This story is published as shown here at http://www.ocolly.com/read_story.php?a_id=32869
Supreme Court doesn’t care about young people
Breanne Schmidt
Opinion Columnist
Breanne Schmidt
Opinion Columnist
It is not often that the Daily O’Collegian runs an obituary, but I think this death calls for one. After all, it is one that touches each and every American.
The First Amendment, 220, was born September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was fathered by James Madison and adopted by the American people as the part of the U.S. Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment protected the freedom of religion, speech, the press, the public’s right to peaceably assemble and citizens’ rights to petition the government. In many ways, it was what set America, “the home of the free,” apart from the rest of the world.
The First Amendment died on June 25, 2007, in the U.S. Supreme Court’s chambers in Washington, D.C.
The First Amendment first fell ill in 1969 at a high school in Des Moines, Iowa. Four years earlier, an anti-Vietnam War organization in Des Moines had its members wear black armbands as a means of peaceful protest. Students John and Mary Beth Tinker were among the supporters and decided to wear their armbands to school.
In a preventative measure, the school banned the armbands, threatening suspension for the noncompliant.
John and Mary Beth went to school, were suspended and later sued the school district.
The case was heard four years later by the Supreme Court, and won landmark victory in the name of students’ rights, according to http://www.landmarkcases.org.
The seemingly endangered First Amendment had what appeared to be a miraculous recovery.
Fast forward to 2002, when an 18-year-old Juneau, Alaska, high-school senior Joseph Frederick held up a 14-foot-long banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” while standing on a public sidewalk near his high school as classes went to watch the running of the Winter Olympic torch.
Upon seeing the banner, the school’s principal, Deborah Morse, took it down and suspended Frederick. Frederick sued and the case went to the Supreme Court.
It was in the Supreme Court’s chambers Monday that the First Amendment was put out of its misery. I’d like to say it died a dignified death, but I can’t. Simply because it didn’t.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Morse’s actions were within her rights as an administrator protecting her students from Frederick’s so-called pro-drug message — even though there was no such intent behind the banner.
Frederick only meant to cause controversy, not actually promote anything illegal. And if he had made a banner with the intent to promote drug use, well, hopefully it would have made more sense than “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”
Rest in peace, First Amendment. You will be sorely missed.
Perhaps I’m being overly dramatic with the whole thing, but I think the decision is very much a major step backward in the history of free speech and goes great lengths to undo the great good the Tinker case did for the First Amendment and for students.
I might feel the slightest bit better about this decision if more guidelines for interpretations were given. For example, does this extend to the college level? What qualifies as a negative image and merits censorship? Could it possibly give way to other issues, such as sex, sexual orientation and so on?
The Supreme Court’s decision also left holes in the issue.
If the school determines what is or is not offensive, how is fairness guaranteed? If we are to go by the schools’ decisions in both the Tinker and Frederick cases, I’m going to say it’s not. I’d also venture a guess that the Court is setting itself up for at least one repeat case.
But maybe that’s what needs to happen. Perhaps the Court will see the error of its ways.
The Court did try to prevent the complete eradication of students’ rights. A student is immune from punishment if the controversial statement is political in nature. But again, the school decides if it is a political message or just inappropriate. It’s still not entirely fair.
I know many people will read this decision and say, “So what? It doesn’t hurt a lot of people and doesn’t apply once you’re out of school.” To be completely cliché, it’s the principle of the entire ordeal that matters to everyone.
I’ll cite the old saying, “If you give an inch, they’ll take a mile.”
We’ve unfortunately given a good foot of our rights, and the Court has happily taken out another two or three.
Wake up, America. Your rights are being taken away from you. Not only that, they’re being taken, for your protection, by the people who gave you the rights in the first place — for your own protection. This is not OK, people.
The United States prides itself as a prime example of how democracy is supposed to function and is attempting to spread its form of democracy to less-than-cooperative countries across the globe. How dare we make claims of freedom and equality for all if we gradually strip our own citizens — even if just one — of their basic rights?
That would be severe hypocrisy, folks.
I shudder to think what the international community will think of this decision. It certainly sends the clear message that our system is flawed and ineffective and that the self-proclaimed superior Americans can’t handle these freedoms.
And if the best of the best can’t make the system work, who can?
So you see, ladies and gents, this is in no way about one high schooler trying to cause trouble. The ripple effect in this case could have devastating effects not only on our personal freedoms, but also on the United States’ international clout.
So pat yourself on the back, Supreme Court. You have successfully stripped the rights of and isolated an entire generation. And there are more where they came from.
According to constitutional amendments, the supreme law in this country, you must be 18 to enlist in the military and vote and 21 to consume alcohol. Nowhere is it mentioned that any citizen will be denied their First Amendment rights based on age and status of school enrollment. The Court upholding this decision is in itself unconstitutional.
I can find no solution to this problem now that the final decision has been handed down. Anyone else up for Shots 4 Injustice?
The First Amendment, 220, was born September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was fathered by James Madison and adopted by the American people as the part of the U.S. Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment protected the freedom of religion, speech, the press, the public’s right to peaceably assemble and citizens’ rights to petition the government. In many ways, it was what set America, “the home of the free,” apart from the rest of the world.
The First Amendment died on June 25, 2007, in the U.S. Supreme Court’s chambers in Washington, D.C.
The First Amendment first fell ill in 1969 at a high school in Des Moines, Iowa. Four years earlier, an anti-Vietnam War organization in Des Moines had its members wear black armbands as a means of peaceful protest. Students John and Mary Beth Tinker were among the supporters and decided to wear their armbands to school.
In a preventative measure, the school banned the armbands, threatening suspension for the noncompliant.
John and Mary Beth went to school, were suspended and later sued the school district.
The case was heard four years later by the Supreme Court, and won landmark victory in the name of students’ rights, according to http://www.landmarkcases.org.
The seemingly endangered First Amendment had what appeared to be a miraculous recovery.
Fast forward to 2002, when an 18-year-old Juneau, Alaska, high-school senior Joseph Frederick held up a 14-foot-long banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus,” while standing on a public sidewalk near his high school as classes went to watch the running of the Winter Olympic torch.
Upon seeing the banner, the school’s principal, Deborah Morse, took it down and suspended Frederick. Frederick sued and the case went to the Supreme Court.
It was in the Supreme Court’s chambers Monday that the First Amendment was put out of its misery. I’d like to say it died a dignified death, but I can’t. Simply because it didn’t.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Morse’s actions were within her rights as an administrator protecting her students from Frederick’s so-called pro-drug message — even though there was no such intent behind the banner.
Frederick only meant to cause controversy, not actually promote anything illegal. And if he had made a banner with the intent to promote drug use, well, hopefully it would have made more sense than “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”
Rest in peace, First Amendment. You will be sorely missed.
Perhaps I’m being overly dramatic with the whole thing, but I think the decision is very much a major step backward in the history of free speech and goes great lengths to undo the great good the Tinker case did for the First Amendment and for students.
I might feel the slightest bit better about this decision if more guidelines for interpretations were given. For example, does this extend to the college level? What qualifies as a negative image and merits censorship? Could it possibly give way to other issues, such as sex, sexual orientation and so on?
The Supreme Court’s decision also left holes in the issue.
If the school determines what is or is not offensive, how is fairness guaranteed? If we are to go by the schools’ decisions in both the Tinker and Frederick cases, I’m going to say it’s not. I’d also venture a guess that the Court is setting itself up for at least one repeat case.
But maybe that’s what needs to happen. Perhaps the Court will see the error of its ways.
The Court did try to prevent the complete eradication of students’ rights. A student is immune from punishment if the controversial statement is political in nature. But again, the school decides if it is a political message or just inappropriate. It’s still not entirely fair.
I know many people will read this decision and say, “So what? It doesn’t hurt a lot of people and doesn’t apply once you’re out of school.” To be completely cliché, it’s the principle of the entire ordeal that matters to everyone.
I’ll cite the old saying, “If you give an inch, they’ll take a mile.”
We’ve unfortunately given a good foot of our rights, and the Court has happily taken out another two or three.
Wake up, America. Your rights are being taken away from you. Not only that, they’re being taken, for your protection, by the people who gave you the rights in the first place — for your own protection. This is not OK, people.
The United States prides itself as a prime example of how democracy is supposed to function and is attempting to spread its form of democracy to less-than-cooperative countries across the globe. How dare we make claims of freedom and equality for all if we gradually strip our own citizens — even if just one — of their basic rights?
That would be severe hypocrisy, folks.
I shudder to think what the international community will think of this decision. It certainly sends the clear message that our system is flawed and ineffective and that the self-proclaimed superior Americans can’t handle these freedoms.
And if the best of the best can’t make the system work, who can?
So you see, ladies and gents, this is in no way about one high schooler trying to cause trouble. The ripple effect in this case could have devastating effects not only on our personal freedoms, but also on the United States’ international clout.
So pat yourself on the back, Supreme Court. You have successfully stripped the rights of and isolated an entire generation. And there are more where they came from.
According to constitutional amendments, the supreme law in this country, you must be 18 to enlist in the military and vote and 21 to consume alcohol. Nowhere is it mentioned that any citizen will be denied their First Amendment rights based on age and status of school enrollment. The Court upholding this decision is in itself unconstitutional.
I can find no solution to this problem now that the final decision has been handed down. Anyone else up for Shots 4 Injustice?
**PS- I don't agree with the Liberal press very often, but in this case I think they are about right.
Thankx,
bigmike
Check out http://answrtek.com my new business
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are welcome (Keep it clean and I will publish it.) I fully support the 1st and 2nd amendments. Nasty comments and SPAM are deleted.