first amendment
Two questions:
- If the U.S. Supreme Court believes the First Amendment guarantees election candidates the right to get unlimited campaign donations from corporations, unions and non-profits, would it support a candidate’s right to use the First Amendment to protect a likely racist statement on a ballot?
- Has the election of President Barack Obama elevated racial tension in the U.S.?
A simple metal cross placed on a remote patch of the Mohave Desert and a triangular-shaped safety devise placed on the back of a buggy might seem like unlikely partners in court.
But they reflect the growing battle surrounding the constitutional directive for separation of church and state, and both relate to cases that have made it to the bench of the Kentucky Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.
I often question America’s education system, even though I have spent plenty of time in it.
So much energy gets directed toward things that have nothing to do with “education” and to action that affronts learning.
The latest example comes from a lawsuit making its way through the Tennessee courts, a suit against the Anderson County School Board and several county education officials. It serves as another testament to the way school administrators can find evil lurking behind every kid’s locker or in this case, every kid’s belt buckle.
The debate about where one person’s freedom of speech begins and another’s ends always crops up during elections.
On one side, First Amendment proponents say that government should place no restrictions on the political speech called campaigning, even if the speech comes at a cost few can afford.
I give a questionnaire each semester to my “Introduction to News Writing and Reporting” class to get to know students better.
“Who was your best teacher and why?” “What rumors have you heard about me?” “John Lennon or John Mayer?”
A few semesters back, I included this question: “What should happen to someone in this class who gets caught cheating?”
With the answers came the expected penalties such as a failing grade on the assignment, some kind of extra work involving ethical decision making and ousting the culprit from class.
The way Clarence Thomas sees it, “As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools.” In the old days, says the associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, student liberties were mostly limited to sitting down and keeping quiet, and that was good for them. He was writing last June in Morse et al. v. Frederick, the “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” case. No other justice agreed with Thomas on the free-speech score, but it is harder to differ with another of his conclusions: the court makes up First Amendment rules for students as it goes.
