Jump to content
Debate is life

First Amendment Right

Recommended Posts

Most high school students are minors. None of the rights in the bill of rights are gauranteed to minors. Just shutup and dont make trouble at your school!

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so they don't have these rights guaranteed in school. They apply out of school, and minors are given a reasonable expectation of these rights in school. And it is scary, because these people are the future of the United States.

If anyone's read It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis you'll know what I'm talking about. Our fellows (or in some cases, slightly-juniors) are completely ignorant of the rights they will have. It means that the facist negative utopia described by Lewis in the 1930's might well happen, except that instead of the Democratic Party becoming the facists, it's the Republicans. They already actively seek to suppress American civil liberties (read Patriot Acts) which discriminate and spy and add useless bureaucracy that does nothing to improve security.

 

Example: I am of Egyptian ancestry, and my grandparents still live in Egypt and are Egyptian citizens (Note Egypt = key American mideast ally). My grandfather went to apply for his visa in October, where he was interviewed and fingerprinted. He was later informed that his name closely matched that of a terrorist. This terrorist was in his twenties, wore a long beard and a turban, and his major was in theology; my grandfather is a clean-shaven sixty-five year retired cardiologist who prefers English caps. The terrorist is also twenty pounds lighter than, six inches shorter than, and facially dissimilar to my grandfather. And now, they tell him that the fingerprints are bad. And since I have the extreme bad luck of living in a Repubican stronghold, my congressman was a Republican and considered the Embassy's decision a perfectly legitamite decision for security. Is this an example of increased security, or is it racism, or paranoia? Or a combination?

 

And now we see that America's children do not know their own rights and liberties. I do not know what this may forbode for the United States, but whatever it is, it isn't good.

 

Thus I end my rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's a pretty crappy article

 

our teacher passed it out to us yesterday as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, the first amendment does apply to minors in school and outside of school. They can write papers that say what they want. The official school newspaper cannot, but they can excercise their rights and make their own paper.

 

Also, some of those people are one or two years away from excercising those rights, and that is scary.

 

Also, the lack of knowledge that they have about other things is ridiculous. the figures about how many believe that flag burning is illegal, or that the government can regulate whatever it wants on the internet. Scary stuff man.

 

I do think that it is very scary that they think the founding principle of this government and society goes too far. That does not even include the interpretations made by the court. Scary stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people tend to take rights too far. Schenck v. US (1919) did a lot for establishing the precedent that sometimes First Amendment rights are not and need not be affirmed. Just because you can't speak out against every issue and organize a dozen protests doesn't mean that the government (someone specifically mentioned Republicans) are dehumanizing and suppressing your voice. I'm fairly positive that if someone from the KKK were to protest by wearing a Grandwizard uniform, others would get offended. There's no "right or left" to First Amendment rights, the same restrictions and the same abilities apply to everyone.

 

I'm very sorry for the incoherent manner of this post, I'm really tired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Harmony
Most people tend to take rights too far. Schenck v. US (1919) did a lot for establishing the precedent that sometimes First Amendment rights are not and need not be affirmed.

 

Schenck isn't precedent anymore.

 

Just because you can't speak out against every issue and organize a dozen protests doesn't mean that the government (someone specifically mentioned Republicans) are dehumanizing and suppressing your voice. I'm fairly positive that if someone from the KKK were to protest by wearing a Grandwizard uniform, others would get offended.

 

The ACLU, about as absolutist a civil rights organization as there is, has on multiple occasions defended the KKK's right to protest. Free speech isn't free if it's only for speech you agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most high school students are minors. None of the rights in the bill of rights are gauranteed to minors. Just shutup and dont make trouble at your school!
Case in point of an American minor not knowing his rights. As a minor there are very few rights that you do not have, and then only in very special circumstances (like Juvenile courts not having juries). Read Tinker v. Des Moines and West Virginia v. Barnette.

 

 

 

"The idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted is absurd.” – Salman Rushdie

 

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Schenck isn't precedent anymore.

 

You can't simply state that a Supreme Court case has no influence simply because you don't agree with the precedent it set. If I went into a movie theater, yelled fire, and people were trampled on the way out as a result, I would still be imprisoned with Schenck as their reasoning.

 

The rules for one apply to all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Harmony
You can't simply state that a Supreme Court case has no influence simply because you don't agree with the precedent it set. If I went into a movie theater, yelled fire, and people were trampled on the way out as a result, I would still be imprisoned with Schenck as their reasoning.

 

Schenck v. US was overruled in 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio. It no longer functions as precedent. If you want to discuss constitutional law please at least know what is going on.

 

 

The rules for one apply to all.

 

What is this supposed to mean?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Schenck v. US was overruled in 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio. It no longer functions as precedent. If you want to discuss constitutional law please at least know what is going on.

By the example he cited, it would appear that he does, in fact, know what is going on. Schenck has never been overturned, just clarified. The "Clear and Present Danger" test established by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck and modified to specify when it should be used in Abrams v. U.S. (1919) is still precedent and has been upheld by the court even in recent decisions. The note that yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not "protected speech" is a quote from Schenck. To your credit Brandenburg did overturn a previous court decision, it just wasn't Schenck, it was Whitney v. California (1927).

 

Brandenburg's only relation to Schenck was to state that the latter did not apply in that case - not that Schenck was overturned.

 

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Harmony
By the example he cited, it would appear that he does, in fact, know what is going on. Schenck has never been overturned, just clarified. The "Clear and Present Danger" test established by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck and modified to specify when it should be used in Abrams v. U.S. (1919) is still precedent and has been upheld by the court even in recent decisions. The note that yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not "protected speech" is a quote from Schenck. To your credit Brandenburg did overturn a previous court decision, it just wasn't Schenck, it was Whitney v. California (1927).

 

Brandenburg's only relation to Schenck was to state that the latter did not apply in that case - not that Schenck was overturned.

 

~

schneck does not function as precedent any longer. the clear and present danger test is no longer used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
schneck does not function as precedent any longer. the clear and present danger test is no longer used.

... and SOJO's the one who doesn't know constitutional law? The "clear and present danger" and "bad tendecy" tests limit speech that threatens national security and still apply as precedent. Neither Schecnk nor Abrams has been overturned. If you still assert otherwise, please explain which case(s) did so, bearing in mind that Brandenburg only clarified the scope of the tests without removing them.

 

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know my "certain unalienable rights." BUT. I'm not 18, I have no voice, therefore I have no rights.

 

 

Quit fucking around and making bullshit statements in superfluous threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know my "certain unalienable rights." BUT. I'm not 18, I have no voice, therefore I have no rights.

Hmm, 2.5 year bump and a factually incorrect post... That's two strikes in one. If only I were still the mod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...