U.S. Kids Don't Understand First Amendment

l4m3z0r writes "This rather alarming article discusses a study of high-school students in which they were asked about censorship, protected speech, and other aspects of the first amendment. The results are extremely worrisome: "Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories." and this "Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It's not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't.".."

Comments

Accuracy

[fembots]

Are all/most surveyed students born and brought up in America?

And does the First Amendment still feel the same after newly introduced Bills like PATRIOT ACT?

For instance, some countries have this Internal Security Act which allows government to imprison anyone for a couple of years without trial, and with that shadowing above your head, does it still matter if you're protected by another ancient right?

It's like a F1 driver still feels safe driving on slicks after it starts raining.

Re:Accuracy

[Obfuscant]

...when hardly any of them can explain what "callories from fat" means.

I'm not sure I know what "callories" are, either.

When food "calories" (actually kilocalories) are determined, they use one of two methods. The first involves taking a chunk of whatever it is, putting it in a "bomb calorimeter", and burning it. The bomb calorimeter is a sealed container that is pressurized with oxygen and contains a small fuse to light the chunk of stuff on fire. The rise in temperature is measured; the number of calories released by the chunk is divided by 1000 and reported as the food's "calories". The second method is to simply calculate how much of what things are in some food item and add up the calorie contents for those items as they were determined by the bomb.

In the bomb, everything goes to CO2 and water (and some nitrogen and sulpher and etc. oxides.) In your body, the reactions are not so drastic, and follow different pathways depending on what kind of food is being processed. Not all foods end up as CO2 and water. That's why pretending that all "calories" are the same is erronious.

Further, "fat" doesn't go straight from fat in food to fat in body cells. It takes a roundabout path, and if that pathway is blocked or doesn't operate, then the fat doesn't get stored.

And that, dear fellow Slashdotter, is the basis for Atkins. It works. I've done it.

Re:Accuracy

[JohnFluxx]

Have you seen the BBC program "Power of Nightmares"? I watched it and downloaded the bittorrent of it. I think kuro5hin mentioned it.
But anyway, it mentions what you talk about it.

Re:Accuracy

[TheGeneration]

Did you know there's never been a communist economy in a democratic political system? Every communist state has been run by a dictatorship or some form. All dicatorships fail when the dictator makes a wrong move and his enemies take advantage of the error.

I often wonder whether or not a country with a communist economy would survive better if it were lead be a democratically elected body.

Re:Accuracy

[pilgrim23]

This trend is nothing new. Back in the 1950s, a brilliant Science Fiction writer named C.M. Kornbluth wrote some stories based on a world in which the majority have dumbed down to an average IQ of around 60. In his work the real business of running the world was held by a select few who were seen by the majority as janitors, hat check girls, bathroom attendants, plumbers. and the like.
One story he wrote using this backdrop became the plot of an original Twilight Zone. For those interested, it had the title: The Black Bag. It was about a doctor's bag (what a quaint notion;, as if a doctor would actually need a means of carrying instruments today, as if they would actually travel to see a patient); a doctor bag that was impossible to hurt anyone with, and was able to cure anything.
The best story in this series I would say, was one of the first. Look in anthologies for a tale called "The Marching Morons". Remember: written in the 1950s. and it is so so prescient..
--

Re:Accuracy

[h4rm0ny]

I'm not saying that many people aren't picking up the belief from others rather than deducing it themselves; but I think that the foundation of it is that the PATRIOT act has provided a means by which the government in the USA can more easily harrass those saying / printing / broadcasting ideas it does not like. Of course the PATRIOT act doesn't say "The President can censor you," but it does provide scope for arresting, spying on and secrecy in obtaining and submitting evidence.

This means the government can't say "Don't print that," but it can now more easily punish such people with less dependence on legal niceties - hence the chilling effect.

Re:Accuracy

[operagost]

Yes, which shows how inept his adminstration was.

Re:Accuracy

[MightyMartian]

Well, you'll get a huge argument from the few Communists left in this part of the world, but it's pretty evident that Marx knew that there would have to be a period of dictatorship; the "dictatorship of the Proletariat." Of course, this lovely little open-ended concept was used by those implementing Communist states, and I suppose Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro still justify it; sort of a never ending revolution, so that anybody whose a threat to your power base is a threat to the revolution.

It must also be noted that Communist uprisings were not successful where they were supposed to be; in the industrialized countries. Russia and China, the biggest Communist states, were still fundementally agrarian societies that, according to the Marxist master plan, weren't ready yet for Communism. The industrialized governments, as much out of cynical ass-covering as out of any general desire for more liberal domestic policies, saw the trouble that might come and created constitutions and enlarged the numbers of voters to stave off the possibility of getting chucked out by workers' uprisings.

Re:Accuracy

[Austerity Empowers]

I don't think this is an interesting question. The USSR and China were/are both quasi-democratic, I agree they are not the bastions of democratic idealism that we'd like but they have the basis of democracy in them somewhere.

I think perhaps communism is not fundamentally compatible with true democracy. Democracy by nature is support of the idea of "collective self-interest", wherein communism seeks to achieve balance for everyone. Such a system has to be centrally managed, people cannot decide what is fair for everyone including themselves, only what is best for everyone else. You can't be objective when it comes to you and yours. It's the basis fo almost any stable legal system for that reason.

Communism is just not compatible with human nature, for the simple reason that I and I alone am in it for myself. Throw in the fact that the vast majority of people feel this way (however deeply they may hide it) and the system breaks.

There's good stuff to be learned from those types of philosophies, but they're not sustainable in their purest senses.

Re:Accuracy

[MightyMartian]

> History tells us nothing more than that it is
> capable of defeating a medium-sized European
> country on its own soil. Now they have nuclear
> weapons, of course.

I think that assessment is way off. Clearly there was a point when, if unchecked, the Soviet Union could have ridden over a sizable chunk of Central and Western Europe. Certainly Allied thinkers in the immediate post-WWII days were quite concerned about this, and there was something of a movement to attack the Soviet divisions in Eastern Europe and drive them back. Of course, this WWIII scenario was never to be. The economic and human costs of such an enterprise, however the ultimate good might have been justified, were just too much.

You are right, of course, that Czarist Russia was a bad place to live. The KGB had its predecessors in the Czarist secret police, and it wasn't the Communists that invented trucking undesirables off to hell holes.

What's surprised me the most in my adult readings about Russia and China is how much the Communist leaders ultimately modelled themselves (counsciously or unconciously) on pre-revolutionary archetypes. Mao was in many ways little different than his Imperial predecessors, and Stalin wasn't that much worse than some of the Czars.

These so-called breaks with the past weren't really all that great after all. The underlying culture and traditions were still there, and the ways to control, terrorize and reward the people were still the same.

Re:Accuracy

[runamok1]

I agree with most of that.

I wonder how many people would run away screaming from the US if car bombs detonated near their walmart or starbucks a few times a month.

I do think that within 10 years someone might pop a nuke or spread a bio agent and kill thousands or tens of thousands or more people. As the technology to do so spreads to more and more countries I think it's inevitable that it will fall into the hands of someone that chooses to use it for ther own purpose.

On the other hand, I actually think the relative lack of someone downing airliners or derailing trains, etc. is actually proof that terrorists are splintered, poorly organized and not all that numerous OR they are not that willing to take lives randomly.

View the recent situation where a possibly deranged man left his car on the rails of a train in LA. 11 people died, 200 were injured and I'm sure that cost a few million bucks. How easy would it be for someone to steal a car, park it on the rails at night and disappear?

Basically you need very little time or money to do great damage. I think the point is not that many people really are willing to do it. Or they would be doing so.

Re:Accuracy

[winwar]

"Unfortunately, that's not true anymore. We have 20 years to go of zero terrorist activity before terrorism and lightning become equal hazards on average."

Well, from 1959 to 2003, 3696 people were killed by lightning in the US. Exactly how many were killed by terrorism in that time? Oh, and we didn't have 20 years of zero terrorist activity.

Of course, while we can estimate risk of death from lightning strikes, the risk from terrorism is rather harder to determine. I would say you are overestimating the risk, which is common with things you appear to have no control over. But there are things you could do to reduce the risk-if you want to waste your time. Lightning strikes, like terrorism, are pretty much noise in the grand scheme of things (ways to die).

And just because we had a lot of deaths in one year attributed to terrorism does not necessarily change the risk. I would say a lot of things aren't taught in school...

Re:Accuracy

[Skim123]

Get rid of the public schools and you will see a more abused and ill-educated populace than we've had in this country for over a century. Unless of course we all forget about those people who are working at McDonald's and Walmart and can't afford to send their kids to private schools since they don't really matter anyway

The reason private schools are so expensive today is because there are free alternatives that get major funding. For example, imagine that the government gave away cheap food items to any citizen who wanted it - simple sandwhiches, fruit, chips, cookies, etc. Do you think places like McDonalds and Subway would exist? No. The only restaurants that would exist would be ones that offerred food items that were not given away freely - expensive delicacies, ethnic cuisine, etc.

My point, arriving at it kind of backwards, is that if you eliminate free education, a variety of private school offerrings would popup, just like there are a wide variety of restaraunts. There would continue to be top-dollar private schools, sure, but there would also be a smattering of very affordable schooling options. I guarantee it -- capitalism works.

Now, those cheaper schools are likely going to be of much lower quality than the expensive ones - worse buildings/supplies, less skilled teachers, overcrowded rooms, etc. - but to assume that no option would exist if public schools went by the wayside is to not understand or appreciate the beauty that is the free market.

put yourself in thier shoes

[PrinceAshitaka]

How should students understand the first amendment right when they yet do not have those rights in public schools? (and I am not saying that they should have them.) for example; "Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories." That is not surprising as they in thier school newspaper do not have the ability to pubilsh without teacher approval and "About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't" That is not surprising as thier internet use at school is severly restricted in what they can see. Anouther example is with only 83% of the students saying that expression of unpopular views is acceptible, coming from a very nondemocratic enviorment in schoolI can see how that is easily the situation. Students are under the heel of school officials. although, I am a while out of high school and this was just my experience.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[brian.glanz]

These U.S. high school students apparently understand more about their world, and perhaps also the real world, than the adults who are surprised at their answers. From our "Patriot Act" to the realities of liability for online "defamation," laws intended and/or agreed to by our federal government make a mockery of the 1st Ammendment's intent (and that of the collective Bill of Rights).

Contrary to TFA which supposes high school students aren't paying attention and high schools are poor educators, maybe high schoolers are excellent students, of reality, that is. The environment in which they live often assumes their guilt, such as unlimited rights of administration to search lockers and personal possessions, and other examples as PrinceAshitaka adds. From that perspective and from their generally lowly social position, high school students are going to be highly suspicious of authority by default. Taking a critical look at the "real world" awaiting them, it is not surprising that high school students would primarily see more of the same that they experience every day.

The difference? In high school, no one BSes you about it -- hey, kid, we can search your locker any time we want to, and you can't do anything about it, including that you need a pass to use the bathroom if you want to go cry about it. In the real world though, the government does bother to BS you about your liberties, which you were promised and maybe you or your ancestors fought for and you certainly paid for, but which you do not truly have.

Right on, PrinceAshitaka. Whether answering the survey with high school itself in mind or even if focusing on the "real world," certainly their context would have influenced their opinions. It's long since time for more of the adults surprised by this to wake up. Perhaps we can take this as a sign that the future, general American populace will have better BS detectors than our current lot.

BG

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[ImaLamer]

"Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories." That is not surprising as they in thier school newspaper do not have the ability to pubilsh without teacher approval and "About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't" That is not surprising as thier internet use at school is severly restricted in what they can see.

But it all goes back to bad education. The American History/Governement teachers aren't doing their jobs. In high-school we did a month of Supreme Court cases... one of the most important parts of history and government.

We did the First Amendment to death in that time and learned a lot. Learning about big cases that tested the limits of the Constitution is not only fun (to me) but it also allows you to see how free you really are. But back on topic, we learned why you can say anything on Slashdot and why you can't publish anything in your school's newspaper (because it belongs to the school).

It's not the school environment it's the teaching staff!

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[TheFlyingGoat]

It's not the school environment it's the teaching staff!

That's such BS. At my high school there were a large majority of students that just didn't care about learning. They didn't want to be there, but since they had to be they decided to spend that time socializing and screwing around. If I don't remember how to factor a polynomial properly, is it my teacher's fault? It could be, but it's far more likely that I wasn't paying attention during that part of class, or that I just forgot about it since then.

Here in Wisconsin, a government class is required at the high school level. They cover a range of topics, and the declaration of independance, constitution, and bill of rights are each covered in-depth. I'm sure I could do very well on that survey, but I guarantee that most of my classmates would fail just as poorly as the ones in the Knight Foundation study.

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[jc42]

Pretty accurate summary.

If I were asked such things, I'd just point out that the Bush administration can and does "disappear" people, holding them incommunicado for years without charges or trial. Yeah; the courts have said "You can't do that." The response was announcing a new program to build a prison to house such prisoners for the rest of their lives.

Under such circumstances, the Constitution is little more than a quaint and irrelevant historical document, like the Geneva Conventions.

(There is a question of whether, all rhetoric aside, there is any country where the actual situation is any different. If the authorities in, say, Canada or Sweden wanted someone to disappear, what would happen? How would we know?)

Now, this is probably guaranteed to get a "troll" rating. But the question is serious. How would we know?

Re:put yourself in thier shoes

[plumpy]

Man, I'm sorry, but I think in order to have a competent educational system we have to asssume (gasp) kids don't want to be there, and would rather be doing something else and work from there. If you've ever gotten a kid to eat (and as a result like) something he at first refused to touch, you know it's possible to do.

An interesting thing I found recently is the George Lucas Educational Foundation (yes, that George Lucas). He started it because he wasn't happy with his school experience and so it's mission is to find innovative ways to help kids want to learn and teachers want to teach.

They have a magazine called Edutopia , which you can read online or subscribe to the print version. I think they have RSS feeds, too.

The cover article this month is about the sham that is the textbook publishing industry and offers some suggestions to make it better. It's an interesting read. (This article is actually how I found out about the foundation.)

The Constitution

[eggoeater]

The constitution also doesn't say "separation of church and state" .... but I wish it did.

Re:The Constitution

[Wildfire Darkstar]

This is a disturbingly common reading of the phrase, and, understood in historical context, it's still wrong.

The grandparent post was right, though: etymology does help. As does grammar. The object of the sentence is not "religion": it's "establishment of religion." In this context, it most likely means organized religion as a whole. In other words, a passably acceptable paraphrase is "Congress can't make laws which deal with religion," not "Congress can't establish a state religion." You cannot parse the sentence that way (correctly, at least)! In any case, "establishment" is a noun, not a verb: I can't "establishment" a religion, and neither can Congress.

To be sure, yes, this means that Congress can't establish a state religion. But it means quite a bit more than that, when you actually sit down and start thinking through the repurcussions of it all. It means, in short, that any sort of preferential/discriminatory treatment of any religion on the part of Congress is disallowed. Which is how the Supreme Court has long interpreted it (that being a major part of their job, an' all...) and how the phrase was commonly understood until a bunch of people who really should know better decided to start flaunting the grammatical structure of English in service of misguided spiritual ideals (IMO).

Differences between understanding and opinion

[The Grey Clone]

Isn't there a fairly large difference between students unterstanding that newspapers are allowed to publish anything and the opinion that they should (or shouldn't) be allowed to basically publish anything? It seems to me more like we have children who are growing up to be facists, rather than we have stupid kids.

This shouldn't be surprising...

[damian cosmas]

...after all, most adults don't know the first amendment, either, when they go off about how parties other than the government are "violating their first amendment rights."

Re:Normally the other way around

[texwtf]

> Only half of the students said newspapers should
> be allowed to publish freely without government
> approval of stories

Maybe the kids thought the question was whether or not newspapers could publish without _corporate_ approval of stories.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[GigsVT]

In high school I was on the newspaper staff for a while. We had a major part of an issue planned for addressing sex in high school, with various stories and features.

The principal vetoed the whole deal.

Something similar recently came up at another, and the students just left an entire page blank as a protest.

How can we teach kids about 1st amendment freedoms when principals have 100% editorial control over school papers?

Duh

[Reality Master 101]

I choose to interpret this as (hopefully) students are smarter than we give them credit for.

Take this one: "Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories."

Is there anybody who think that newspapers should be able to publish ANYTHING? Say, a list of witness protection program participants? The fact that you are a convicted child molestor, complete with picture, even if you're not? Hey, it's "freedom of speech", right?

Considering that many Slashdotter's knee-jerk reaction is that "all censorship is bad", I find this quite refreshing.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[mikesmind]

That's because the government and consolidated media doesn't want free thinkers. They want people who follow the status quo.

The role of public schools isn't to produce free thinkers and speakers. It is to get the masses to submit to the government.

U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either...

[VE3ECM]

Seriously, I wonder what the results would be if this study were stretched out to include adults as well as teenagers?

I'd bet dollars-to-donuts the results would be almost identical.

The problem isn't with the kids; it's the system that allows these kids to develop ideas like these that's the problem.
No child left behind, indeed. Does it count when they've *all* been left behind?

not bright

[Apreche]

Like most studies this one only provides one possible interpretation of the data collected. Another possible interpretation of this information is that students think the media is evil and manipulative, like we do. And they are naieve enough to think that the government interfering with this will make the media better. When I was in high school whenever I saw a problem my answer was always "the government should step in and do X". Only later did I realize how stupid this was. I know many others who had similar thought patterns.

2nd Amendment

[Shadow Wrought]

I'm surprised at just how ignorant the students were about the 1st, but I have to wonder what they had to say about the 2nd. I'm not a 2nd Amendment zealot by any means (I don't own any guns and probably won't any time soon), but it has as much authority as the other Amendments do, yet is often discounted as "not really applying anymore" or something similar. What strikes me as interesting is that one of the main groups which pushed the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as no longer being valid was the media- which owes sll of its protection to the 1st.

I downright shudder when I think about the average American's current understanding of our Constitution.

Re:2nd Amendment

[J'raxis]

The Supreme Court decision that stated that the "well-regulated Militia" clause was meant as a prerequisite for firearms possession (as opposed to a mere descriptive phrase, or an example, as many gun rights advocates argue) was United States v. Miller. This case also said that citizens, "when called for service ... were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

So, since you obviously support this decision, you must believe that ordinary citizens should be able to possess fully-automatic rifles, explosives, and other arms that are "in common use at [this] time." Right?

Yes, it's parsing words, but so's quibbling over meaning of the first clause of the Second Amendment.

Pledge of Allegiance?

[gardyloo]

How many students understand the Pledge of Allegiance? They're swearing allegiance to a republic about which they understand very, very little, and do it gladly, because it's the Done Thing.
People shouldn't be pressured to say the thing until they're 18, at least, and have some inkling of what's going on. They shouldn't be *pressured* at all, in fact.

I was so resentful of having to say it when I was a kid (and only realized this in 6th grade), that I was consistently the only one NOT to stand for it in high school and beyond. One gets some strange evil eyes when you don't do the Done Thing.

And Why Would They Be Expected To?

[Guncrazy]

After all, American public schools:

...Ban the display of the Confederate flag.

...ban pictures of guns.

... dissent on widely held scientific theories.

...write speech codes that severely penalize students for voicing their opinions.

...and a legion of similar examples.

If the American judiciary can't understand the First Amendment, how the hell are America's students supposed to?

Re:I'm not surprised

[snorklewacker]

Yunno, have you even bothered to look at your local high school's texts, or are you just repeating the same propoganda you hear on Fox News?

They do lie, you know.

Regularly.

As a matter of policy.

"Political Correctness" isn't exactly a good thing, but it's hardly the bogeyman you think it is. Throwing it out like some kind of shibboleth is just bleating to the same conservative crowd, but actually tells no one anything of substance.

You are part of the problem.

Demographics

[jabber01]

I would *love* to see the demographic distribution/correlation of the students surveyed, in particular Blue vs Red states, private vs public schools, political and denominational majority in their school district, as well as economic backgrounds.

Re:We don't have the right.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a perfect example of the kind of person put forth by the Founders who opposed the Bill of Rights as a reason why the Bill of Rights should not be passed. The argument was once you started deliniating rights of the people that some would then argue those not explicitly stated would not exist. That's why they passed the 9th amendment.

Have a good day Exhibit A.

Is this suprising?

[Eslyjah]

Most Americans don't understand the First Amendment. What percent of Americans know that the First Amendment guarantees religious freedom? What percent know that religious freedom is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment? Lots of people seem to think it's only about speech for some reason.

Re:Wake up, everyone

[YrWrstNtmr]

TV channels ALREADY only show what government tells them to show. Did you see any injured iraqis on TV?Daily. That, and the number of American wounded/killed, all we hear about. Don't hear too much about the other stuff happening. School being opened and the like.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Procrastin8er]

The professor would grade you on your research and your proof and not how he/she particularly felt the topic should be supported.

Unfortunately, for me, it didn't end when I was in college. Being a conservative, any proof I offered, was dismissed and ridiculed and my grades suffered in comparison.

High School

[qbasicnewbie]

Quite frankly, as a high school student myself, I am not too surprised. Most of the kids in my school actually think that Saddam Hussein (hope I spelled that right) wanted to attack the U.S. and had WMD's to use on us. Obviously this was not the case, but when I try to point this out they tell me how much of an idiot I am and how I must be wrong. If they'll believe things like this, no wonder they have no problem with censorship

In response to a poster who said something along the lines of how certain things (his/her example was a witness protection program list) should not be published, I absolutely agree. But this question in regards to government censorship was much more simple than that. It had more to do with the government censoring things that it didn't want published for its own selfish means, not for the protection of people.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Ironsides]

To add, there is a movie/musical called 1776 that was recently banned from public schools in my home county for the very minor thing of one of the characters saying that he "burns for his wife". This is a very liberal county by the way, (66+% by the last election returns). A couple of others I know are fairly certain that that was the excuse and the real reason was that it is too patriotic. (go figure) The school system just keeps getting more and more screwed up in this country. If I ever have any I'm gonna send them to a private school.

On a slightly related not, I sugest reading Higher Education by Sheffield Especially since you work in the public schools.

Read the *OTHER* questions...

[cfalcon]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050 131/480/nyet25301311822

"Newspapers publish without government oversight?"
Students: 51%
Teachers/Principals: 80%

Then it begins to switch:
"Musicians sing songs with offensive lyrics?"
Students: 70%
Teachers: 58%
Principals: 43%

And then it gets personal:

"Students should be able to report controversial issues without approval of school authorities?"
Students: 58%
Teachers: 39%
Principals: 25%

So, 7 percent of students picked NO to "allowed to report if our government jails an entire race of people", but YES to "we should be allowed to bitch when the principal makes detention longer".

That 7% is a large part of the problem, but maybe they will get it eventually.

The principals and teachers who swapped views like the *idea* of freedom, but don't like the little crunchy bits where it poops on *their* feet.

It's also worth pointing out that 80% of the teachers / principals is VERY signifigant- it means that 20% either believe (or don't care) that government should censor EVERYTHING. That's adults, folks, and that bothers me a bit more than "half of highschoolers don't get it".

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Kiryat Malachi]

In my old school district, proper civics courses were still around as of 2001, when my brother took them. This included a 1 semester course in American law, including constitutional law basics, and a 1 semester course in government. The teacher of the government class gave extra credit for voting (equivalent to an A on a weekly quiz, no big thing, but enough to get a few kids to do it once - since it was a course given mainly for seniors, many of them were able to vote). American History was a seperate class entirely. This is the Ann Arbor, MI, school district - while I have significant issues with what they've done to the math/science curricula since I went through the system, they taught civics (in the old sense) pretty well.

The teacher I had for it way back when left around that time, so I'm not certain they still have them, but as of 2001 they still existed.

Re:I'm not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm only 21 so public school is not so far behind me. The GP is using the PC straw man* but still has a valid point.

We were not taught to become homosexuals or atheists or to vote Democrat in school. However the GP is correct in one thing - more emphasis is being put on social engineering than education. US History was a joke - we spent more time on group activities that were supposed to be teaching us to be productive 'team members' than we did getting down to the meat and potatos of the constitution.

*and in this case I'm not really bothered by it. Usually when right wingers bring up the evils of "political correctness" its a not-so-subtle appeal to racism.

Actually, you're kind of wrong

[Old Man Kensey]

CrimsonAvenger wrote:

There is NO "preamble" to the Bill of Rights.

Actually, in a manner of speaking, there is. The OP's quote is taken from the original proposed amendments to the Constitution, said list being drawn up by Congress an approved on March 1, 1789. As a note, there was a preamble to said list, it did include the quote as cited by the OP, and there were twelve proposed amendments, of which one was never approved and one was approved in 1992. The First Amendment was originally "Article the Third".

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[cgranade]

You know my solution: don't go to high school. I didn't, and homeschooled instead. Currently, I'm a college student with a 3.6-3.7 GPA (depends on how many xfer credits are counted) and in the honors program. I have a healthy respect for my rights, and for my freedoms. I cannot but help but reaffirm my hatred of public schools by this article.

Re:Not entirely right

[Changer2002]

Actually not always. There's the the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions that states that the government can't condition the receipt of funds on giving up a Constitutional right, including the first. Now while certain cases seem to point the other way (NEA v. Finley, Russ v. Sullivan etc) there is still the idea in those that either the government is acting as a speaker by using the funds, or the burdens are so unintrusive that they are acceptable. Maybe you're misreading me, I'm not saying that they can publish whatever they want. I'm saying that the government can't impose arbitrary or viewpoint discriminatory restrictions on speech that they fund, UNLESS the funding is for their own speech. If the article was obscene (or fighting words, or slander, or any other unprotected category), then that's one thing, but it's something that could be challenged and if was found to not be obscene then wouldn't survive First Amendment analysis (assuming the funding was seen as opening a public forum).

Public freedom vs private right

[RmanB17499]

But, then, lots of people also confuse the 1st amendment and think because of it one can say anything they would like about a private party.

The First Amendment provides only protection against your speech, thoughts, and print when the government is a party. Your right to speak up, against, or disparage a private third party whether it's Microsoft, McDonalds, or Coke is severely restricted. As it should be. I wouldn't want someone out there spreading untruths about me.

But the government is held to a higher standard. I could always say Bush is a criminal or whatever. Since Bush is a public figure (politician) and holds the Office of the President of the USG he is subject to the highest duty: he owes me the duty to print almost anything about him.

And just because something is deemed secret doesn't prevent its publication. See the Pentagon Papers case (NY Times v. United States)
But to call Microsoft or Bill Gates a criminal without proper evidence would be an invitation to a huge lawsuit.

That's a huge difference in Free Speech that many people easily forget in their haste to demonize others.

They don't appriciate thier rights.

[Demon-Xanth]

It's hard to appriciate your rights if you never have to use them.

When Vietnam was going on, the first amendment became quite important.

When Rockefeller was able to get a governer to send in a state militia to force miners back to work, and that militia opened fire on the miners with machine guns (new device) and then burned thier tent city down with families still in the tents. The right to bear arms made the difference as tons of people were flocking to defend the miners, so the preident stepped in and sent the national army to break up the event and essentially kick the state militia out of there.

Either use it or lose it.

I'm a gun toting redneck/geek that's a freedom loving eagle scout. I consider myself the kind of person that this country needs more of. Though there isn't enough people like me to stand up and say "WTF?" when something is odviously wrong. People are comfortable to hide behind a flag and the banner of patriotism while forgetting that this country isn't a government, but a civilization. The government is for the people, not the other way around.

From watching TV and reading the papers...

[ConceptJunkie]

I'd say more than 50% of adults, including many in Congress and the judiciary, don't understand the First Amendment either.

That high school kids don't understand it is a given. There are so few people who can explain it.

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. Since the principal is an agent of the government, why would a policeman as an agent of the government be any different?

Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them

[RobertB-DC]

Q: What about underground or independent student publications? Are they protected from censorship?
A: Absolutely. Although public schools can establish reasonable restrictions as to the time, place and manner of distribution of underground publications, they cannot absolutely forbid their distribution on school grounds. Like school-sponsored publications that are forums, a school must show substantial disruption before they can censor an independent publication.

For me, that decision came about three years too late. My senior year, in 1985, I published an underground newspaper at my small-town school. I used my dad's typewriter, made copies at a copy place in another town, and passed out only a handful of copies to my friends. That was Wednesday.

Friday morning, I was called into the principal's office. He had a copy on his desk, with my name written on the front (in the receptionist's handwriting, strangely enough). He tried to get me to divulge the identity of the other contributor. I refused that request, but his threat to expel me if I printed another issue. I think that was the time I spent three days in in-school suspension, too.

A friend of mine's dad, a lawyer, advised me that two months from graduation isn't the best time to rock the boat.

In the end:

* The journalism teacher, who had no involvement in my adventure, was fired/quit.

* The school rules were rewritten to explicity ban underground newspapers.

* The principal never figured out who wrote the article.

* The girl he blamed, a fellow senior, got a kick out of being thought the co-conspirator.

* The girl who actually wrote the article (which exhorted students to listen to their teachers), a sophomore, moved to a private school.

* The principal retired a couple of years later.

I'll have to scan and transcribe the paper someday... but my 18-year-old earnest ramblings about teens and sex look a lot different through these 38-year-old eyes.

Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi

[I_Love_Pocky!]

and in doing so, sent a clear message to all neighboring countries that should they grant protection to terrorist organizations we'll summarily remove them from power.

Or rather a message was sent that the United States will attack whom ever it wants, when ever it wants. So, you (the foreign power) had better not cross us (The United States), or we will find your links to terrorism and hit you with a preemptive strike.

Don't let anyone kid you, Iran is next on the chopping block. I'm not against invading Iran, so much as I'm against the inevitable lies the Bush administration will use to justify such an action. He would probably have a lot more support if he was just more straight forward about the motivations for his actions.

as i posted on a community blog, its obvious why..

[acroyear]

kids have never known what freedom (of the press) really is.

Schools, in order to deal with lawsuits about how such-n-such kid was "exposed" to a lifestyle or something or other they "shouldn't" have been, have been an absolute hammer of conformity.

School uniforms, dress codes, censorship of t-shirts and buttons, regulations on number of ear piercings, restrictions on where you can and can't spend your lunch hour, restrictions on the books that can be in the library, restrictions on what books from home you can read, censorship of school newspapers and newsletters, random locker inspections, "zero-tolerance" for drugs leading to expulsions for possession of Advil or sudafed or even sharing a cough drop, and of course the prison-level security systems of metal detectors and barbed wire fences...

they've never known what a free society is. A high school history or government class can talk a good story about it, but the truth is they've never seen it, they'll never really know what it means.

In fact, even the examples of Watergate or Iran-Contra have been so perverted and distorted by the right-wing media that they're useless. The worst part is that the right-wingers are using the same so-called "Freedom" of the press and speech to condemn that very freedom.

(Plus, most kids don't get exposed to constitutional instruction 'til their 11th and 12th grade years anyways, so asking 10th graders what they think is pointless, because they haven't even been taught what it means).

As long as kids are never shown what freedom truly is, they'll never learn to respect it. It'll just become a buzzword for saying, "well, I can vote...whatever THAT means".

Re:Try the same study with college kids

[rgoldste]

Remember Kohlberg's theory of moral development. HS students are in the "conventional" stage of morality, meaning roughly that what's right is what is socially approved of and what's wrong is what's disapproved of.

As they mature, they go into the "postconventional" phase, where rights are to be defended because of a social contract that all agree to.

The study is therefore not surprising to in finding HS students dismissive of minority rights and unpopular views. It would be surprising to see college students think the same way.

Khruschev

[delcielo]

The beginning of the end came during the Khruschev era.

Khruschev, unlike Stalin and Lenin, was a patriot for the system and cared about the survival of the USSR and the Soviet system of government beyond his own time of service. He hoped to decrease military spending and increase spending on domestic issues such as agriculture, education, housing, etc.

As long as the leadership (central committe, politburo) was convinced that the USSR maintained military superiority over the US, Khruschev was allowed to be a little more liberal with his spending. During the 1960 US presidential election in particular, there was a lot of talk about the "missile gap" and how the US had languished under Eisenhower/Nixon and needed its military might strengthened. Then, of course, Kennedy was elected and reassured everybody that there was no gap and that the US was indeed strong enough to take on the Ruskies. Add the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis in the mix and the Soviet leadership's grip on the economy closed again.

Khruschev was all but over after the Cuban Missile Crisis, and so was the Soviet economy. As the parent stated Brezhnev's uninspired leadership never challenged the military spending habits. The irony is that by not spending enough domestically, the USSR assured that their economy would dwindle and falter. Gorbachev understood the issues and was working toward solving them as much as he could with increased trade, glasnost, etc. but that put him at odds with the leadership and the military who were more worried about spending to match Reagan's SDI boondoggle. When the coup was attempted it sparked the endgame. The system had reached the tipping point and collapsed in on itself. Gorbachev had liberalized the country enough that it wouldn't stand for the military's coup.

Certainly, Reagan's spending sped up the endgame; but the fall of the USSR really began in earnest when the Soviet leadership ousted Khruschev. While certainly no altruist, Khruschev did indeed believe in his country and wanted it to thrive. Anyone who doubts this should read his speech to the Communist Party Congress in which he denounces Stalin and his policies. It was a move that was daring and shocking in its bravery.

Having said all of that, I'm glad we don't still have a Soviet Union to deal with. I like not worrying about nuclear war every morning, though I wish they'd keep tighter control of their stockpiles.

This terrorism thing doesn't even come close to the anxiety I felt about the Soviets. THAT was a scary time.

Re:The system

[clambake]

.My friend wrote a brilliant paper on socialism - analyzing different positive effects on society, economy... Another kid in the class wrote a complete bullshit paper on democracy - just kissing ass on how America is so great and how democracy works for all. My friend ended up getting a lower grade, just because the teacher did not agree witht the paper.

I remember in school we had to write a paper on the book "Night", which is about the holocaust. I remember being told (often) that we should write something creative. I think many kids wrote thier reports as a news report, some in a "diary of anne frank" style, etc. I thought at the time it might be creative to try to take a dissenting view, and try to write a report that pointed out the "good" side of mass genocide. It wasn't like I took a racist slant or even that I really felt that the holocaust was in any way good, I just thought it might broaden my horizons to try to make a defense of the "bad guys" in the book. It was very subtle and nuanced, and I thought it was really well done.

Oh boy was that the "wrong" thing to do... I was forced under the threat of complete failure of English class for the entire year (I was a straight "a" student at that point) and severe psycolological counseling to rewrite the paper from the exact opposite point of view. I rewrote it as a pice of trash, with such likes as, "Nazis are bad bad bad people, bad bad crappy bad." and got an A and everyone was happy.

What I learned as the main rule for kids in school: never think.

Civics need to be taught

[Recovering Anonymous]

I said it before, maybe if they actually taught civics in school kids might know these answers. I also noticed that made no metion of freedom of relegion, I guess that one doesn't count anymore.

TFA's authors don't get the 1st Amendment, either

[Len Budney]

From TFA:

Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It's not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't.

That's all true as far as current law goes, but it's a gross misunderstanding to suggest that the first amendment is about protecting pr0n. The framers made, and enforced, laws against obscenity and indecency. It's only recently that 1st amendment case law started to focus on protecting deviancy.

The primary purpose of the first amendment is to protect political dissent and religious freedom. The protection was made broader than "political" speech only to prevent politicians from enacting censorship under the guise of decency laws.

Ironically, political dissent is condemned by left- and right-wingers, as either "fascist" or "unpatriotic", and public expression of religious views brings down a torrent of ridicule. The only "first amendment rights" people get passionate about are exactly the ones that weren't even intended by the framers: frivolous and indecent expression that serves no decent purpose at all.

Re:Read it again

[jimmyfergus]

I'm sorry I don't have time for a full response to your post and the others in a similar vein. Most seem to be along the lines of "it may say flag, but it doesn't really mean it, it means what it represents, and anyway, we pledge alegiance to other things too". I was already aware of this. It's still ludicrous and I reject the notion that flag waving is laudable.

One day, your country will begin to understand these ideals, perhaps to the point that you will adopt them into your government.

One day, perhaps you'll travel a bit, and realise your country isn't unique, and many other people are at least as free as you, and they typically don't shout about it nearly as much. You also may come to recognise that the recently added "under God" is a minor repudiation of freedom in itself.

For the record, I am a great admirer of most of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, indeed all the things America is supposed to stand for.

If only they read books

[danila]

Only an educated populace can appreciate the freedoms. It always was so and always will be.

"Teaching" about the First Amendment is pointless. The understanding of its role and importance can only come from reading the great books of Plato, Voltair and Hegel and learning about world history from books and museums. Watching History Channel (if even that) is not a valid substitute.