Slashdot Mirror
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.".."
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.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
The survey, conducted by researchers at the University of Connecticut, is billed as the largest of its kind. More than 100,000 students, nearly 8,000 teachers and more than 500 administrators at 544 public and private high schools took part in early 2004.
Now this is NOT an insignificant study. 100k students and only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories? Excuse me? This misinformation must be coming from somewhere... Are these kids skipping American History/Civics and moving into Psychology and Sociology courses instead?
About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't.
Well, unfortunately it HAS been restricting indecent material. Forcing various institutions to enable filters on content. Yeah, it can't stop ALL the content out there but it is getting closer and closer to that. With the scare tactics and every parent believing that every sensationalist news "story" on the TV is GOING TO AFFECT THEIR CHILDREN they are pushing this crap through without thinking about the consequences.
The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority.
Of course they don't. Going through high-school English classes I was told repeatedly how I was to respond when it came time for essay exams. If you did not give the teacher what they wanted you were given a poor grade. It wasn't until college (and I remember our second semester English professor being appalled) that I was able to write how I felt about a topic and back it up with real information. The professor would grade you on your research and your proof and not how he/she particularly felt the topic should be supported.
How can we expect high-school aged kids to think that they should be given a chance to practice their First Amendment rights when they are under the constant force feeding of information?
More than one in five schools offer no student media opportunities; of the high schools that do not offer student newspapers, 40 percent have eliminated them in the last five years.
That's because the government and consolidated media doesn't want free thinkers. They want people who follow the status quo. Why stir the pot when you can just report the silly rumors, scare tactics and sensationalism, and car chases above California?
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.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
"Only half the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories"? Yikes.
Inside me is a kneejerk activist who wants to point to this as evidence that growing up, as children have since 9/11/01, surrounded by authority figures who casually restrict freedom of speech in the name of guarding against terrorism, encourages children to pattern their thoughts and behavior along similar unfortunate lines.
But actually, I'd like to know what similar studies have been conducted in years past. If this is the way young adults have always thought, then things probably won't get any worse. What would be disturbing is a trend showing young adults finding restrictions on free speech increasingly acceptable.
Studies show that US schools produce idiots like me. It's a wonder that fast food chains of the nation are still standing.
My comments may be crap...but they are my crap...and I am brave enough to stand by them...Never post as AC!
Pictures at eleven.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
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.
If everyone except the kids understands the FA so well, why does the article have to clear up things like "...thought flag-burning is illegal. It's not", etc.
Looks like the kids are not the only ones in need of education about the First Amendment?
...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."
...eighty percent of the same group, when asked to locate the USA on a map of North America, pointed to Canada.
How accurate can you consider the results to be? They're highschool kids. I remember when we had to fill out quizzes for things like this in my highschool (mostly smoking related ones). The idea of the quiz for us was to see who could make the best picture while only filling in dots, who can go the fastest, who can make the best use of the "Do not write in this space" area, and so forth.
> 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.
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?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I see it in kids today all the time.
This is most certainly due to living in the post-Napster, post-9/11, political & legal environment.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
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.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The role of public schools isn't to produce free thinkers and speakers. It is to get the masses to submit to the government.
www.mikesmind.com - www.daddyworkathome.com - www.freetofarm.org - www.tenfoottable.com
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?
Also, just as obviously, the teacher and school shouldn't be the sole place to impart this knowledge. Start at home.
And on a related note...this is why teenagers shouldn't vote. There are the very few extremely intelligent ones that do understand the ramifications, but most need a little bit of maturity first.
I am a high school student. In one of my classes, we have bi-monthly discussions about current events that last the entire period. It amazes me how little some students know about our government. And to be honest, I can't blame them. The only time we ever studied the government was in 8th grade civics. Sure you can take Government class, but there are no other mandatory classes that teach students about our government in my school district.
They are just watching too much American "news", and in particular Fox "news". Heck, the majority of the US population believe that Iraq was behind 9/11. Go figure.
People die to defend these rights, and some of our students don't even know what these rights are?
Hey conservatives! Maybe if instead of worrying about absitence only education and attacking Darwinism you spent your efforts in communicating why and how we are a free society, and why that is of tantamount importance, we could all get along here, hm? Cuz I'll be honest with you, I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with James "Spongebob Is Gay" Dobson if it means we get the message out loud and clear about the Bill of RIghts.
>The constitution also doesn't say "separation of .... but I wish it did.
> church and state"
It does. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
That is the very essence of the doctrine of separation of church and state, and goes much further to protect this fundamental right of the people than your wished-for clause would.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The funny thing about flag burning and all those attempts to make it illegal (or the idea that it already is) is that when you ask a conservative who actually knows about these things, you'll find out that burning a flag is actually the only proper way to get rid of one when you have to - for example, to prevent it from falling into the hands of the enemy. For some reason, those pushing for a law that would make burning flags illegal never seem to know about that.
Not that I myself care about what happens to a flag in the slightest, of course - if you're a soldier and in a fight, you probably have better things to do than worry about than a piece of cloth that probably was produced in a sweatshop in communist China, anyway.
It's funny how these neocons aren't actually conservative in the actual sense of the word, though.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
The first amendment, after all, doesn't say that "Congress shall make no law except for laws barring child pornography, the exposure of military secrets, and naughty words on the radio."
Not that I don't favor barring child porn, but you know, if you want to do that, you need to change the amendment...
Yeah, yeah, I know all about our English Common Law system and all that. I'm just saying, you can't blame people for not understanding the law...and frankly, the law is always a mushy, malleable pile of goo if the Supreme Court can change the meaning of pretty plain words.
Advice: on VPS providers
Most Christians I talk to seem to assume that "seperation of church and state" is some made up popular conception which doesn't really exist as Constitutional precedent. "Show me where in the Constitution it says the words 'seperation of church and state'!" they scream. They forget that the Constitution was designed to be an evolving document interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, and here is what they had to say:
From The United States Supreme Court Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing decision:
Yes, but just because it is not there does not mean you do not have the right. Check out the 9th amendment.
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.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
With USA schools today being so wrapped up in socalizing children, following the "A is for Average" and the Politically Correct mantra, I'm not surprised to hear that student's don't know much about the First Amendmentm much less other important documents that are the cornerstone of the USA. Heck, schools today are re-writing US history to be overly zealous about being politically correct to the point the text has lost the original reason why a group of people moved from England to Holland to the land now called the United States of America.
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.
I downright shudder when I think about the average American's current understanding of our Constitution.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
I thought it was Bill Clinton's fault. Now I'm confused.
I think that's an excellent lesson in the difference between the first amendment and sponsered speech. You'll notice in your example the principal exercised prior restraint in a publication he controls the funding for in a venue he controls the discipline for. A similiar example would be "Air America" where the government controls the funds and employees. This is not covered by the "freedom of press".
If a policeman, acting as an agent of the government, had come in and insisted you not publish an article on sex, that would be a free press issue.
Sounds like you had a learning opportunity and you failed the lesson.
Never confuse volume with power.
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.
Just an FYI, civics classes (basing from your id #) like we had in high school haven't been around in nearly a decade. In fact, my junior year of HS (94 iirc) was the year civics was entirely phased out (and I went to good HS, properly sized classes, music and art programs in good check, etc). (I work in a public school system and I just checked the 2004-05 HS Catalog of classes just to make sure I wasn't misinforming)
American History is still taught, but it's basically as a timeline of events. Civics used to cover everything from your responsibilities as a US citizen to the goals and purpose of the amendments, Bill of Rights, etc.
Basically, everything being taught now comes from a point of view of no judgement calls. If there is something open to interpretation, either it's not taught, or it's taught from a historical context as opposed to the 'meaning' or 'message' of said lesson.
It's how you can teach a religious studies class in a HS. You can learn the history, you just can't preach the subject matter. The same rules now apply to 'preaching US citizenship'.
Just FYI.
the thing that everyone is forgetting is this: high school is not now nor has it ever been anything like "real life".
witness: in school, teachers routinely punish the entire class until the party guilty of a particular offense comes forward. in real life, we would call this sort of activity by authorities "terrorism". in school, the mantra of maintaining order is "i don't care who started it." in the real world, we spend billions of dollars on a justice system to figure out "who started it."
since the dawn of the formal state educational system we have been creatinga purly artificial environment for our children with values, mores and codes of conduct that bear no resemblence to the real world whatsoever.
so... why should these results be a surprise?
2 1337 4 u!
I'm not trying to start and argument or anything, just pointing out that I doubt most kids in high school care. You leanred about your rights in a class you either skipped or wished you did. These things just aren't on the minds of kids.
However, I'm betting if this test were conducted on college students, the results would be a lot different. It's at about that age people start to get interested in such things and investigate into them. Which is probably why there are so many political protests at colleges or being done by college (or college-age) people. Most often when a high school student protests, it's in emulation of someone else.
Paul
This is the link to the opening page which describes the methodology and other information about the study.
Way to go editors. Please don't include actual information for stories.
For those interested you can check my journal for some of the stories which were rejected to see what you've been missing.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Studies show that most studies are conducted in ways that can guarantee the desired results. I can think of lots of ways to ask questions that would provide enough confusion to get the answers they reported. There are also other ways to ask the questions to get the opposite answers or even more ways to ask the questions to get unbiased answers.
If this study were repeated independently I'll believe it. Otherwise, I'll presume it's as fair and balanced as cable news.
Kind of like multiple choice tests, mostly they test your ability to take tests.
I assume you meant "If only Redstaters weren't such dumb walmart shopping, nascar watching dummies."
"respecting an establishment of religion..."
IOW, not making laws that discriminate between different sects.
Yes, it's true. Etymology helps, so does reading history. It's sad, most people don't know history, and don't read much either.
...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?
TV channels ALREADY only show what government tells them to show. Did you see any injured iraqis on TV? And there are tens of thousands of them. Or did you think that "laser guided" bunker busters only blow up the bunkers?
Some newspapers exercise "self censorship" as well. This is just so fucking wrong! And flag burning should in fact be illegal, I think.
Also, do you seriously think that the government doesn't have the means to prevent certain information to get published on the Internet? Do you _seriously_ think so, poor naive lads? I mean, come on, one day you publish something and next day you wake up at Guantanamo bay handcuffed to a railing with a bag over your head.
Funny thing is, Americans sincerely believe that they enjoy the most freedoms of any country in the world. For the time being, I think, the freedom has moved to Europe and Canada. US of A aren't as shiny an ideal of freedom as they once were.
The government doesn't control funding for "Air America"; perhaps you are thinking of "Voice of America", which is totally different.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Where do YOU get your news? The US Gov't does not filter anything except child porn, and even that is debatable (I think they put it out there to catch the pervs). The CDA act did NOT pass, thank goodness. I can't think of a single URL the US Gov't blocks unless it is the web site of known terrorists, you can even bet illegally via the web (offshore casinos) and make a date with a prostitue, both clearly illegal activities. Flag burning had not even been tested as a 1st Amendment isssue until about 10 yrs ago, maybe less. Folks just didn't do it. Probably 60% of Americans get thier news from the 3 main network newscasts. Talk about left wing, alarmist news which treats viewers as morons who should NOT make up thier own minds from facts. Most parents do NOT censor what the kids watch on TV (or on video..ever see what the teens rent at Blockbuster?). If you believe the data about kids watching violent TV becoming violent themselves then that sure proves someone is NOT checking on the kids. Been a LONG time since I was in college so I don't know what the teachers do. I recall my spouse taking a different view than her Am. Lit. prof and getting marked down a few years back, but I suspect that varies campus to campus and even prof to prof. I'm all for High School papers, I used to be the editor! Maybe the reason there aren't any is the kids don't want to do it? We were not even censored, and we sure had a lot of non-standard ant-administration views about lunch, classes, polcies, etc. Good Government is impossible WITHOUT free thinkers. Lack of thinking (on both sides of the aisle) is a BIG part of the problem in Congress. The only thinking is how does my state (or me) get my cut of the fiscal pie.
So in other words their government-provided schooling is doing its job.
Liberty in your lifetime
It's not, but depending on where you live, you might not want to do it anyway unless you want to risk being lynched by an angry mob.
(Just to be sure it's not misunderstood, that was a rather cynical comment, but there is more than a grain of truth in it.)
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
asking:
can the government restrict internet contents for obscene material?
will get a vastly different answer than:
should the government restrict internet contents for obscene material?
but both question can be reported as "X% of students feel government can strict obscene material on the internet."
Good Red State American's don't want freedom . . . they want super bowls, super bowl commercials, and cold beer with a born on date. This life is supposed to suck ass, and the more it sucks the bigger the reward in heaven.
Freedom of the press, isn't that what leads to disagreements ? Can't we all just adopt the sanctioned viewpoint of our leaders, put this in the past, and look forward to all the great shopping opportunities we have available in this fine country ?
There is a law in the U.S. Code that specifically bans the desecration of the flag (actually it what it restricts is pretty broad-- you can't put any images or markings on it at all). However, in 1988 the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning was protected free speech. So there is a law on the books banning flag burning, however it has been ruled unconstitutional.
Why is this a troll? Several educators, not the least of the them a former teacher of the year, share this view. Just because it's a controversial idea does not mean that the poster is trolling.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
afaik also burning a flag is the only way to "properly" destroy an old flag
I'll bet they're clueless about Selective Service too, which is what the conscription system is called in the USA.
Somebody needs to point out to them that they are the slack in the system between US troop delpoyments and the robot soldiers.
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
Looks like our government raised children are coming along nicely.
Looks to me that we need to start making drastic changes for better now, cause we won't be getting much help from the next batch of super-sheeple.
*DrugCheese rants*
I've been thinking about "the right to free assembly" lately. Once upon a time, when people lived within horse-riding distance of their meeting houses, it was possible to exercise this right without any technological support, but nowadays it would be almost impossible to exercise this right without access to, for example, a car. And yet states still consider driving a "privilege" rather than a "right." It seems to me that in this day and age, with access to a car essentially a prerequisite for free assembly, American's ought to have a "right" to drive, protected as a consequence of the the first amendment. In fact, I would think that in this day and age access to a car is more important than (say) access to a gun, for exercising civil disobedience in the face of totalitarianism. We ought to have a right to drive for the same reason we have a right to bear arms, it seems to me. So where do states get off still telling us that this is a "privilege" and not a right?
I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
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.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
I am not at all surprised by the results, high school kids live in an opressive environment so it's no wonder they think the world is like this.
Far more interesting would be to ask people in college the same question, and see how much an open environment led them to expand expectations of freedoms.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
From the FA:
About nine in 10 principals said it is important for all students to learn some journalism skills, but most administrators say a lack of money limits their media offerings.
More than one in five schools offer no student media opportunities; of the high schools that do not offer student newspapers, 40 percent have eliminated them in the last five years.
Lack of money limits their media offerings, but they'd rather plunge a red-hot porcupine up their asses than cut a football or basketball program, even if their program is losing money.
I don't doubt that schools and students benefit from sporting programs. But what life skills are actually learned in sporting programs? Instead of cutting sports, they cut the arts, funding for computer labs, and so-called "media offerings."
Mr. Holland was right. If they quit teaching anything other than reading and writing, pretty soon the students won't have anything left to read or write about.
.sig wanted. Inquire within.
To me, this shows that people (as indicated through their children) are tired of the media's dishonesty and sensationalism and feel that newspapers should be censored.
I think it comes down to public school atmosphere and neglected parenting.
Parenting is a full time job for both parents, and reinforcing things taught in school is one faucet of that job. Many parents, my friends included, think their kids education and well-roundedness will be the result of attending classes in school. They couldn't be more wrong. A U.S. History or U.S. Government teacher has one hour a day in which to cram a 3 hour course-required schedule to 30 students in a crammed classroom. At least that's the way it is in Arizona, one of the worst states for public schooling.
As far as the kids are concerned going to school is something that takes place when they aren't living their lives. I mean, learning is something they do in bits and spurts during a 1 hour course, and it can be thrown out the window during the after school trip to the mall with their friends.
It's really up to the parents to get involved and reinforce the ideas and priciples taught by the public school system. Only by making the student think and ponder the concept of Freedom of Speech will that concept become meaningful to the student, and they can then develop their own opinions about it. Making the student truly ponder it can be a simple dinner table discussion between the student and his or her parents and family.
Unfortunately I know too many parents who send their kids off to school so the parents can do their own thing, then send the kids off to play when the kids get home so the parents can continue to do their own thing. I wish more parents would take the education of their children farther than punishing or rewarding the kids based on the merits of their report cards.
Be Safe! Sleep with a Marine. Semper Fi!
hmmm. maybe now "RTFA" can mean "read the first amendment"?
despite its inherent lack of profanity, i like it.
They're makin' fools of you son!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I blame you for such blatant stereotyping of people because they are of a certain political persuasion.
In fact, I think that your attitude is exactly why Kerry isn't in the White House today. Honestly, who is going to vote for a candidate who comes off as very elitst when all of his supporters act incredibly elitist, saying things like you are, that Republicans are bible thumping rednecks, and other assorted insults. It simply alienates a lot of people who wouldotherwise vote for you, even if they disagreed with your moral viewpoints a little bit.
Lastly, grouping people like that makes you look less intelligent.
Hear, hear. I agree. Now if we could only get the government to keep Fox news from reporting what they want to and force them to report the correct information..... Oh wait, that's not the point you wanted to make is it?
Well, here is the study
Future of First Amendment Report (456K) PDF
Country of origin was not taken into account with their research. That variable might be worth examining if student misconceptions were relatively low. Yet, considering the popularity of misconceptions far outweighs the possible number of students born abroad, it's not really worth examining.
Moreover, there are already sociological studies with that data... you can probably find some full-text research on Ebsco.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
In case there are any high schoolers (or parents of high schoolers) reading Slashdot, here's the FAQ from SPLC (Student Press Law Center). I worked on a newspaper in high school and despite the extreme (grade-affecting) hard work found it really rewarding.
http://splc.org/legalresearch.asp?id=3
Q: Do high school students have First Amendment rights?
A: Yes. As the United States Supreme Court said in 1969, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." But the First Amendment only prohibits government officials from suppressing speech; it does not prevent school censorship at private schools. A state constitution, statute or school policy could provide private school students with free speech protections.
Q: What about the Hazelwood decision?
A: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision, gave public high school officials greater authority to censor some school-sponsored student publications if they chose to do so. But the ruling doesn't apply to publications that have been opened as "public forums for student expression." It also requires school officials to demonstrate some reasonable educational justification before they can censor anything. In addition, some states (currently Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas and Massachusetts) have passed laws that give students much stronger free expression protection than Hazelwood. Other states are considering such laws.
Q: What is a "public forum for student expression?"
A: A student publication is a public forum for student expression when school officials have given student editors the authority to make their own content decisions. A school can do that either through an official policy or by allowing a publication to operate with editorial independence.
Q: So if policy or practice indicates the content of my publication is determined by students, the Hazelwood decision doesn't apply to me?
A: That's right. If a student publication is a public forum for student expression, then students are entitled to stronger First Amendment protection. School officials are only allowed to censor forum publications when they can show the publication will cause a "material and substantial disruption" of school activities.
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.
Q: Can a student publication be sued for libel, invasion of privacy or copyright infringement?
A: Yes, and occasionally they are. In such cases the individual reporter and the editor could be held legally responsible. Court decisions indicate that a school which does not control the content of a student publication may be protected from liability. Students need to be aware that with press freedom does come legal responsibility.
Q: Can student reporters protect confidential news sources or information?
A: Some states have "shield laws" and others have court-created privileges that protect journalists from having to reveal this kind of information. However, most states have never explicitly applied these laws to student journalists. You should check your state law before making a promise of confidentiality because once you make such a promise, the law requires you to keep it.
Q: Can I use freedom of information laws?
A: Yes. Freedom of information, or "sunshine" laws, require government agencies such as public schools to open many of their official records and
>
>witness: in school, teachers routinely punish the entire class until the party guilty of a particular offense comes forward. in real life, we would call this sort of activity by authorities "terrorism". in school, the mantra of maintaining order is "i don't care who started it." in the real world, we spend billions of dollars on a justice system to figure out "who started it."
Actually, in real life, governments routinely apply laws to the entire population (banning firearms, banning marijuana) due to the irresponsibility of the few. And just as in school -- when it comes down to a sense of fairness or maintaining order, our leaders also don't care who started it.
Rather than trying to make high school more like real life, we discovered it was more efficient to make real life more like high school.
Unfortunately, some don't and swallow the poison whole.
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.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
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".
Short and simple: nothing new here. It has been like that for many years (US children not knowing basic stuff like this when almost all of the rest of the world knows it and they are not even U.S. citizens). But then again, when you listen to U.S. people, they own everything, their President is President of the world, not the US, Irak is a state of America, Russians are bad people, so are Chinese but don't say so just now, we're not ready to attack them yet and Canada is... what and where is Canada ?
I'm proud of not being a U.S. Citizen, particurlarly since the recent war against Irak and the last election... I feel sorry for most of the U.S. people.
RedVortex
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.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Just because you're mad about the election is no reason to bust out idiocy like "evil neocon overlord." I hate Bush too, but please, reign in your rhetoric.
You also happen to be wrong. A fair portion of the US population did and more disturbingly STILL DOES believe Iraq was linked to 9/11.
Examples: "41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001."
"37 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis."
(Source: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index .asp?PID=50.)
They are not majorities, but they are highly significant numbers. And a majority (62%) of Americans continue to beleive Hussein was strongly linked to Al Qaida. This was as of October 21, 2004.
"The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority.
h ip .html
Students who take part in school media activities, such as student newspapers or TV production, are much more likely to support expression of unpopular views, for example.
About nine in 10 principals said it is important for all students to learn some journalism skills, but most administrators say a lack of money limits their media offerings."
This is either uninformed or disengenuous. High school newspapers have been excluded from first ammendment protections by the Supreme Court.
http://www.fair.org/extra/9403/teaching-censors
The problem is that the courts always overlook the word CONGRESS.
That is the key. Congress can make no law, nothing in the Constitution prevents states or their legislatures from doing it. What does it the over extension of the Federal Courts into the business of the States.
Allowing children to read a prayer at their graduation is not a violation of the First Amendment. In fact it probably is more of a violation of the intent of the First to prevent the students from doing just that.
First take away their ability to practice religion. Second make them rely more on their govenment and state appointed officials. Third thing is to ban certain types of speech by law or itimidation (hate speech).
Do not read into the First what is clearly not there. The Congress already recognizes major religious holidays which would clearly be against the First but I don't see anyone crying over that.
The First was meant to protect religions from dominance by one over another, not to put them all out of the public eye.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Well now we know, the high school kids are ignorant because they've been listening to this misinformation they find on Slashdot. The above post demonstrates the problem. The poster, speaking in an authoritative tone, makes a statement which is completely false. "So, just like the first amendment can't be altered or abolished, the 2nd, 5th, 9th, or 10th can't either." That isn't true. Any part of the Constitution can be altered or repealed, or the whole document can be scrapped by a constitutional convention.
How many US citizens, let alone students, know about the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? A document which seems to be acknowledged and recognised in almost every member country BUT the USA?
I've had a long time interest in civil rights and constitutional law but never heard of this document until I became an exile and moved from the US to New Zealand. If you read the document you can see it's actually BETTER for the citizens than the US Bill of Rights. No wonder they don't teach about it in schools!
This really isn't all that surprising or even alarming to me. The Constitution isn't most holy writ, it's just a law. If you want people to know the law, you have to teach it to them. I firmly believe that basic con law and contracts should be taught in grade school, or at least in college (when people have attained majority and it starts to matter more). Yes the law is difficult and esoteric, but there's some amount of it we all need.
If someone refused to learn CPR because they weren't studying to be a doctor, we'd consider them to be lazy and a little hazardous to their peers. I think the law falls into the same camp. Certainly you're way more likely to sign a contract in a given day than you are to have a heart attack.
adam b.
However, while I will defend another's rights be exercised in that manner, I also consider it about the most offensive thing one can do, considering how many died fighting for the ideals it represents -- surely there must be a better way to protest a present government: hanging an straw charicature of the president in efegy, perhaps. (Though, threats against the life of the U.S. president are serious crimes, and not taken lightly by the Secret Service.)
While not an American citizen, I presently reside (legally, I am a resident for tax purposes, and a non-resident for immigration purposes present with a valid non-immigrant visa) in the U.S. and have a great deal of respect for the ideals behind the flag, if not always agreeing with the present policies of the government. I was royally pissed off, for example, when my daughter's elementary school flew the flag at full staff, after sunset, with no illumination.
Bottom line: while it may be legal to burn the U.S. flag in protest, I would not want to be the company who wrote the life insurance policy on anyone doing so. It really ranks up there as things not to do.
You could've hired me.
This is unbelievable. Maybe I skimmed through all of the posts too quickly, but not a single person questioned the results of this study. Do any of you remember being in high school? Did any of you ever do anything silly or foolish just for the fun of it? Ever put down ridiculous answers to a survey just to skew the results in an absurd direction?
I don't know that I would take this survey to be the definitive measure of the average students views on anything. In general, polls are something to be viewed skeptically, though noone ever does. There are many ways to screw up a poll and many ways to interpret the results, so I don't tend to take them as seriously as everyone else seems to. You can make a survey say anything you want.
Send/track messages to 100K people: www.xPressAlert.com
Actually, at my high school we were censored as well and our paper was 100% advertising supported. I think you fail to understand that the principal IS the government. He can't censor the news unless it falls into that category that would disrupt the school environment. Of course, conveniently, the principal is the one who decides this which means it is at his whim.
The fact is that if the government were supporting a regular newspaper in such a tangental way there is NO way they could censor the content. The only reason they can in this case is that the SCOTUS seems to think that all bets are off when it comes to constitutional rights in schools. And it is then no surprise the the kids don't really care about or want to protect their rights, since they didn't have them for the first 18 fucking years!!!
How many NRA members realize that "well-regulated" is part of the 2nd Amendment?
--
$tar -xvf
"What place does a "discussion" of oral sex have in high school?"
Hygeine and disease prevention?
Or are facts and reason not welcome in your world?
I think you're correct about that - or at least that's how the schools see their role these days. They're really more of a venue for people to push whatever political agenda they personally have than for any real education to take place.
This is the problem with public education in the first place. The government will seek to interfere if given control and the ability to do so. IMHO, the only reason we avoided that kind of crap for a long time in this country was because public education was largely decentralized - funded, run, and controlled by local and state government. But notice that these days the federal government is seeking to interfere more and more all the time? As soon as a central government (or at least ours) takes over total control of education, then it's over for our country. They will produce generations of students who don't know how to question authority in its many forms or be creative, and everything (economy, civil society, etc) will eventually implode. This is why the $50 billion+ budget for the Department of Education really scares me. The reason that money has been appropriated has little to do with improving education and a lot to do with gaining federal leverage over school funding - and by extension, school curriculum.
Alternatively, you could view this as a business opportunity, since you're one of the "smart ones" who realizes what's happening. Just find some sort of useless shit to sell that all the idiots being turned out by public education will just snap up, and you could become rich! Personally, I'm leaning towards trying to figure out a way to exploit the overly religious (since so many people will just buy anything if they think it comes from a "Christian company", etc).
Hi there.
/. are in the same boat, and a greater percentage of my citizens are in worse shape.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't know that much about the first amendment. Or any of 'em, for that matter. Sure, I can say "freedom of the press" for one, and "you can't touch my guns" for the other - but that hardly qualifies.
Moreover, the older I get (I'm about to hit 36) the more I realize the less that I know.
My point - I'm being honest. I'd spectulate that a significant percentage of people who read
What's to be done? The US doesn't have much structure for "continuing education." About the best that people do, is parot back what their preacher or some other illuminary said during the coffee hour. Our attitude is once you've graduated, you're done. Game won, time to score up some $$$! But, if anything, we need to stay refreshed now more than ever.
The flag represents the freedom to burn it.
considering how many died fighting for the ideals it represents
That's not really a reason for anything. Lots of people have died in large numbers for really stupid things. The fact that so many people died fighting for it doesn't make it any more or less valid. It's irrelevant.
You, and many others commenting his post forgetts one very important thing, and that is the point he tried to make - that schools are NOT teaching about your 1st amendment rights. If a school where to do that, it would mean that the students would have a similar right _within_ the school and its provided environment. That students can go outside the school environment to express their views is protected by the law, but does not _teach_ students that law, which is precisely the problem at hand.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
I, personally, view this as the principle problem in public edutainment. Schools are viewed by the general population as having the first priority of "meeting the needs of the students", or something along those lines. They're always talking about building "high self-esteem" or providing a ground for enlightenment. Though I don't think this is "bad", it's the wrong focus and the wrong approach.
First things first. Public schools first priority should be to teach children how to be "good citizens"-- and no, I don't mean in any fascist sense of "good citizen". Upon completion of twelfth grade, kids should know, at least, the laws they're expected to follow, and the ideals behind these laws. They should be taught about the system of self-government into which they'll be entering, and how to navigate it. The other subjects, such as math, reading, writing, and science, students should know well enough to take care of their own finances, read street signs, write a letter, and not do stupid things like cut into a car battery with a chain-saw.
I'm certainly not saying education should *stop* there, but the priority of public schools should be to make sure that everyone graduating is a functional citizen capable of fulfilling the responsibilities of the citizenry. Meet that level of education first. Otherwise, we're doing children a disservice, by expecting them to be good citizens without providing them the means.
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".
-- Old Man Kensey
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).
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
You want to know the real bottom line?
Parents are responsible for their child's education, not the government, not their church, not anyone else in the world, them. We've been screwing things up for years by letting the government run education, and at some point, it's going to have to stop.
You've got it all wrong. The principal was constitutionally off-base in restricting the speech, as it is the taxpayer who is funding the paper. He was acting as a representative of the government, and the government cannot selectively restrict speech in this way.
Anyone interested in learning more ought to google "NEA first amendment" or something to that effect. The National Endowment of the Arts is the traditional lightning rod for speech restriction by government, since there are so many artists funded by the program who try to be deliberately provocative, and so many hicks responsible for legislating funding for the program. Traditionally the supreme court has found restrictions imposed on the speech of funded artists to be unconstitutional for a few different reasons, although I haven't followed supreme court cases much in the last couple of years, and the federal courts (like the rest of the country) are getting dumber and more conservative...
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Actually, at my high school we were censored as well and our paper was 100% advertising supported.
Then you have the freedom to buy your own presses, publish on your own paper, and distribute you literature off of school grounds. Did your advertisers pay you enough to purchases your own presses? If they didn't, then you were really supported by the school.
OTOH, if they did, then you should have done as I suggested. You would find that the principal couldn't have stopped the activity in this instance.
--
$tar -xvf
Sigh.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Recognize that? It's the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. That's not an excerpt. That's the whole thing, every word.
The First Amendment is not a declaration. It is a law, a law that prohibits the Congress of the United States from passing certain types of legislation. None of the amendments are declarations. They're laws that help to define the scope and jurisdiction of the power of the federal government.
The Constitution, in Article V, defines the process for amending the Constitution itself. Any part of the Constitution can be amended, as long as the process is followed. Entire chunks of the Constitution as they were ratified in 1789 are now null and void, having been amended in the years since. The first part of Article I section 3, for instance, no longer applies; it's been replaced by the 17th Amendment.
Because the first 10 amendments are part of the Constitution, they, too, can be amended, as described in Article V. If we --as a country --wanted to change the way the First Amendment is worded, we could do that. If we wanted to get rid of it altogether, we could do that too. Because we, the people, make the rules. We are not permanently bound to a document that was written more than two centuries ago. We can change it in any way we see fit.
So that whole "the first 10 articles of the Bill of Rights are NOT amendments" thing is completely wrong. And the "the first amendment can't be altered or abolished" thing is also completely wrong. Not a little bit wrong, not right in substance but wrong in detail. Like completely wrong.
Oh, you're wrong about citizenship, too. It's right there, in black and white, in the 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. That PDF you linked to is all funny-business, and about as academically rigorous as those manifestos by dim bulbs who claim that they don't really have to pay income taxes because of some obscure technicality of the law that only they understand. It's armchair law from armchair philosophers and deserves no consideration whatsoever.
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.
#define DRM chmod 000
About 13-14 years ago, when Bush was proposing an anti-flag burning ammendment, ran a Sunday cartoon with an American flag and a warning that under the ammendment, it would be illegal for people to throw out or destroy the cartoon.
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).
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.
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.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
That in itself is arrogant but tolerable. But when schools and other institutions started forcing this political belief upon the general population, principally through the threat of denial of education and other opportunities, that it became "fascism through other means".
You may not like Fox News, but people at least have the choice to follow them or not. That hasn't always been the case with PC.
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.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Assult Weapon is a fancy term for "Scary Looking Hunting Rifle"
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
If the school is funded by tax dollars, then the principal is indeed an agent of the government, and is thus subject to the first amendment. Private schools are another matter.
A principal does have a competing duty to maintain discipline. The guideline in Hazelwood is that censorship may occur only to prevent "material and substantial disruption".
Instead of sponsored speech, you may be thinking of commercial speech, which is its own legal world. High school newspapers are, AFAIK, supposed to encourage journalism, not public relations.
Radical islam: a coupla thousand.
U.S., in the name of freedom: a few hundred thousand.
we're winning!! w00T!!!!111one
p.s.: anon coward=lamerz.
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.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
You're wrong.
From your own article:, "The Saudi-born fundamentalist's response is unknown. He is thought to have rejected earlier Iraqi advances, disapproving of the Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist regime."
Bin Laden doesn't like Saddam because it directly opposes what he wants: a new Middle East governed by an Islamic fundamentalists theocracy. Saddam represented a direct contradiction to that - Saddam hated Islamic fundamentalistm because he was afraid it undermined his authority with the people. Look, if you were in total control of a country, would you WANT your subjects to believe that there is a HIGHER power, with moral laws above YOUR laws? Think about it.
Sorry for this off topic post, but anyone who thinks Saddam had ANY part in 9/11 or that Osama and Saddam were allies has been watching too much Fox News or is too gullible to filter out the neo-con propoganda.
when all of his supporters act incredibly elitist, saying things like you are, that Republicans are bible thumping rednecks
Lastly, grouping people like that makes you look less intelligent.
Indeed it does!
...this sits at -1, because it's the truth.
No one wants to have an honest debate about any of these topics.
How can we have any type of debate - much less an honest one - about foreign policy when these liberal pseudo-intellectual blog-readers think, quite literally, that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, or anyone remotely conservative/Republican, or, God forbid, *neoconservative*, are the worst kind of evil incarnate, whose only wish is to continue lining their pockets at the expense of US troops, and especially the "brownskins"? That there are no other considerations at all, that Panislamic radicalism isn't real (and if it is, it's exclusively the fault of the US and no one else), that "conservative" automatically equals "ultra right wing fundamentalist Bible thumper", and only liberal/progressive people know what's best, and everyone else, ESPECIALLY people who voted for Bush, are either complete and utterly moronic victims of neocon propaganda, OR the greedy fat cats who want more riches at the expense of the rest of the world?
Fuck, these people talk about *Bush* having a "black and white" view? Damn. I've said it before: these are the most closed-minded "open-minded" people on earth.
And it's precisely because of this fucking rampant nonsensical yammering on the internet that people don't know left from right or up from down and read everything that reinforces this idea they've internalized for whatever reason that anything having to do with corporations, business, or conservative policy is EVIL, and only liberal/progressive/quasi-socialist ideas are good; that military action is never proper (unless instantiated by a liberal), and ESPECIALLY any preemptive action; that there is only one side to the story: theirs, and they can throw to the wind the concept that 25 million people are FREE, and that this freedom is not "imposed", and indeed cannot be, because freedom is the default state; that it is acceptable for the United States to fight for its own interests and those of its allies, and that there are very real threats that have been growing in this region for the last two decades that Europe chooses to ignore (or, possibly let the US handle so they can simultaneously have their problems solved while also not looking like the bad guy, and having a responsible party like the US to blame for any problems, to boot); and I could go on.
If people have any question WHY we are in Iraq, they should read this recent post, as I believe it is my least long-winded writing on the topic.
These leftist bloggers that have so captivated this loony left want all the rights and privileges of "journalism" - indeed, many paint themselves as the only TRUE journalists, while all the "corporate" media is simply the collective mouthpiece of the Bush administration - but want none of the responsibility. To this argument, they may hide in the refuge of "Oh, but we never said we were journalists! It's just our opinion! We have no obligation to do or say anything!" but they know damned well they're influencing people with their incendiary, extremely one-sided rhetoric, that ignores the fortunes of millions of people, including our own.
We would never have the collective national will for a World War II-scale military campaign again. If today's technology existed then, there would have been hundreds of "Abu Ghraibs", and I shudder to think of what kind of despotic totalitarian world we live in had we not the will to fight for what is right, not only for ourselves, but for all people: and that is freedom. Liberals, especially slashdot readers, will no doubt laugh endlessly at this, thinking about their last lame list of failed US military actions, or travesties they believe were prosecuted by the US in the name of profits, or some other liberal vomit du jour. Or perhaps they'll choke on the hypocrisy of things like simultaneously blasting the Bush administration for sending troops to Iraq - then saying we don't have ENOUGH tr
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.
Lets see... A government desparately trying to gain unprecidented and grossly unconstiutional powers. A founding document that prohibits its doing so. A populace that is highly educated as to its civic history and won't allow such a thing to... Oh, wait.
John Dewey, founder of the modern education system, often wrote that the purpose of education was not to teach children to think as independent rational beings, but to teach them their place in the social order. He viewed education as a tool of the rulers, to be used to ensure his vision of a utopian, egalitarian society. In other words, he was trying to create good little drones to work in the factories. These were his stated intentions.
Now we have a country where Dewey's system of education has been implemented to the last detail. The nature of the cirriculum is controled by the State. Now, the State seeks to expand its power. In order to do that, it must first subvert the constitutional limitations placed on its power. In order to do that, you need to ensure that the public is blissfully unaware of what rights it is losing, and why those rights were explicitly protected in the first place. If you control the only substantial source of education for the vast majority of the populace, you can do just that.
I am currently 22, having left high school five years ago. Even at the time, as a teenager in a civics class, I was appaled by the total lack of depth and context in the presentation of the material. We did at least study the constitution, in that we read the text and were quizzed on the Bill of Rights, but we were given no context, no attempt to justify the necessity of these rights. I got the distinct impression that those of my classmates who did not investigate political theory on their own would be woefully lacking in terms of civic knowledge.
That was, as I said, five years ago. I have a couple of friends slightly younger than myself, who just recently graduated, and they naturally have friends slightly younger than them who are still in high school, and I am sad to say I can confirm this report's claims. While my friends are rather better versed than most in political matters (try hanging out with me and not being...), their friends are horrible. The predominant attitude towards freedom is that the constitution is antiquated and useless, "everything changed after 9/11", and that we have to sacrifice our freedom for security. When asked the obvious questions such as "why?" and "how so?", the response is usually along the lines of "that's how it is, that's how it has to be."
While it is widely accepted as necessary and beneficial, compulsory "public" education is one of the most basic tools of the total state. It is too easily abused as a tool to warp the minds of innocent children, and force them into a state of complacency and acceptance of a destructive political orthodoxy. It must be abolished if we are to retain what is left of our freedom and restore what has been lost (if you're wondering what I would replace it with, see some of my previous comments. I don't want to type that book again). Children grow up thinking that the State that now exists is the legitimate governing body of the US, when in fact it has broken every stipulation of its founding charter, the constitution. They are brought up never knowing of the abuses, the atrocities, the corruption that has characterized their government for generations. If a generation is raised with no concept of freedom, with no inkling of what is being lost, then we are truly doomed. The parents of that generation will be the last to know freedom.
The whole school system is fucked up.
:)]
Everything is being taught in order to pass a test...in the end the whole class ends up learning absolutely nothing.
Teacher's dont tech kids to think more open mindedly, and the students who are free thinkers are usually put down.
example:
1.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. Because teachers are so biased, many students are reluctant to actually write what they think and usually just end up just kissing ass for a good grade.
2.In class my friend and I usually end up fighting against the rest of the class on topics of discussions, such as weather or not people of different cultural backgrounds (i.e Muslims) should be "watched by Big Brother". The scary thing is that most of my classmates think that its ok for the government to control the media and limit the rights of citizens (and especially those of specific cultural backgrounds). [I'm not 'Middle Eastern', in case you think that I'm defending muslims for personal reasons. I believe in freedom - especially to express yourself. Excuse the horryfic grammar, I'm also an immigrant
Side note: I'm really tired of the bullshit saying: "If you dont like America get out of the country". Many older people have said that to me, and I think that it is a very ignorant thing to say - it's a bullshit counter to the flaws I usually bring up. There are many flaws in the American system, just like any other system, and it is those who rebel - fight for our rights - that, I believe, will reform this country to a better place.
How did you get humiliated? Did you get your mom to make you crappy cafeteria food? Did they hire somebody to come beat you up?
Man, you really missed out.
I did exactly that, I and a few friends published a paper when we were high-school age, and I ended up being suspended for two days because the administrators didn't approve of the content. Some reader brought one to class and read it there.. I had put my real name on it because I believed in my first amendment rights and figured I was safe.
I was wrong. The american educational system actively discourages personal expression, at least the part I was put through in So. California. I would not send my kids to be suppressed there.
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".
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Pretty much. There's no convincing suburban WASP kids born of suburban WASP parents that there's anything other than god and country.
I mod down pyramid schemes in sigs.
Right-wing Americans claim that Reagan did it.
Conservative Brits contend that Thatcher did it.
Liberal Americans name Jimmy Carter and his focus on human rights issues as the reason for the fall.
Catholics believe the Pope made it happen.
Islamists attribute the collapse to Osama Bin Laden and militant muslims and call Americans arrogant for not acknowledging this
Most Slashdotters see nobody else but Cowboy Neal behind all of this
But I ask you. Can it be a coincidence that the dissolution of the USSR took place in the very year Linus Torvalds posted version 0.0.1 of the Linux kernel on Usenet? I think not. Isn't it obvious? Soviet communism was supposed to be just an immediate form until a new and truly communist society would start to exist. With true communism in the form of Linux out(*), there was no need for the USSR anymore.
(*) MS' Ballmer: Linux is communism
The jihad in Afghanistan. Both left and right want to give Reagan credit for this -- and indeed his admin sent tons of money and weapons to help the future Taliban fight the Soviet empire -- but that money would have been useless without people to do the fighting, and especially the call to global jihad that drew fighters from all over the middle east into Afghanistan. The Soviets were mired in that war for 10 years and lost a ton of resources there, plus it had a huge effect on the Russian population (many Muslims, and many people of other ethnicities, who longed for independence). The right wants to credit Reagan for everything because he is their hero; the left wants to blame Reagan for "creating" al Qaeda by funding the mujahedin, but both explanations are flat out wrong, not to mention completely insulting to the people who actually risked their lives in that bloody war.
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.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Saddam was however, campaigning to unify rogue terrorist organizations against the USA.
Ohh, there was almost certainly the usual Arab-Isreali nonsense going on, but where did you get the idea that Saddam was trying to do anything against the US? If you had actually been following the story, not only did Saddam destroy his WMD's in the hopes of getting the sanctions lifted (yeah yeah, stupid petty politics made him resist the inspectors and look like he was hiding stuff), but the final US intelligence conclsion was that Saddam actually had hopes of eventually restoring good relations with the US! Remember, the US had formerly been Saddam's benefactor. And why had the US been Saddam's benefactor? Because of the dangerous fundamentalist Iran next door. And that dangerous fundamentalist Iran was still next door, still a threat to Iraq, and still at the top of the US's list of undesired governments. Iran still provided a very same motivation for Iraq and the US to play buddy-buddy. And Saddam really did hope to get the sanctions lifted and get back his cozy position as one of the US's allies-of-convenience.
Saddam was a bastard, but the US has a long track record of being quite generous to politically convient bastards.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The US has also refused UN weapons inspections.
as you agreed to when we let you keep your country earlier?
Taking and holding Baghdad was judged impossible in 1991, and it's probably impossible now. The difference is that Bush Sr. had the sense to listen to his military advisers.
Perhaps you should heed one of the last 200 warnings of "No, really, you need to let us in, like you agreed to do."
Warning someone 200 times that you're going to kill them doesn't make it legal to do so. The same principle applies to nations.
But what life skills are actually learned in sporting programs? Instead of cutting sports, they cut the arts, funding for computer labs, and so-called "media offerings."
Everything I need to know I learned from sports.
I learned that the bigger you are, the more likely you are to beat the shit out of smaller people. As a smaller person, I learned the faster you are, the more likely you are to avoid a beating. As a slower person, I learned I was fucked no matter what I did.
I learned the better you were at useless activities (usually pushing a spherioid through some sort of goal) the more likely you were to get laid. Corollary: I learned how to cope with blue balls.
I learned about teamwork. It takes a team to truly humiliate the weakest player.
I learned about the political system. Important players didn't need to work to get good grades. Not-so-important players (say, those on the bench-warming team) better bust their asses.
I learned about loyalty. Admiring anything about the other team that wasn't a cheerleader leads to certain pain.
You can learn a lot about the real world from sports.
The most important thing I learned: the head of our basketball team in highschool is now the manager of a gas station. At 37.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Or Chile. A recent event you may remember happened on the anniversary of the US-sponsored coup.
Hands in my pocket
Judging from the homeschoolers I've met and love, it's a f*cking evil thing to do to children.
:-)
1. Crippling of social development. It is an understatement to say that the regular social activities of homsechooling just don't cut it. Like it or not, a socially crippled person is just as screwed in society as an educationally crippled one, if not moreso. Being social creatures, this stuff also screws with happiness and feelings of self-worth.
2. Nutcases. Many, if not most homeschoolers are homeschooled because by brainwashing religious nutcase parents. This means that most homeschool-support programs and activities in your area will make a mockery of your worries that your kids might be among sheeple at school.
3. Networking. Lifelong friends are made during school years. Homeschoolers I know have a vastly smaller pool of friends and acquaintances than schoolkids, and those friends are often of a lesser quality - selected by necessity simply for being of similar age, rather than for good character or complementary personality. Schoolkids get to select their friends from a pool of hundreds or thousands they can spend time with with nearly every day. With big enough social circles, friends beget friends and are gateways to yet more social circles. Having too few on the other hand can result in dwindling circles, as people leave/move faster than the rate of crossover into new circles. Obviously, this will depend on how social and outgoing a person is.
4. Inevitablity. Assuming you want the kids to go to university, they're going to have to sit highschool exams (or whatever the institution requires), so they have the learn the public school curriculam anyway.
5. Life. To do a serious job of educating your kids, you will have to sacrifice years that you could be working, or developing yourself as a person, or doing all those things that you're still young enough to be able to do. That's a very real, and very high price, for a gamble - there is no guarentee that your efforts will result in better adjusted kids, but you will absolutely lose a huge chunk of your life. (You're presumably not so naive as to think spending most of each day with your kids is going to be nothing but bonding moments
I don't know what the solution is, but the results of homeschooling that I see make the flaws of average public schools seem the lesser evil by far. My personal (and inexperienced) thoughts would be some kind of dual-education - putting kids in a good mixed-gender school, and teaching them you own curriculum for an hour a day (perhaps at expense of route-work non-educational homework rather than cutting into their own time). It's a difficult problem. The only real solution seems to be to move to another country and put the kids in school there, but then you can't move back without inflicting #3...
Kids really don't come out of school with a real understanding of their rights. Here are a couple of reasons why:
* Government interventions: the govt intervenes in situations that were formerly handled by teachers and principals. 10 years ago a kid would not get locked up by the police for drawing a picture of someone getting stabbed. Cops would not show up in uniform for in school detention.
* Students don't loose their rights, they never have them. Back in the day, no one inspected your locker, processed your for saying something, asked you to pee in a bottle, metal detectored you or profiled you for deviant behavior unless you gave them a real reason. And then rights were lost until you earned them back.
* School rules are often litanies of "no student may" and "is not permitted on school properties".
* Zero Tollerance policies have eliminated discression in enforcing rules. The result: student rights are trampled by an almost boolean intrepetation of rules. This happened to my neice: she had genuine flat tire within 1/4 mile of the school on the way in. No one could stop to help her because they would automatically loose a letter grade under the zero tollerence for tardiness policy - so she had to wait by the side of the highway for help. When the tire was fixed, and she got to school, she recieved after school detention and lost a letter grade and worse yet, a further tardy would result in an F for the entire semester.
It would be very cool and useful if there was a voluntary "student's bill of rights" type of program that would help students learn what constitutional freedoms are, but also gave the school a framework for dealing with the irresponsible use or infringing on another student's rights that didn't require court involvement.
-- $G
Note to mods: the above statement is largely accurate. Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvadore - read up on what happened in those countries in the 70s and 80s.
Such criticism is legit, nowhere does parent say 'America is teh Devil'. The fact is we intervened in South and Central America in order to stop socialists/communists from coming to power by democratic means. Whether or not that this was a good thing is debatable, but either way it_happened.
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.
Moreover, mentioning the sordid affair in Nicaragua isn't flamebait; even if you happen to disagree with the BorgCopyeditor's POV, it's a real expression of a valid point whose merits one can argue, not some totally ungrounded attack on America. Modding that as "Flamebait" is uncalled-for.
I'm a high school junior myself, and was prompted to investigate the actual research behind these findings because I was pretty sure they were bullshit. For the most part, they are.
An unsurprisingly brief examination of the methodology and response percentages of the survey itself (readily available in PDF format online at http://firstamendment.jideas.org/downloads/future_ final.pdf) reveal a truth jarringly absent from both the CNN article and the survey's own final conclusion: students are actually considerably more defensive of First Amendment rights than their own teachers, principals, and American adults in general (statistics on responses of American adults were taken from an independently run annual survey conducted by the organization Freedom Forum.) While teachers, principals and adults rather seriously outstrip students in their supposed approval of the right of a free press and the right to express unpopular opinions, they prove themselves dramatically less capable than their students and children in understanding what those rights mean.
For reference, turn to page six of the complete survey. Observe that 99% of all high school principals agree that "people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions," compared to only 83% of high school students. Yet only 43% of these exact same high school principals believe that "musicians should be allowed to sing songs with lyrics others may find offensive," compared to 70% of all high school students. The urge to use bold font or italics here is almost overwhelming. Despite their near unanimous patriotic exhortations of First Amendment rights, the interviewed principals apparently feel this right does not extend to those damned rappers. 58% of teachers and 59% of adults agree with this same statement; both percentages are dramatically lower than that of student respondents.
A good, solid eighty percent of high school principals believe that newspapers should be allowed to publish articles without government review; except in cases where that government is themselves. In that case, just 25% of high school principals agree that student newspapers should operate without the "approval of school authorities." The same pattern is found among adult and teacher respondents -- overwhelming majorities approve a free press, except when that free press consists of students whose opinions might run contrary to their own. The vested interest of schools in maintaining a degree of control over student publications has already been established by other posters, but the hypocrisy is nevertheless remarkable.
The most telling part of the survey is that only 51% of students agree that newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories, it is that 58% of those same students believe that high school newspapers should be permitted to discuss controversial issues without the approval of the school's administration. This statistic is central to the discussion at hand. Students may not be so well trained as their parents and school faculty to recognize statements they are supposed to agree with, but they are strongly defensive of First Amendment rights when they are confronted with the practical application of them -- much moreso than grown adults. There is still a need for greater discussion and understanding of the Bill of Rights in public schools, and perhaps a need to widely revive American Civics courses -- my own public school does not offer any. 58% is still an uncomfortably small majority in favor of the free press. The hysteria of the CNN article and much of this discussion, however, is unwarranted. The need for more widespread education and appreciation of the American civil liberties is not limited to teenagers. In fact, they apparently already have a better grasp on their meaning than most adults.
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.
I can't really say :) I'm Canadian. But as to the grasp of humour, you're relying pretty heavily on shared experience to find something funny. I'm aware enough that most of the time I 'get the joke', but there have been a few instances where I've just been left scratching my head. Often I recognize it as humour, but I simply don't share enough of the perspective to find it funny.
This is not a sig.
I get the impression that our government is simply trying to have us limit our own freedoms because of fear.
They want us to be afraid of everything these days. Things like "homeland security" and there idiotic "terrorist threat level" are examples of this. What is your average joe suppose to do? Board themselves up in there house and hide in the basement everytime the stupid color scale hits red? This is America, we are suppose to laugh in the face of terrorist and there attempts to make us fear, not run and hide.
The worst part about it is that it seams to be working. Lots of people do seam to be afraid of things... and not just terrorism.
News flash... Seeing a bare ass on TV isn't going to make your child a sex offender. Hearing an expletive won't turn a kid into a degenerate loser.
Education is, and always has been, the best method for making sure kids keep on the right track. I think it is a parents responsibility to make sure there children aren't scared to ask them questions about anything and everything. If your kid sees a word written somewhere (like the inside of a bathroom stall or the back of the seat on a bus) he/she should know they can always ask there parents and get a straight, correct, answer without any chance of getting in trouble. We should teach our kids about sex. We should tell them about "alternative" lifestyles they might be exposed to.
Anyway... I know when I was 13 my friends and I had already gotten our hands on numerous dirty magazines and other things of that nature and all of us managed to grow up, go to college, and live a decent life.
If you want censorship then get the hell out of this country, there are plenty of places you can go live if you want others making all your decisions for you. You don't deserve to live here if you believe in limiting others freedoms.
This is the extreme opposite of the military-religious "war on/of terror" approach, but it is almost as far from solving the issues that cause all that hatred that leads to terrorism.
Bunch of Irish guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create the IRA. They had their reasons for fighting the British establishment.
Bunch of Basque guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create the ETA. They had their reasons for fighting the Spanish establishment.
Bunch of Arab guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create the Al-Qaeda. They had their reasons for fighting the American establishment.
Bunch of Chechen guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create their liberation army. They had their reasons for fighting the Russian establishment.
Bunch of Tibetan guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to... oh wait, they're freaking non-violent freedom-fighters so they can be conveniently ignored in favour of doing business with their occupiers...
Anyway, there is a certain pattern that would suggest that nations (often large and with imperialist tendencies) which insist on controlling people and territories outside their natural domain tend to be more affected by terrorism ("one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter") than smaller, democratic states which do not project their power outside their natural borders.
Perhaps recognizing and supporting all peoples' right of self-determination would help remove one of the major root causes of "terrorism"? If you lived under foreign occupation, what would you do?
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
Some of you will probably flame me for this, but I think political correctness is behind a lot of this attitude. More often than not, when first amendment rights are trampled, political correctness is at the bottom of it.
Proverbs 21:19
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.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.