a time like that and remember the good memories they had when he/she was still alive. I think any high school newspaper should be allowed to publish an obituary unless the parents decide they don't want it in there because the students have the right to read about students and teachers that have passed away. however the family decision should overall come first before publishing. Free expression in journalism can be a issue and sometimes it stinks, like censoring the obituary like thy did in Ohio.
Article by: Lindsay McKnight
The editor and chief of the school newspaper said that the suicides victim's mother had wrote a letter to be printed in the newspaper, which was thanking her son's friends and telling them if they needed anything to come because the family would be there for support. Originally the principle said that it was OK and they could run the obituary and photo, however a couple days before the printed the principle insisted they pull the obituary and photo.They stilled ran the letter because the principle thought it was an effective way to show support for the students and family members. The victims mother then sent an email to the staff asking if any students want to include anything in it and 30 min later the principle said no. the principle thought if they would run the obituary and photo it could cause other students to commit suicide. The editor in chief thought it would of been the right thing to do saying they have done this for the other students that have passed away, it would be disrespectful to him if we didn't.
When i read this it blew me away, i mean that is not the right thing to do in that situation. If you right obituary's and put photos in for others that have passed away you should do the same even though he committed suicide. I mean it was the kids choice to do what he did, and if he would of died of a illness they prolly would of wrote a obituary and put in a photo. I think it would of done the students and family member better if they would of published it, that the respectful and right thing to do well actually its the humane thing to do. If i were to commit suicide i would want a obituary written about me. I wonder if a teacher were to commit suicide if they would write a obituary about them? I think the family and Friends would and should have more say in if they published an obituary, i mean they are the people they grew to love the kid and they know who he really was, and those people would put aside that he committed suicide in a time like that and remember the good memories they had when he/she was still alive. I think any high school newspaper should be allowed to publish an obituary unless the parents decide they don't want it in there because the students have the right to read about students and teachers that have passed away. however the family decision should overall come first before publishing. Free expression in journalism can be a issue and sometimes it stinks, like censoring the obituary like thy did in Ohio.
Article by: Lindsay McKnight
Free Flow Information Act
Mike Moates
The Free Flow of Information Act has progressed enough to be considered before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The language in this bill changes the definition of who is a journalist. The Free Flow of Information Act states that “A person with the primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information…” is protected.
This is good news for students, college and high school alike. Before this bill there was a financial requirement for being defined and protected as a journalist. Because students aren’t paid for their work their rights were defined differently than journalists with major publications such as the New York Times.
Larger publications have a great deal more resources than student publications. Frank LoMonte, Executive Director of the
What the Free Flow of Information Act will do is allow students and unpaid journalists a great deal more freedom in production of news stories. Once passed this bill will protect all journalists, paid or not. This is an important step in bringing student coverage into a similar playing field as the rest of the professional world of journalism.
The Free Flow of Information Act will allow journalism to become a much more inclusive environment. By removing the financial requirement to be considered a journalist more people will be encouraged to seek out information and present it to the public.
While the bill is not yet in effect it has been gaining momentum within the government, passing the House and moving onto the Senate after compromises were made between the government and news organizations. If passed, the Free Flow Information Act will allow journalists (paid or unpaid) in all areas of work more freedoms and protection.
Students punished by high school for posting sexually suggestive photos on myspace
By: William Liao
At Churubusco High, a high school in Indianapolis, two girls were punished by their local school administration. As a result, the two girls complained and said that their free-speech rights were violated, as they were banned from extra curricular activities for a joke that they had previously committed, that had no relation whatsoever to their school-or any school for that matter.
So what happened exactly? Well, it was that summer before school. The girls had taken photos of them in lingerie and posted them on myspace. Now these photos weren't made open to all public, the photos were only viewable by their peers. Shortly after having posted these photos, the photos had reached a school official, and eventually their principal. As a result, when school commenced, both girls were told to attend counseling, and were banned from all extra-curricular activities.
Naturally, like any sort of case regarding the rights of a person, there are multiple perspectives. In this case we have two:
Side 1: Child advocates support the measures taken, and claim that it is important to monitor students.
Side 2: The children have a right to their own private practice, and the school does not have the right to dictate what the girls chose to do outside of the school environment.
So which side am I on? The latter. It's quite simple, and very plain: we as people, beyond any sort of written document, have rights as beings. At the most basic of levels it all comes down to a few things: we are entitled to our individuality, we are entitled to our private practice, and we are entitled to dictate precisely the way in which we commit to those two things, so long as we do not prevent any other being from doing the same thing. There is no reason we should conform and be under the thumb of another.
These girls did not harm anybody, they did not prevent anybody from exercising their very own rights: so what gives the school official the right to rob them of their own rights as beings? The truth is, the school official does not have any right to do so. The school official's job is to maintain order within a school, to insure that students can receive an education. What part of their job description requires them to monitor the actions of students outside of school-especially when it doesn't mar any part of the education process?
To sum it all up: the solution to all of this is to exercise the simple understanding of our rights as beings. The school officials need to understand what they are allowed to dictate, and why. This incident is an absolute abuse of their own power. The girls had every right to do what they did, as it was a matter of their own private practice-and so it should remain that way: private.
At Churubusco High, a high school in Indianapolis, two girls were punished by their local school administration. As a result, the two girls complained and said that their free-speech rights were violated, as they were banned from extra curricular activities for a joke that they had previously committed, that had no relation whatsoever to their school-or any school for that matter.
So what happened exactly? Well, it was that summer before school. The girls had taken photos of them in lingerie and posted them on myspace. Now these photos weren't made open to all public, the photos were only viewable by their peers. Shortly after having posted these photos, the photos had reached a school official, and eventually their principal. As a result, when school commenced, both girls were told to attend counseling, and were banned from all extra-curricular activities.
Naturally, like any sort of case regarding the rights of a person, there are multiple perspectives. In this case we have two:
Side 1: Child advocates support the measures taken, and claim that it is important to monitor students.
Side 2: The children have a right to their own private practice, and the school does not have the right to dictate what the girls chose to do outside of the school environment.
So which side am I on? The latter. It's quite simple, and very plain: we as people, beyond any sort of written document, have rights as beings. At the most basic of levels it all comes down to a few things: we are entitled to our individuality, we are entitled to our private practice, and we are entitled to dictate precisely the way in which we commit to those two things, so long as we do not prevent any other being from doing the same thing. There is no reason we should conform and be under the thumb of another.
These girls did not harm anybody, they did not prevent anybody from exercising their very own rights: so what gives the school official the right to rob them of their own rights as beings? The truth is, the school official does not have any right to do so. The school official's job is to maintain order within a school, to insure that students can receive an education. What part of their job description requires them to monitor the actions of students outside of school-especially when it doesn't mar any part of the education process?
To sum it all up: the solution to all of this is to exercise the simple understanding of our rights as beings. The school officials need to understand what they are allowed to dictate, and why. This incident is an absolute abuse of their own power. The girls had every right to do what they did, as it was a matter of their own private practice-and so it should remain that way: private.
First Amendment
Los Angeles City College (LACC) administrators are battling with the students’ school newspaper staff over a plan to include the newspaper’s budget with the student activities department. The possibility of this happening worries the newspaper staff because they believe that if this happened, it would give the administrators an opportunity to review the content o the paper before it is distributed. The staff believes that the school administrators might attempt to censor or alter the content of the paper to their own liking and approval.
The paper’s faculty advisor believes that including the paper in the activities department is an attempt by the administration to take command of the content included in the newspaper. The advisor stated that she was told by the administration that they would be looking at the content. The advisor is worried, saying that she thinks that the administrators’ power over the paper would deter students from wanting to work in the school newspaper.
The editor-in-chief of the school newspaper is afraid that the content will be biased if the administrators included their budget with the budget of student activities. The editor-in-chief believes that the problem would be that the administrators would be editing all of their content. The paper would basically no longer be in the hands of the news staff.
This is a violation of the first amendment right to freedom of the press. The newspaper staff have the right to post their own content without being censored or reviewed by the school administration. The administration has no right to regulate the content of the newspaper. The seemingly innocent plan of the administration to include the budget of the newspaper with the budget of the student activities department is simply the administration attempting to find a way to censor and edit the content of the paper without causing a lot of controversy. The newspaper staff is making the right decision by trying to prevent this from happening.
Nick Hobbs
The paper’s faculty advisor believes that including the paper in the activities department is an attempt by the administration to take command of the content included in the newspaper. The advisor stated that she was told by the administration that they would be looking at the content. The advisor is worried, saying that she thinks that the administrators’ power over the paper would deter students from wanting to work in the school newspaper.
The editor-in-chief of the school newspaper is afraid that the content will be biased if the administrators included their budget with the budget of student activities. The editor-in-chief believes that the problem would be that the administrators would be editing all of their content. The paper would basically no longer be in the hands of the news staff.
This is a violation of the first amendment right to freedom of the press. The newspaper staff have the right to post their own content without being censored or reviewed by the school administration. The administration has no right to regulate the content of the newspaper. The seemingly innocent plan of the administration to include the budget of the newspaper with the budget of the student activities department is simply the administration attempting to find a way to censor and edit the content of the paper without causing a lot of controversy. The newspaper staff is making the right decision by trying to prevent this from happening.
Nick Hobbs
Article by Jessi Rannochio
There is a “Liberal Concern” about student’s free-expression right in journalism. This is because students who want to write about an issue that has to do with sex and sexuality have to sensor what they say, and when doing that they can’t show their real opinion.
John Butterfield of California’s Rio Americano High School recently wrote an article criticizing the school’s sexuality. Butterfield wrote about the cheer team and their provocative dance. “This is a high school rally, not the latest music video, and when the song team spends most of the routine bent over, while it may [elicit] catcalls from the audience, it is simply not appropriate.”
The administrators decided to let this article run in the paper no matter how unflattering it may be. When doing this they hope for the team to realize they need to make a change.
Once this was printed it came to Billy O’Reilly’s producers at Fox News, attention. O’Reilly decided to air the footage of the dancers performing. In airing this footage it has caused an outcry for the team to revise their routine, so they did.
This is what uncensored journalism can do. If the administrators had thought that this article was too inappropriate to publish, then the team would have never seen how provocative their dances were. And because of this they changed their dance.
I think that uncensored journalism in high school is important because high school is the time in teenager’s lives where you really start to form your own opinions and we should be able to express them with out limits. When you put limits on people’s opinions they start to get warped and then eventually turn into more fact not opinion.
As a teenage journalist I am passionate about freedom of expression and I think that we need more of it in high school journalism.
There is a “Liberal Concern” about student’s free-expression right in journalism. This is because students who want to write about an issue that has to do with sex and sexuality have to sensor what they say, and when doing that they can’t show their real opinion.
John Butterfield of California’s Rio Americano High School recently wrote an article criticizing the school’s sexuality. Butterfield wrote about the cheer team and their provocative dance. “This is a high school rally, not the latest music video, and when the song team spends most of the routine bent over, while it may [elicit] catcalls from the audience, it is simply not appropriate.”
The administrators decided to let this article run in the paper no matter how unflattering it may be. When doing this they hope for the team to realize they need to make a change.
Once this was printed it came to Billy O’Reilly’s producers at Fox News, attention. O’Reilly decided to air the footage of the dancers performing. In airing this footage it has caused an outcry for the team to revise their routine, so they did.
This is what uncensored journalism can do. If the administrators had thought that this article was too inappropriate to publish, then the team would have never seen how provocative their dances were. And because of this they changed their dance.
I think that uncensored journalism in high school is important because high school is the time in teenager’s lives where you really start to form your own opinions and we should be able to express them with out limits. When you put limits on people’s opinions they start to get warped and then eventually turn into more fact not opinion.
As a teenage journalist I am passionate about freedom of expression and I think that we need more of it in high school journalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
