My Blogs
Below are 10 of 15 blogs that I have selected to best show my understanding, usage, or application of the 1st Amendment. These blogs also show me addressing a specific constitutional topic.
Post 1. 9/12/12
I disagree that personal rights must sometimes be sacrificed in order to protect people from potential threats. If these personal rights are being violated only by means of surveillance, it may not be violent, but it is still threatening and invasive. If you’re looking up things or speaking about things that aren’t a big deal, you’re not going to be targeted in the first place. If you are a terrorist, however, chances are you’ve already done some things that have put you on the government’s radar.
Heritage.com claimed that as of 2003, 42 terrorist attacks had been thwarted by the USA Patriot Act. The site did list the examples out, but upon examination of the “thwartings,” there was not a direct connection between the examples and the actual Patriot Act. One of the most blatant examples was the Christmas Day Bomber in 2009. Umar Adulmutallab got on a plane flying from Amsterdam to Detroit, and when the plane was about to land, he unsuccessfully attempted to detonate a bomb he had hidden in his underwear. After passengers on the plane realized what he was doing, they stopped him before he could try again. Authorities arrested Adulmutallab when the plane landed, but obviously they had no idea the guy was going to try and blow up a plane. If this is the strongest piece of evidence the government has for the benefits of the Patriot Act, not only is it unconstitutional, it’s not even worth it.
Post 2. 9/18/12
According to this NY Times Article, the American Freedom Defense Initiative has won a case in which their ads posed a controversy in New York. The AFDI was trying to put an ad on the metropolitan railway system in New York that read, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man,” with the phrase “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad,” between two Stars of David. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority originally refused to post the ads, but when the AFDI took the case to court, the judge ruled that doing so was a violation of the group’s first amendment rights.
Because this ad is so controversial, there has been plenty of backfire, especially from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose New York director admitted that, “It’s perfectly legal to be a bigot and a racist,” but stated, “we want to make sure there’s a counter-voice.”
I think that this is a circumstance where freedom of speech has been utilized to its fullest extent. It is moronic that somebody would want to advertise something so outrageously racist, but under the same power and freedom, I think it is beautiful that the CAIR can fire right back. It’s kind of like picking your battles. Now that I realize freedom of speech can be used on both ends, I think I understand the full impact this right has on our population. And because I understand how much each right is intertwined with one of the other four, I believe now that civil rights should be preserved at all costs.
Post 3. 9/21/12
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/obscure-film-mocking-muslim-prophet-sparks-anti-u-s-protests-in-egypt-and-libya/
Unfortunately, the “Innocence of Muslims” video is protected by the freedom of speech, but this civil liberty also works the other way. Several United States officials have condemned and denounced the videos, including Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and the US Embassy in Cairo. Although this video is a terrible example of bigotry, racism, and stereotypes, this film is also one of the biggest examples of our rights protected by free speech. Freedom of speech is what entitled Terry Jones to publicly burning the Koran, but also what allowed Martin Luther King Jr. to fight for equality and a positive change. Although it is unfortunate that we live in a nation with so many racists and despicable people, these people are what remind us of our rights as a nation, with which we can use to publicly strike them down.
Post 4. 9/23/12
I think that the most important case in the movie “Shouting Fire” was the case involving Ward Churchill. Although his statements were incredibly controversial and quite frankly tasteless, he was protected by the First Amendment to say these things. CU fired Churchill, but he won the lawsuit against the University claiming that they wrongfully fired him and violated his First Amendment Rights. People like Churchill are the ones who keep our government in check. If we don’t have these outspoken activists reminding us of our rights, we could easily lose sight of what our rights entail.
Although these activists generally don’t advocate for their rights in the most diplomatic ways (using derogatory terms to describe the government isn’t going to make them want to side with you), they constantly remind us what we as a nation are capable of. Demonstrations like these have allowed us to protest wars and let our voices be heard. But the better-organized and more rational demonstrations have given us national idols and heroes such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau.
If what you are doing is being done because you truly want a change and are willing to fight for it in a well-thought out and diplomatic way, the notion may be welcomed by the public if there is enough sympathy for the cause, hence the success of Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience.” But if what you are doing is done simply to illicit a reaction from the public, the only good being done is reminding the public that they can use the same rights to shut you down.
Post 5. 9/25/2012
My piece for the 1st Amendment forum was an article that talked about the Chicago teachers’ strike that went on between the second and third weeks of September. This piece was important to me because for the longest time my first thought concerning protestors was that they were all idiots who didn’t want to actually work for a change. But after talking about the strike with one of my teammates, who actually moved from Chicago this summer, I found out that these teachers were protesting as a last resort. They had tried to sort something out with the Board of Education for several weeks, but after it was apparent that they were getting nowhere, they did the most powerful thing available to them under legal boundaries.
Although I don’t personally connect to this case, as I’ve never protested something by going on strike, this piece did renew my faith in humanity. These teachers are not only fighting for their own rights, but also for the rights of their students, by opposing the new evaluation standards the school district had been trying to implement.
This is one of the best, most current examples of exercising our free speech rights because around 26,000 teachers peaceably assembled in order to address their local government (the ones in charge of the school district) for a redress of grievances, which in this case would be the pay as a result of standardized test scores.
Post 6. 10/1/2012
Health Reform Explained Video: "Health Reform Hits Main Street"
Ok for those of you who are into healthcare, but have no idea what Obamacare is except for the loaded description off the democrats' page, here's a fair explanation of the health care reform in its entirety, and idiot proof. It even has fun little cartoons! Now that I understand the pros and cons of the health care reform, I can say that I'm in favor of it. Although it is going to be expensive, I personally believe that nobody should be denied healthcare. And in absolutely no circumstance should a child be denied healthcare due to a preexisting condition, such as asthma or diabetes, simply because the child's family cannot afford it. The reform will result in 32 million more people being insured, which will eventually, according to the video, save the government 1 trillion dollars. Plus, once everybody has healthcare, rates will go down and the overall expense will become cheaper. Despite the costs that middle-class families would be faced with in order to make this happen, I think that it is completely worth it if it means providing life-saving medicine to those in need.
Post 7. 10/3/12
So I’d like to focus on the healthcare ideas that the presidential candidates were debating about. Obama laid out his plan with specifics to fix the healthcare problem. The only concrete thing Romney said about healthcare was that he wanted to repeal Obamacare, which would mean that he would need a different plan. He doesn’t give a plan that’s any different from what we have now, and what we have now has health care costs increasing every year. Basically, Romney wants to give more money to Medicare, and leave everybody else how they are now, which sucks for me because I’m not anywhere near eligible for Medicare.
Because of Romney’s ambiguity towards this issue, and failure to lay out a concrete plan, I think Obama won the debate, because in that single instance, I lost all faith in what Romney plans to do, because if it’s like his health care policy, it’s not concrete.
Obviously, there’s a lot of theatrics in here, thanking each other for being there, etc. So obviously the political process is about image (Romney’s tie is tied better by the way). I have a hard time being able to believe a lot of what the candidates are able to say because what they ultimately want is a vote, so they’ll go to whatever lengths necessary to get that vote, which may include stretching the truth.
Post 8. 10/11/12
After looking at the GOP’s website and their ideas for health care, I’m becoming more and more of an Obamacare supporter. The website states that they, "Support common-sense reforms,” an obvious bash at Obamacare, yet they offer no other alternatives, which implies that they intend to leave health care as it is, eating up more and more of a family’s income as they’re forced to pay higher taxes and insurance rates because health care has become too expensive for far too many people. Another problem I have with their ideals is that they say government-run health care won’t promote competition. On the contrary, the competition won’t be because of how much money a hospital has or how expensive a certain procedure is, but rather competition based on the quality of care being administered to the patient.
Post 9. 10/11/12
One of the most controversial issues surrounding health care is assisted suicide. Last year, Jack Kevorkian, one of the most influential figures surrounding assisted suicide, died in jail. Kevorkian was charged with second-degree murder after helping to terminate the lives of some 130 patients. Kevorkian is the figure behind what has led doctors to become more compassionate towards patients in severe pain. Kevorkian’s first patient, a teacher from Oregon, led towards the Death with Dignity Act, which allows doctors to prescribe lethal medications. The Supreme Court found this act Constitutional as a legitimate medical practice. This is probably one of the best examples of something that is debatably Constitutional involved with health care.
Post 10. 10/11/12
Today we had a speaker from the Republican Party come in and speak to our class. We spent a good deal of time talking about the economy and jobs, but one of the main focuses was Obamacare. It was really nice to be able to finally hear the other side of the issue, because I had really only been aware of what the Democrats had pitched to public, and the only downside I knew of was that it was going to be expensive the first couple years. After having had a Republican talk to us about it, I cannot stand the idea of a panel dictating what kind of treatment a patient should be getting. First of all, if there is only one panel, how are they going to dictate this for every individual patient in the nation? There’s no way they’re going to be able to do that, which means that what they will do is start generalizing cases, which won’t work for a huge percentage of people. A panel on the local level might work, but there is no way this is going to work on a national level.
On the other hand, what the Republicans intend to do is come up with another plan if they get elected to office; this would be after repealing Obamacare of course. I believe that health care should be one of the government’s top priorities to fix, but if the Republicans just want to take it back to the drawing board, it will be almost too easy for health care to be de-prioritized in favor of something like national defense.
With these two things taken into consideration, I think that Obamacare would be the best option for our nation, because it will at least get us going on the right path to health care, and we can fix it as we go.
I disagree that personal rights must sometimes be sacrificed in order to protect people from potential threats. If these personal rights are being violated only by means of surveillance, it may not be violent, but it is still threatening and invasive. If you’re looking up things or speaking about things that aren’t a big deal, you’re not going to be targeted in the first place. If you are a terrorist, however, chances are you’ve already done some things that have put you on the government’s radar.
Heritage.com claimed that as of 2003, 42 terrorist attacks had been thwarted by the USA Patriot Act. The site did list the examples out, but upon examination of the “thwartings,” there was not a direct connection between the examples and the actual Patriot Act. One of the most blatant examples was the Christmas Day Bomber in 2009. Umar Adulmutallab got on a plane flying from Amsterdam to Detroit, and when the plane was about to land, he unsuccessfully attempted to detonate a bomb he had hidden in his underwear. After passengers on the plane realized what he was doing, they stopped him before he could try again. Authorities arrested Adulmutallab when the plane landed, but obviously they had no idea the guy was going to try and blow up a plane. If this is the strongest piece of evidence the government has for the benefits of the Patriot Act, not only is it unconstitutional, it’s not even worth it.
Post 2. 9/18/12
According to this NY Times Article, the American Freedom Defense Initiative has won a case in which their ads posed a controversy in New York. The AFDI was trying to put an ad on the metropolitan railway system in New York that read, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man,” with the phrase “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad,” between two Stars of David. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority originally refused to post the ads, but when the AFDI took the case to court, the judge ruled that doing so was a violation of the group’s first amendment rights.
Because this ad is so controversial, there has been plenty of backfire, especially from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose New York director admitted that, “It’s perfectly legal to be a bigot and a racist,” but stated, “we want to make sure there’s a counter-voice.”
I think that this is a circumstance where freedom of speech has been utilized to its fullest extent. It is moronic that somebody would want to advertise something so outrageously racist, but under the same power and freedom, I think it is beautiful that the CAIR can fire right back. It’s kind of like picking your battles. Now that I realize freedom of speech can be used on both ends, I think I understand the full impact this right has on our population. And because I understand how much each right is intertwined with one of the other four, I believe now that civil rights should be preserved at all costs.
Post 3. 9/21/12
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/obscure-film-mocking-muslim-prophet-sparks-anti-u-s-protests-in-egypt-and-libya/
Unfortunately, the “Innocence of Muslims” video is protected by the freedom of speech, but this civil liberty also works the other way. Several United States officials have condemned and denounced the videos, including Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and the US Embassy in Cairo. Although this video is a terrible example of bigotry, racism, and stereotypes, this film is also one of the biggest examples of our rights protected by free speech. Freedom of speech is what entitled Terry Jones to publicly burning the Koran, but also what allowed Martin Luther King Jr. to fight for equality and a positive change. Although it is unfortunate that we live in a nation with so many racists and despicable people, these people are what remind us of our rights as a nation, with which we can use to publicly strike them down.
Post 4. 9/23/12
I think that the most important case in the movie “Shouting Fire” was the case involving Ward Churchill. Although his statements were incredibly controversial and quite frankly tasteless, he was protected by the First Amendment to say these things. CU fired Churchill, but he won the lawsuit against the University claiming that they wrongfully fired him and violated his First Amendment Rights. People like Churchill are the ones who keep our government in check. If we don’t have these outspoken activists reminding us of our rights, we could easily lose sight of what our rights entail.
Although these activists generally don’t advocate for their rights in the most diplomatic ways (using derogatory terms to describe the government isn’t going to make them want to side with you), they constantly remind us what we as a nation are capable of. Demonstrations like these have allowed us to protest wars and let our voices be heard. But the better-organized and more rational demonstrations have given us national idols and heroes such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau.
If what you are doing is being done because you truly want a change and are willing to fight for it in a well-thought out and diplomatic way, the notion may be welcomed by the public if there is enough sympathy for the cause, hence the success of Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience.” But if what you are doing is done simply to illicit a reaction from the public, the only good being done is reminding the public that they can use the same rights to shut you down.
Post 5. 9/25/2012
My piece for the 1st Amendment forum was an article that talked about the Chicago teachers’ strike that went on between the second and third weeks of September. This piece was important to me because for the longest time my first thought concerning protestors was that they were all idiots who didn’t want to actually work for a change. But after talking about the strike with one of my teammates, who actually moved from Chicago this summer, I found out that these teachers were protesting as a last resort. They had tried to sort something out with the Board of Education for several weeks, but after it was apparent that they were getting nowhere, they did the most powerful thing available to them under legal boundaries.
Although I don’t personally connect to this case, as I’ve never protested something by going on strike, this piece did renew my faith in humanity. These teachers are not only fighting for their own rights, but also for the rights of their students, by opposing the new evaluation standards the school district had been trying to implement.
This is one of the best, most current examples of exercising our free speech rights because around 26,000 teachers peaceably assembled in order to address their local government (the ones in charge of the school district) for a redress of grievances, which in this case would be the pay as a result of standardized test scores.
Post 6. 10/1/2012
Health Reform Explained Video: "Health Reform Hits Main Street"
Ok for those of you who are into healthcare, but have no idea what Obamacare is except for the loaded description off the democrats' page, here's a fair explanation of the health care reform in its entirety, and idiot proof. It even has fun little cartoons! Now that I understand the pros and cons of the health care reform, I can say that I'm in favor of it. Although it is going to be expensive, I personally believe that nobody should be denied healthcare. And in absolutely no circumstance should a child be denied healthcare due to a preexisting condition, such as asthma or diabetes, simply because the child's family cannot afford it. The reform will result in 32 million more people being insured, which will eventually, according to the video, save the government 1 trillion dollars. Plus, once everybody has healthcare, rates will go down and the overall expense will become cheaper. Despite the costs that middle-class families would be faced with in order to make this happen, I think that it is completely worth it if it means providing life-saving medicine to those in need.
Post 7. 10/3/12
So I’d like to focus on the healthcare ideas that the presidential candidates were debating about. Obama laid out his plan with specifics to fix the healthcare problem. The only concrete thing Romney said about healthcare was that he wanted to repeal Obamacare, which would mean that he would need a different plan. He doesn’t give a plan that’s any different from what we have now, and what we have now has health care costs increasing every year. Basically, Romney wants to give more money to Medicare, and leave everybody else how they are now, which sucks for me because I’m not anywhere near eligible for Medicare.
Because of Romney’s ambiguity towards this issue, and failure to lay out a concrete plan, I think Obama won the debate, because in that single instance, I lost all faith in what Romney plans to do, because if it’s like his health care policy, it’s not concrete.
Obviously, there’s a lot of theatrics in here, thanking each other for being there, etc. So obviously the political process is about image (Romney’s tie is tied better by the way). I have a hard time being able to believe a lot of what the candidates are able to say because what they ultimately want is a vote, so they’ll go to whatever lengths necessary to get that vote, which may include stretching the truth.
Post 8. 10/11/12
After looking at the GOP’s website and their ideas for health care, I’m becoming more and more of an Obamacare supporter. The website states that they, "Support common-sense reforms,” an obvious bash at Obamacare, yet they offer no other alternatives, which implies that they intend to leave health care as it is, eating up more and more of a family’s income as they’re forced to pay higher taxes and insurance rates because health care has become too expensive for far too many people. Another problem I have with their ideals is that they say government-run health care won’t promote competition. On the contrary, the competition won’t be because of how much money a hospital has or how expensive a certain procedure is, but rather competition based on the quality of care being administered to the patient.
Post 9. 10/11/12
One of the most controversial issues surrounding health care is assisted suicide. Last year, Jack Kevorkian, one of the most influential figures surrounding assisted suicide, died in jail. Kevorkian was charged with second-degree murder after helping to terminate the lives of some 130 patients. Kevorkian is the figure behind what has led doctors to become more compassionate towards patients in severe pain. Kevorkian’s first patient, a teacher from Oregon, led towards the Death with Dignity Act, which allows doctors to prescribe lethal medications. The Supreme Court found this act Constitutional as a legitimate medical practice. This is probably one of the best examples of something that is debatably Constitutional involved with health care.
Post 10. 10/11/12
Today we had a speaker from the Republican Party come in and speak to our class. We spent a good deal of time talking about the economy and jobs, but one of the main focuses was Obamacare. It was really nice to be able to finally hear the other side of the issue, because I had really only been aware of what the Democrats had pitched to public, and the only downside I knew of was that it was going to be expensive the first couple years. After having had a Republican talk to us about it, I cannot stand the idea of a panel dictating what kind of treatment a patient should be getting. First of all, if there is only one panel, how are they going to dictate this for every individual patient in the nation? There’s no way they’re going to be able to do that, which means that what they will do is start generalizing cases, which won’t work for a huge percentage of people. A panel on the local level might work, but there is no way this is going to work on a national level.
On the other hand, what the Republicans intend to do is come up with another plan if they get elected to office; this would be after repealing Obamacare of course. I believe that health care should be one of the government’s top priorities to fix, but if the Republicans just want to take it back to the drawing board, it will be almost too easy for health care to be de-prioritized in favor of something like national defense.
With these two things taken into consideration, I think that Obamacare would be the best option for our nation, because it will at least get us going on the right path to health care, and we can fix it as we go.