First Amendment no big deal, students say

This 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.



The original amendment to the Constitution is the cornerstone of the way of life in the United States, promising citizens the freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly.

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.


Maybe the politicians have finally convinced people that freedom isn't worth paying a price for... a safer quiet life is more important. ;)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/31/students.amendment.ap/index.html)

Its possible that the study created a confirmation bias. I'd be interested in seeing if questions such as those about "flag burning" and "indecent material" came before or after questions that related to protecting religious free speech or criticisms of government etc.

Indeed, if not carefully constructed, the questions could easily lead students to answer in such a way as to confirm the expectations the authors of the study already expected.

But the suggestion that students with less access to 1st amendment outlets and the ability to exercise their rights to free speech has merit. Not having student newspapers or student controlled free speech outlets like "free speech zones" at schools, coupled with the controls and restrictions that many schools implement to reduce school violence and gang activity (school uniforms/dress codes, cell phone restrictions, etc.) can give the impression that restrictions on free speech is a norm and expected throughout society.

Not that I'm against some of the violence/gang intervention strategies, but I think that these types of restrictions should be balanced with avenues of allowing students to express their opinions without being restricted. School newspapers are great ways to do this, but schools are always cutting non-academic and non-sports programs in order to cut costs. Perhaps local newspapers should adopt school newspaper programs... it would seem to be a win-win situation from my perspective.

So it begins...

There never is or was total freedom of speach, if you find out something they don't want you to know you get silenced one way or another.

Now it seems they want to make it leagal to scilence you one way or another.

Personly I see a robocop type future (not the robot bit) just big corparations runing the world. The rich become richer, the poor become poorer, but they don't even know they are poor because they have to believe what the corp says or they end up dead.

I don't think that's true at all ("they" silencing free speech).

Sure, there are some limits to free speech -you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater as a way of exercising it, but, in general, you can certainly have your opinion heard, regardless of whether that opinion is valid or not.

Its whether or not you can get an audience or sustain an audience that matters. You have to remember, the opposing view also has the right to free speech.

There was a recent uproar among Bush haters about not being able to properly protest at the inaguration ceremony, but to what extent do we allow civil disobedience and protestation (both very valid forms of free speech) to interfere with public ceremonies and events?

Protesters were allowed to occupy several, if not many, locations along the Inagural Parade route after being given some very common sense restrictions (ie no poles/sticks for signs, which could injure others either intentionally or unintentionally should other members of the parade's audience become violent or irrational). They were restricted from the actual ceremony site itself, but this is to be expected. I should think that even a Democratic winner of the election would have done the same.

But the anti-Bush sentiment is by no means silenced in the United States:
.......... Impeach Bush Website (http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/)
.......... Wonder Woman exercises free speech (http://www.basetree.com/thumbs/America_Is_Coming_For_You.jpg)
.......... Middle Class white guy exercises his free speech (http://www.basetree.com/thumbs/Dorks_for_Bush.jpg)
.......... Ready to protect someone's Free Speech! (http://www.wbai.org/gallery/albums/rnc-resistance-and-nypd-activity/res_627621958_001.jpg)
.......... Not afraid to tell the "emperor" about his clothes (http://www.wbai.org/gallery/albums/misc-photos-of-rnc-protest/res289588628.sized.jpg)
.......... Free Speech directed at pilots (or Air Farce One) (http://www.wbai.org/gallery/albums/various_rnc_protest-signs/res932133493.jpg)
.......... "I don't wanna hear it!" (http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2004/08/295034.jpg)
.......... Your own corner of Free Speech in Philadelphia, PA (http://ofb.net/~epstein/sl/0404/20040420-free-speech.jpg)
.......... Osam Bin Forgotten (http://www.freewayblogger.com/images/911.jpg)
.......... Free Speech gets past Right Wing Radio screeners (http://www.freewayblogger.com/funwithhateradio.htm)
.......... Free to claim alien war hit our solar system (http://www.craterchains.com)
.......... Free to Deconstruct that notion (alien war). (http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/craterchains.htm)
.......... Idiots with Free Speech (http://www.designltd.com/photographics/images/klan.jpg)
.......... Real idiots exercising Free Speech (http://www.aryan-nations.org/)
...........Freedom isn't Free (http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/)
.......... Free Speech on the Internet (http://www.eff.org/br/)
.......... Everything Else Free Speech! (http://www.freespeech.org/)
.......... Try it! (http://www.freewayblogger.com/images/try%20it.jpg)

Have fun with the links... one of them is to my own web page.

I had friends in my high school newspaper. There was a buttload of censorship. You could not say anything against the school or even mention it. There was no place for criticism of how it was run.

I think this is where we can really say:"Your freedom stops when it steps over someone else's freedom".

You can't say anything you want. Or else, we'd have much more insults being thrown around in the newspaper and media in general.

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Not that I'm against some of the violence/gang intervention strategies, but I think that these types of restrictions should be balanced with avenues of allowing students to express their opinions without being restricted. School newspapers are great ways to do this, but schools are always cutting non-academic and non-sports programs in order to cut costs. Perhaps local newspapers should adopt school newspaper programs... it would seem to be a win-win situation from my perspective.

Student democracy is always tricky. Partially because a lot of student media are - frankly - crap. And there must be some kind of limit on the spending of taxpayer funds. Partially because excessive student democracy might ultimately lead to the very grave misjudgement that kids should be in charge of the classes (don't snicker, that's what some Scandinavian teachers think). Which is bad. Bad for educantion. Bad for the kids' behavior. And consequently - paradoxically - bad for democracy.

I'm not sure how big of an effect student freedom has on opinions like this, i'd argue that the wider culture has a bigger effect, but i may be wrong.

School uniforms have always existed in the uk, school papers hardly exist at all. School democracy (in terms of elections etc..) happens very rarely... but (at least when i was at school) we were all still very pro free speech.

In fact we were usually much MORE pro freedom than the general adult population which has usually had it's ideals tempered by experience, practicality and frustration.

But ever since 9/11 there has been a definate shift in political/public opinion towards safety, security and cnformity being more important than freedom.
It is the same in the UK, where we have lost the right to trial by jury (in some cases), the right to silence, numerous privacy rights and now they are bringing in the right to arrest "suspects" and hold them without trial and without knowing what the charges are against them.

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt have reached such a level that people no longer see freedom as worth dying for... ironic really as we see iraqui willing to risk death just to get to the voting booths...

This reminds me of the intellectual rejects at my old high school. It was pretty funny when the principal created a day where the students couldn't do anything without the teachers telling them to.

It was funny because the same idiots that saw no big deal about freedoms were the loudest to complain.

Originally posted by SkinWalker
Its possible that the study created a confirmation bias. I'd be interested in seeing if questions such as those about "flag burning" and "indecent material" came before or after questions that related to protecting religious free speech or criticisms of government etc.

Indeed, if not carefully constructed, the questions could easily lead students to answer in such a way as to confirm the expectations the authors of the study already expected.

But the suggestion that students with less access to 1st amendment outlets and the ability to exercise their rights to free speech has merit. Not having student newspapers or student controlled free speech outlets like "free speech zones" at schools, coupled with the controls and restrictions that many schools implement to reduce school violence and gang activity (school uniforms/dress codes, cell phone restrictions, etc.) can give the impression that restrictions on free speech is a norm and expected throughout society.

Not that I'm against some of the violence/gang intervention strategies, but I think that these types of restrictions should be balanced with avenues of allowing students to express their opinions without being restricted. School newspapers are great ways to do this, but schools are always cutting non-academic and non-sports programs in order to cut costs. Perhaps local newspapers should adopt school newspaper programs... it would seem to be a win-win situation from my perspective.

Good points all around, Skin. Basically, (from what I've gathered growing up in the American school system in the 80's and 90's) up to the High School level, students have no rights whatsoever. The parents have to step in if anything is to be done on their behalf, beyond the crumbs tossed to them by those who run the schools.

On the college level they have more freedom, but it's still limited (freespeech "zones"? I thought the whole country was supposed to be a "free speech zone"?).

Sure, we have all kinds of loopholes with private property, etc. that's the difficulty.

"Well I own this entire town, so you can't say anything I don't like or you're expelled" that's basically what it's amounting to.

And yes, if the results of the study are accurate and representational, it is indeed sad. It just goes to show how "revolutionary" and controversial those ideas still are, even after over two centuries...

Having been censored both by right-wing fascists and, yes, left-wing fascists too, I have inexorably come to the conclusion that the desire to control the spread of others' opinions is inherent to humanity.

Most people fear the ideas they do not agree with, regardless of educational standard, religious alignment or political preference. It is natural for the bulk of humanity to wish to gag each other and all the remainder too.

It just goes to show how "revolutionary" and controversial those ideas still are, even after over two centuries...Yes, the concepts of freedom of expression are still all revolutionary ideas and probably always will be, but they're older than two centuries. :confused:

Originally posted by Spider AL
Having been censored both by right-wing fascists and, yes, left-wing fascists too, I have inexorably come to the conclusion that the desire to control the spread of others' opinions is inherent to humanity.

Most people fear the ideas they do not agree with, regardless of educational standard, religious alignment or political preference. It is natural for the bulk of humanity to wish to gag each other and all the remainder too.

Yes, the concepts of freedom of expression are still all revolutionary ideas and probably always will be, but they're older than two centuries. :confused:

I'm not saying the American Founding Fathers invented those ideas (they attribute these to an endowment by the Creator), rather we're talking specifically about the founding principles of the United States, not Athens or somewhere else (unless you were being nitpicky, in which case you know I meant 229 years).

I think it is sad (and a little frightening) that these people can apparently know so little about the government they live under that they would say that the first amendment goes 'too far'. I know I wouldn't have ever said that, even though I've just in the past year or so become interested in politics to any great degree. You'd think that they would have been taught what their freedoms are just a little better than they have.....and if they do understand, and still think it's no big deal, I don't know what to say to that. :|

These are the people vets should be yelling at, not protestors.