Wilderness Proposal Leads to First Amendment Controversy

          Let's say you're working for National Geographic and you wish to photograph a certain tree species for your article, shouldn't you be allowed to? Well, the government says not so fast... According to the following article: (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-forest-service-wilderness-proposal-sparks-first-amendment-fight/) The United States Forest Service has created a proposal that maps out new rules and restrictions requiring permits in order for any media group or organization to film or take photos in over 100 million acres of US wilderness. According to the new rules, in order for a member of a media organization to obtain permission to photograph or shoot in a national park, he or she would be required to seek approval from the US Forest Service, as well as be subject to fees as high as $1500 for the commercial filming or photographing.

          Many argue that the issue here isn't simply the fact that the government wishes to charge fees for photographing nature, but rather the fact that the restrictions are quite possibly in direct violation with the First Amendment and the right to freedom of press. Some media organizations worry that the new law would then allow the government to decide what's "newsworthy" and what isn't. What if the US Forest Service simply doesn't like an idea for a story? Should it be allowed to deny the media organization the right to obtain footage that would allow for its publication to be made possible?

photo credit: http://www.nationalforests.org/blog/explore-national-forests-near-national-parks

T-Shirt Gets NY High School Student Suspended

     Imagine having to call your parents and inform them that you have been suspended...not for a behavioral infraction, but for your T-Shirt. Sounds a little a ridiculous, right? According to the article http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/13/new-york-high-school-suspended-for-nra-pro-2nd-amendment-t-shirt/, 16 year old New York High Schooler Shane Kinney would agree. Recently, Kinney was suspended from his high school for sporting a T-shirt that stated "2nd Amendment Shall not be Infringed." He was told by an administrator that he either had to cover the logo on the shirt with duct tape, turn the shirt inside out or accept a suspension; Kinney held his ground and refused to cover the logo, therefore, he was suspended for a day.

       However, the school administration stated that Kinney had attended school wearing a sweatshirt that contained a firearm logo, and was asked not to wear it again. Kinney ignored the request by wearing the shirt that contained an image of fire arms, again. Kinney's father sided with his son stating that no where in the school handbook is there a rule that outlaws apparel containing images of guns. He also added that he completely disagrees with the suspension stating that "the NRA does great things and there was nothing wrong with that shirt."
      Can a school administration really suspend a student for what they wear? In my opinion, this is a rather tricky situation because there are many factors at play here. I do believe that Kinney's shirt did not contain any violent imagery, it was simply imagery that promoted an amendment found within the US Constitution, the right of all citizens to bear arms. Yet on the other hand, Kinney was asked in the past not to wear that type of attire to school and he chose to ignore school policy; therefore, I can understand why the school would take such disciplinary measures. I do believe that the punishment would've been too harsh had the student not been asked not to wear the shirt before.

photo source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/13/new-york-high-school-suspended-for-nra-pro-2nd-amendment-t-shirt/

Reflection on State vs. Mann

     Recently today, my FYS Seminar Class: Talking about Freedom, held a mock trial for the 1829 court case of State vs. Mann. The case was about woman named Elizabeth Jones who allowed for a man named John Mann to rent her slave, Lydia. One day, Lydia disobeyed Mann, and in turn, Mann shot and wounded Lydia ( The lower court then decided to charge Mann a five dollar fine for the violent act committed against the slave (other facts about the case can be found here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_v._Mann) However, Mann appealed the decision to the North Carolina Supreme Court arguing that he should not be held responsible for paying the fine. The case to me was a matter of principal rather than about the monetary aspect.

      The class was split into two teams: Team Erica (Coleman, Tyler, Mike and myself) to argue in favor of Mr. Mann vs. Team Nido (Katie, Brighid, and Randy) to argue that Mr. Mann should in fact have to pay the fine. At first, I found it rather difficult to formulate my arguments for this case, because I was essentially arguing in favor of slavery, something that I believe to be one of the most cruel and horrible chapters in history. However, when formulating my arguments I had to try my best to forget my own personal biases and feelings on the subject; it took a bit of time to remove the presentism from my mind and instead get into the mindset of a slave owner in the 1800's but it had to be done in order to at least make successful points. After extensive research and a slight bit of frustration our arguments emerged as the following:

I. Slavery is ordained in heaven, therefore the act is not illegal.

II. The master isn't liable for the indictment of battery and assault committed; technically, Lydia was given to Mr. Mann by Mrs. Jones, therefore she was in his care.

III. Slavery itself should not be illegal due to the great impact it has on the national economy.

IV. Slaves aren't considered “human” by law

My personal argument was Argument III; the main point I sought to argue was that slavery was in fact crucial for the US economy at the time, and owners needed to do anything in their power in order to maintain their revenue generating plantations. It sounds harsh I know....But I had to make the argument anyways. This perhaps is one of the things I find to be most difficult about the field of law. How does one argue for something that he or she knows is morally incorrect? This is a concept I still grapple with, but after completing this case I believe that the way in which one argues something he or she doesn't believe in is through cold, hard facts.

Photo source: http://www.gordoncounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/departments/superior-court/Gavel-and-Scales.jpg

Most Important First Amendment Freedom: Teachers vs. Students

        Since the beginning of time, teachers and students have constantly disagreed on many issues such as how much homework should be given or how long a test should be. However, times are no longer this simple. This generation of teenagers in particular has become far more involved in the world around; taking an interest in politics and governmental matters like never before. But the real question is why now? The answer: social media. According to blaze.com, the survey "Students on the Future of the First Amendment" discovered that 62% of students use social medial, and  71% read online news. With social media, everything is instantaneous, allowing teenagers to become easily informed and educated about relevant world issues by even simply tapping an application icon on a glass screen.
      The growing exposure to First Amendment news has allowed teenagers to become informed to the point where they are able to form their own opinions and feelings about certain issues, even pushing for their voices and point of views to be heard. According to the article "Religion or Speech? Students, Teachers Differ on Most Important First Amendment Freedom" the survey focused largely on the contrasting opinions of students vs. teachers on the importance of various First Amendment freedoms. The following statistics were discovered:

• 65% of students believe that freedom of speech is the most important
• 40% of teachers believe that freedom of speech is the most important
• 25% of students believe that freedom of religion is the most important
• 42% of teachers believe that freedom of religion is the most important

I believe that these differing views are due to generational discrepancies among teachers and students; the world that this generation of teenagers today inhabits is one of great change and progression; technology allows for information to be available in a flash; teenagers wish to possess the ability to make their voices heard and I believe that the percentage of students who believe freed of speech to be the most important will only increase in years to come...the popularity and availability of social media is growing exponentially and will continue to do so for generations to come.

Article:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/17/religion-or-speech-students-teachers-differ-on-most-important-first-amendment-freedom/

Photo: http://www.commdiginews.com/business-2/first-amendment-and-vehicle-license-plates-17313/

Trading Doughnuts and Coffee for M16 Rifles and ARVS

        Have you ever watched a movie and seen a typical cop leaning on an old Ford police car eating a doughnut, armed with a small gun and night-stick? I'm sure you have, for this image has been the stereotypical portrayal of a cop for decades. However, times have definitely changed. The number of violent acts and crimes occurring on a daily basis has risen almost exponentially since then, causing the government to increase security. This increasing demand for greater protection of the American people has caused a dramatic shift in police forces across America, especially in the area of equipment, according to the article "The Rise of the SWAT Team in American Policing"- The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/us/the-rise-of-the-swat-team-in-american-policing.html?ref=us&_r=0

      Due to numerous tragedies such as 911, greater steps towards maximizing security have been taken on both the state and federal levels, especially within police departments. Many argue that the popular action figure "GI Joe" has become the new "Officer Friendly"; this is largely because police departments have become armed with items such as: M16 rifles, grenade launchers, and even armored trucks. Sounds more like an army than a police force, right? Many would argue yes, and that this new militarization technically violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the nation's armed forces in lieu of police force in the US. They argue that soldiers are strictly there to fight and defend our country in dangerous war zones, and police forces are for dealing with everyday crimes and conflicts.

     The summoning of SWAT teams for crimes occurring within cities has increased drastically over the past few years; much controversy lately regarding the possible "over-militarization" of police forces was sparked by the violence that occurred in Ferguson, MO where unarmed protesters were corralled by police forces clad in heavy-duty military equipment. However, many Americans believe that the need for more security and enforcement is crucial. After events such as 911 and the bombing of the Boston Marathon, terrorism has become a real threat, and something we as Americans shouldn't take lightly, and should do everything in our power to prevent from occurring again. As much as we would like to deny it, there is much violence and danger in our world right now. Many Americans find the militarization to be occurring at an alarming rate, however, I believe that this is our new reality; the issue now becomes whether or not the government will be able to adequately arm and protect our nation without completely alienating the Posse Comitatus Act altogether.

Photo credit: http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/swat-teams-new-face-of-police-agencies/

I "Mustache" You All A Question...Should Beards Be Allowed In Prisons?

     According to the New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/us/beards-in-prison-hold-next-religion-test-for-supreme-court.html?ref=us,  over the past few months, there has been much debate regarding the topic of...facial hair...yes, facial hair. Recently, the case of Gregory Holt, an inmate of an Arkansas prison, has been brought to the attention of the Supreme Court. The case to be argued on October 7th deals precisely with this very issue. I'm sure many of you are wondering why the subject of facial hair would be gracing the headlines of several national news websites? Well I'll tell you why. Gregory Holt also known by the name of Abdul Maalik Muhammad is a practicing Muslim; precisely the reason for the controversy. Muslims by faith are encouraged to grow beards in order to show their devoutness, and pay homage to Muhammad the Prophet. The case deals largely with the subject of Religious Freedom. Over forty prison systems across the United States allow for inmates to grow beards of any length, with Arkansas being one of the exceptions. The law states that only "neatly trimmed" style facial hair is permitted for prisoners with skin diseases. Should the government really be able to regulate one's own appearance?

     There are clearly two sides to this argument. Those who believe that the law is utterly ridiculous firmly state that telling a Muslim he cannot grow hair to profess his faith is in violation of the First Amendment. However, majority believe that the law is completely reasonable given the norm that occurs in prison. In the past beards have been used in order to disguise illegal contraband such as marijuana, cocaine, needles, sharp pieces of wire, and knives. The state informed the court that allowing beards would be rather dangerous during times of inspection; additionally, beards allow for escaped prisoners to dramatically modify their appearance easily. The risk is simply too great to make exceptions even for religious reasons. As of last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit St. Louis, Missouri, ruled that the reasons provided for the prohibition of beards were completely plausible. However, Gregory Holt asked the Supreme Court to hear his case once more, stating that other courts had previously disapproved of banning beards in prisons. Who knows, maybe the idea of facial hair will "grow" on the Supreme Court eventually, however for now, the controversy still remains.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/us/beards-in-prison-hold-next-religion-test-for-supreme-court.html?ref=us

Photos: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/justin-bieber-arrest-stars-tweet-reactions-mugshot-jokes-2014231
http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2012/08/mug-shot_friday_television_per.php