Category: First Amendment

In the modern world to chat with friends, meet interesting people, or discuss exciting problems, it is not necessary to leave home and go somewhere. All these pleasures can be obtained on the Internet: blogs, forums, chats, and social networks. For many people, the virtual world has become an impromptu platform, where you can express your opinion about exciting problems, the situation in the country and the world, and the actions of politicians. In addition, it is the opportunity to argue, develop a topic or debate, and prove your point. Undoubtedly, freedom of speech on the Internet is one of the pillars of a democratic society. The good evidence that social media is used by opposition movements, human rights activists, and journalists to write about situations in their country, world, and so on. On the other hand, the Internet has also become a tool for hate propaganda, a channel for the distribution of materials that can harm the morals and health of citizens, as well as undermine the security of states.

Nowadays, social media is widely used by teachers too. For educators, it became a platform where they can share information with peers or communicate with students and parents; which means school life became easier for everybody. For instance, with the help of social media tasks such as creating a more open educational environment with includes the maximum number of participants in the educational process and allowing various educational and educational tasks to develop creativity became possible. However, sometimes in school forums, you can always see negative comments from parents; under teachers’ posts or announcements about the school. It could cause any problem for the school or teachers because there always would be parents, who do not share the teachers’ view or do not agree with the announcement. But… it is not the only problem using social media by teachers as most teachers have their accounts on Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter, where they share their political views or personal photos in bars, or at night clubs while consuming alcohol, and sometimes vulgar photos too. Hence, society starts to judge these teachers by saying such words: you are a teacher, you are the face of the community or your students are watching you. Even, some people about these posts to school district too. That’s why we can hear news like ‘Teacher stopped from promotion because of her political view on Facebook’ or ‘Teacher was dismissed for her Vulgar Photos on Instagram’. Thus, some schools. In other words, there is no doubt that Social Media has a tremendous impact on Teachers life where some School District making policies to use Social Media for Teachers. Consequently, most teachers do not are there any boundaries for using Social Media; if there are where is the crossing point and what are the results of crossing it? My paper will focus on how the First Amendment works for Educators’ Social media by analyzing court cases. In addition, will try to answer these questions:

1. Are there any legal laws that support School Districts’ decision to control Teachers’ Social Media?
2. What restrictions School Districts can put on teachers when they use Social Media?
3. What result could it cause to not follow School Policy, when using Social Media, for teachers?

Techers’ Free Speech Rights

First of all, before starting to focus on Social Media, it is necessary to understand how the First Amendment works for School teachers. There are two big cases about the Right of Free Speech for teachers, which are: Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), and Connick v. Myers (1983); and I would like to emphasize them.

Pickering, a teacher in Township High School District, was fired because of her letter to the local newspaper where she was concerned about decision of her school to increase tax to develop educational and athletic programs of the school. He contested it as a violation of his right to freedom of speech according to the First Amendment. However, the District Court confirmed that his right was not violated. Hence, Pickering appealed it, in the Supreme Court; where it was mentioned that the teacher’s right to freedom of speech as a public employee needs to be balanced to maintain employers’ interest but Pickerings’ public concern could serve as a reason for dismissal. There is one comment from the court: The problem … is to arrive at a balance between the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interests of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. (Pickering v. Board of Education,1968) [1]

On the other hand, in Connicks’ case the word ‘public concern’ is completely clarified. Myers was employed as an Assistant District Attorney in New Orleans. She was asked to transfer to prosecute cases in a different section of the criminal court. This was a transfer that she objected to due to her work with a counseling program for convicted defendants who were released on probation, which she felt would act as a conflict of interest. In response to the requirement that she transfer, she created a questionnaire of 15 questions concerning office morale and the feelings of others in her office. She then distributed it without the prior knowledge of her supervisor, Connick. After Connick found out about the survey he terminated her employment. During court, it was emphasized that only one question Connick protects under the First Amendment; other questions related to staff, which is a personal concern. That’s why the court concluded that her fire was fair and this is one of the comments from the court “Myers’ questionnaire touched upon matters of public concern in only a most limited sense; her survey, in our view, is most accurately characterized as an employee grievance concerning internal office policy. The limited First Amendment interest involved here does not require that Connick tolerate action that he reasonably believed would disrupt the office, undermine his authority, and destroy close working relationships. Myers’ discharge therefore did not offend the First Amendment.” (Connick v. Myers, 1983) [2]

, it can be concluded that teachers can talk or share their point of view about any public concerns, even if it is related to their workplace, as citizens; but any private or personal concerns that could affect employers’ interest are prohibited.

Reference

1. Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/648/pickering-v-board-of-education
2. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983). https://edlawfaqs.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/connick-v-myers.pdf

The issue that I have chosen off isidewith.com is just under the title of “First Amendment.” The actual issue is whether or not the government should support separation of church and state by removing references to god on money, federal buildings, national monuments, and in the pledge of allegiance. This topic, while not being as controversial as other things such as abortion or gun control, can be somewhat controversial across the country. The poll off isidewith.com shows that 73% of voters say no, that the government should not remove these references and 27% say yes, that the government should remove these references off money, national monuments, etc.

Of the 27% that do support that the government should remove these references there are a few solid arguments. One of these arguments being that in putting “in God we trust” on bills and “under god” in the pledge of allegiance we are essentially forcing religion in what is supposed to be a free religion “godless” country united under a “godless” constitution. “In God we trust” has even been the official motto of the entire United States of America since 1956. Previously, before 1956, the motto was “E pluribus unum.” This is a latin term meaning “out of many, one” or “one out of many” and it is used to unite the entire country. It is essentially saying that although we may be many states and people we are still together as one country. Many people believe that this should be reinstated as the official motto of the country instead of “in god we trust” because it actually unites the whole country no matter the religion instead of dividing it like “In God we trust” does.

Another argument used to support the yes side of this argument would be that putting the phrase “In God we trust” and “under God” on money and in the pledge essentially weakens it and makes it borderline meaningless. What should be a sacred phrase to many people becomes pointless if you are forced to say it in the pledge and forced to see it everywhere on money. The 26th president of the United States himself, Theodore Roosevelt, said, ‘My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence which comes dangerously close to sacrilege. A beautiful and solemn sentence such as the one in question should be treated and uttered only with that fine reverence which necessarily implies a certain exaltation of spirit. Any use which tends to cheapen it, and above all, any use which tends to secure its being treated in a spirit of levity, is from every standpoint profoundly to be regretted.’

The last of the solid arguments I have found comes from a man named Michael Newdow who was quoted by the Religion News Service in 2006 saying ‘It’s such a fraud. In this nation that’s supposed to be this beacon of religious liberty, a bastion of equality. What’s next? ‘In Jesus We Trust’? ‘In Protestantism We Trust’?’ His point being that, for one, if we allow this for all we know in the future phrases such as the examples given could be put on currency, monuments, etc. and for two that we can’t just allow any religion to put a religious phrase on money or in the pledge. For example, if the country were to put an Islamic phrase such as “Alluhah Akbar” in the pledge or on money and national monuments that would get much more negative feedback and backlash. There was even a case that went to court about an atheist father saying that forcing his daughter to say “under God” in the pledge violated his and her first amendment rights. The Chief Justice John Paul Stevens said the father didn’t have standing to bring suit because he lacked sufficient custody over his daughter.

While there are a few solid arguments for removing references to God on money, federal buildings, and national monuments there is also a few good arguments for keeping these references to God on those things. The first argument I have found is saying that they should keep these references because of the history that the phrase “In God we trust” and Christianity has in America. That phrase was even in the entire version of “The Star Spangled Banner.” Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow of the America Center for Law and Justice said in 2006, ‘Let’s not forget the historical significance of the phrase ‘In God We Trust.’ Use of the slogan dates back to the War of 1812. In September 1814, fearing for the fate of America while watching the British bombardment of Fort McHenry in Baltimore, Francis Scott Key composed the poem the ‘Star Spangled Banner,’ of which one line in the final stanza is ‘And this be our motto – ‘in God is our trust.’ When Congress codified the longstanding motto in 1956 – fifty years ago – it articulated a purpose that reflected patriotic inspiration: ‘It will be of great spiritual and psychological value to our country to have a clearly designated national motto of inspirational quality in plain, popularly accepted English.’”

Another argument for keeping these references to God is the amount of money and trouble it would cost to remove it from national monuments, money, and federal buildings. While there isn’t any calculations as to how much it would actually cost to remove the phrase from all money, federal buildings, national monuments, etc, it most likely would not be very cheap. It also would not be easy and would be troublesome. Many believe that it just should not be a priority over other more important topics and problems in America.

The final argument against removing the phrase is how far people would go with it. There are many other things such as cities and so on that have religious origins, and some people think that if we were to change the “In God we trust” on coins and monuments that it wouldn’t end there. Brad Dacus, President of the Pacific Justice Institute, said ‘If the courts don’t protect the national motto, we have to ask ourselves what is next-are we going to rename San Francisco and all the other major cities in California whose names have obvious religious connotations? American history, including our national motto, is nothing to be ashamed of. To the contrary, the unprecedented religious tolerance, devotion and diversity of our nation, reflected in the statement ‘In God We Trust,’ should be a tremendous source of pride for every American.’

Currently America’s legislation allows these phrases such as “In God we trust” and “under God” to be used on coins, national monuments, federal buildings, and in the pledge of allegiance. In my opinion, I think that removing the phrase from coins, the pledge of allegiance, and federal buildings (if it is a simple fix such as taking down a plaque or repainting a specific area) would be a good idea, but the trouble to take it off national monuments might be a little too extreme, especially if it is a monument made of stone or an old monument that people might not want to change. I believe that we shouldn’t have anything religion related on anything federally owned because that, to me, is essentially saying that the whole country should follow that certain religion when this is supposed to be a religion free country.

In the modern world to chat with friends, meet interesting people, or discuss exciting problems, it is not necessary to leave home and go somewhere. All these pleasures can be obtained on the Internet: blogs, forums, chats, and social networks. For many people, the virtual world has become an impromptu platform, where you can express your opinion about exciting problems, the situation in the country and the world, and the actions of politicians. In addition, it is the opportunity to argue, develop a topic or debate, and prove your point. Undoubtedly, freedom of speech on the Internet is one of the pillars of a democratic society. The good evidence that social media is used by opposition movements, human rights activists, and journalists to write about situations in their country, world, and so on. On the other hand, the Internet has also become a tool for hate propaganda, a channel for the distribution of materials that can harm the morals and health of citizens, as well as undermine the security of states.

Nowadays, social media is widely used by teachers too. For educators, it became a platform where they can share information with peers or communicate with students and parents; which means school life became easier for everybody. For instance, with the help of social media tasks such as creating a more open educational environment with includes the maximum number of participants in the educational process and allowing various educational and educational tasks to develop creativity became possible. However, sometimes in school forums, you can always see negative comments from parents; under teachers’ posts or announcements about the school. It could cause any problem for the school or teachers because there always would be parents, who do not share the teachers’ view or do not agree with the announcement. But… it is not the only problem using social media by teachers as most teachers have their accounts on Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter, where they share their political views or personal photos in bars, or at night clubs while consuming alcohol, and sometimes vulgar photos too. Hence, society starts to judge these teachers by saying such words: you are a teacher, you are the face of the community or your students are watching you. Even, some people about these posts to school district too. That’s why we can hear news like ‘Teacher stopped from promotion because of her political view on Facebook’ or ‘Teacher was dismissed for her Vulgar Photos on Instagram’. Thus, some schools. In other words, there is no doubt that Social Media has a tremendous impact on Teachers life where some School District making policies to use Social Media for Teachers. Consequently, most teachers do not are there any boundaries for using Social Media; if there are where is the crossing point and what are the results of crossing it? My paper will focus on how the First Amendment works for Educators’ Social media by analyzing court cases. In addition, will try to answer these questions:

1. Are there any legal laws that support School Districts’ decision to control Teachers’ Social Media?
2. What restrictions School Districts can put on teachers when they use Social Media?
3. What result could it cause to not follow School Policy, when using Social Media, for teachers?

Techers’ Free Speech Rights

First of all, before starting to focus on Social Media, it is necessary to understand how the First Amendment works for School teachers. There are two big cases about the Right of Free Speech for teachers, which are: Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), and Connick v. Myers (1983); and I would like to emphasize them.

Pickering, a teacher in Township High School District, was fired because of her letter to the local newspaper where she was concerned about decision of her school to increase tax to develop educational and athletic programs of the school. He contested it as a violation of his right to freedom of speech according to the First Amendment. However, the District Court confirmed that his right was not violated. Hence, Pickering appealed it, in the Supreme Court; where it was mentioned that the teacher’s right to freedom of speech as a public employee needs to be balanced to maintain employers’ interest but Pickerings’ public concern could serve as a reason for dismissal. There is one comment from the court: The problem … is to arrive at a balance between the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interests of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. (Pickering v. Board of Education,1968) [1]

On the other hand, in Connicks’ case the word ‘public concern’ is completely clarified. Myers was employed as an Assistant District Attorney in New Orleans. She was asked to transfer to prosecute cases in a different section of the criminal court. This was a transfer that she objected to due to her work with a counseling program for convicted defendants who were released on probation, which she felt would act as a conflict of interest. In response to the requirement that she transfer, she created a questionnaire of 15 questions concerning office morale and the feelings of others in her office. She then distributed it without the prior knowledge of her supervisor, Connick. After Connick found out about the survey he terminated her employment. During court, it was emphasized that only one question Connick protects under the First Amendment; other questions related to staff, which is a personal concern. That’s why the court concluded that her fire was fair and this is one of the comments from the court “Myers’ questionnaire touched upon matters of public concern in only a most limited sense; her survey, in our view, is most accurately characterized as an employee grievance concerning internal office policy. The limited First Amendment interest involved here does not require that Connick tolerate action that he reasonably believed would disrupt the office, undermine his authority, and destroy close working relationships. Myers’ discharge therefore did not offend the First Amendment.” (Connick v. Myers, 1983) [2]

, it can be concluded that teachers can talk or share their point of view about any public concerns, even if it is related to their workplace, as citizens; but any private or personal concerns that could affect employers’ interest are prohibited.

Reference

1. Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/648/pickering-v-board-of-education
2. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983). https://edlawfaqs.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/connick-v-myers.pdf

Introduction

United States is a country with rich culture and history. Worth noting is the fact that, throughout American history, religion and in particular Church has played an integral part in development of the State. Values such as democracy and freedom were brought by Christians who fled from British Monarch.

However, when the first amendment was entrenched into the bill of rights, the State gradually moved away from Church values and instead strengthened secularism. The Church feels cheated as they made a great contribution to the foundation of State. This paper will try to explore what the founders of the first amendment meant, when they wrote the bill (Holcomb 23).

What the founders meant by the first Amendment

The first amendment was written over 200 years ago by the founders who wanted to protect both the State and religion from interfering in each others tasks. However, its interpretation has raised concern as courts insist it is not absolute while the congress believes that it is. This has led to confusion over its exact meaning and relevance to the State and Church.

Its meaning has always varied with each side taking to their interpretations. Even though it was written more than 200 years ago, it has endured any significant alteration. It states the congress is not to respect any established religion when making laws… This was ideally meant to protect them from executing each other’s duties, and did not mean Church could not advice the State (Holcomb 12).

The founders wanted openness as well as democracy in United States. They were tired of tyranny and control of information which had restricted people from airing their grievances. They had the purpose of ending this form of life forever, and therefore wrote this amendment in the bill of rights. They believed that the population needed to share information so as to live in unity and harmony.

They also hoped to protect the state from a stronger religion which could begin dictatorship as was in the days of Rome. The founders feared tyranny, which they had witnessed under British monarchy and wanted a better future for the American population. However, this was interpreted in many ways to an extent that currently, the State is completely separated from Church.

Instead, secularism has encroached in government, and the society at large. All religions are treated equally, even though others impact on more people than the rest. Though the founders of the bill had good intentions for the country, it is not clear why they did not seal the loopholes (Holcomb 113).

Conclusion

When the first amendment was written, its aims ware established by the founders, they were intended to protect both State and Church. However, this took a twist as each side interpreted the bill to befit their conditions. This only confirms the bill was not complete in its description of relationship between Church and State.

Courts have made it clear that the bill is not absolute, however the State insists on its other meaning, which keeps religion at bay. American populations, majority of which are Christians, cannot have their way, both in schools and institutions, these are the severity of such conflicts between Church and State (Holcomb 23).

Work Cited

Holcomb, David. “Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land: a History of Church and State in America”. USA: Oxford University Press, 2003

Cyberbullying, like other forms of bullying, is an increasingly serious issue, particularly in schools. Laws and regulations exist intended to prevent students from falling victim to it. However, as the process often happens outside of the school and does not necessarily involve any of its facilities, it can be challenging to detect and protect students from it. When detected, it requires action from the school faculty, which may include legal action. Fundamentally, case law, such as the precedent of Morse v. Frederick (2007), states that a “student’s First Amendment rights are circumscribed in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.” Nonetheless, several precedents establish arguments related to the protection of student online speech that may constitute cyberbullying.

First Amendment Arguments and Responses

Several key arguments can be brought up in a cyberbullying case. The primary argument that involves the First Amendment directly was made in the Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969) case, where the Supreme Court ruled that students’ actions that interfere with the disciplinary requirements of a school are not protected by the First Amendment. More recently, Currently, Bittner (2013) identifies three key themes with legal arguments related to cyberbullying: the geographical approach, the substantial disruption approach, and the relational/duty to the student approach. Under the geographical approach, the defendant can argue that since the event in question occurs online and outside of school property, it is covered by the First Amendment and the school has “no authority to discipline the student” (Bittner, 2013, p. 177). Similar argumentation was used in Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist (2011), where the court ruled in favor of the student. However, the message’s content, intent, and the possible effect on the school environment determine the relevant response, as well.A defendant in a cyberbullying case can argue that the speech on a Facebook page does not constitute a threat. However, following from the precedent established in Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969), a counterargument exists that a potential disruption of a school’s instructional process by off-campus activity can be grounds for legal action (Bittner, 2013). Furthermore, the reasoning in Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser (1986) and Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier (1988) is that a school is obligated to provide certain protections to their students and faculty members, and, therefore, may limit a student’s expression to do so. Therefore, if it can be proven that the student’s messages can cause harm, including psychological harm and harm to academic performance, to another student, violate privacy, or interfere with the school’s function and environment, the courts may be justified to rule against the defendant.

Required Actions

According to the Board Policy of LA County School District and California State statutes, school staff should immediately intervene to stop the incident of bullying. In the case of cyberbullying, this involves investigation and documenting the activity and identifying “specific facts or circumstances that explain the impact or potential impact on school activity, school attendance, or the targeted student’s educational performance” (California School Boards Association [CSBA], 2012, BP 5131.2(d)). Furthermore, if a social networking site or service was used for bullying, a request should be filed with the site or service in question, requesting that the offending material is removed and the bullying student’s social networking privileges suspended (CSBA, BP 5131.2(d)). Disciplinary measures against the offending student may include suspension and expulsion (CSBA, AR 5144.1(d); Los Angeles Unified School District, 2018). During the course of the investigation, the involved students’ parents may be notified, as appropriate (CSBA, BP 5131.2(c)). In general, these steps are aimed at minimizing harm and restoring school discipline.

References

1. Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
2. Bittner, M. L. (2013). Beyond the schoolhouse gate: Students First Amendment speech rights in the digital age. The Clearing House, 86, 174-178.
3. California School Boards Association (2012). Board Policy.
4. Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
5. Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist., No. 07-4465 (3d Cir. 2011).
6. Los Angeles Unified School District (2018). 2018-2019 Parent Student Handbook. Los Angeles, CA.
7. Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007).
8. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

Introduction

The Constitution of the United States is the key legal document of the country that establishes principles that have to be upheld by law. Breaches of the Constitution are relatively common, particularly with regards to the Amendments that state people’s rights. However, in cases involving breaches of the Constitution, it is usually up to the court to decide whether or not the event or behavior constituted a breach. This can be done based on similar precedents in accordance with the procedure. The present case requires careful consideration since there is an alleged breach of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and there were two previous precedents with different outcomes.

Facts of the Case

The case occurred in 2018 in the town of Prattville, Alabama. At the time, one of the town’s citizens donated a monument, which included an inscription of the 10 Commandments on its face, to the local government. The monument was placed in the town square, which is also home to other monuments, including statues of children playing with balls and leaves. After the monument was erected, one of the town’s residents filed a preliminary injunction demanding that the monument is removed. The claimant argued that the monument violated the prohibition of the Religious Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Analysis of the Case

In order to make an informed decision, it is necessary to take into account two factors. First of all, the judge is required to evaluate whether or not the selected clause of the Constitution applies to the present case. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from passing laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion (Hamilton & McConnell, n.d.). Evidently, the clause does not explicitly prevent local governments from erecting monuments that represent religious values and beliefs. However, according to Hamilton and McConnell (n.d.), this clause could be applied to government-sponsored or government-owned religious symbols, such as monuments. This is because such religious symbols are identified with the government, and thus it can be argued that the government aids in the establishment of a particular religion indirectly.

The Ten Commandments are widely perceived to be a religious symbol because they are derived from the Bible and represent the values and beliefs associated with the Christian faith. Since the monument was donated to the city by one of its residents, it can also be identified as a government-owned symbol. Therefore, based on the theoretical application of the Constitution, the chosen case violates the Religious Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Secondly, it is also necessary to take into account court precedents related to the selected case. There were two major cases identified in connection with this clause: the case of Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) and the case of McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005). Both of these cases involve monuments containing inscriptions of the Ten Commandments. Reviewing the facts of the two cases and the actions taken by the courts can assist in deciding the chosen case.

In the first case, Thomas Van Orden argued that the monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the state capitol building violated the Religious Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it represented an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The majority of the judges (5-4) ruled that “the monument served a valid secular purpose and would not appear to a reasonable observer to represent a government endorsement of religion” (Oyez, 2005b, para. 1). In the second case, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the counties of Kentucky for placing framed copies of the Ten Commandments in public schools and courthouses. Similarly, the claimants argued that these actions constituted a governmental endorsement of religion, thus violating the Constitution. Here, the majority of the judges ruled that “an observer would have concluded that the government was endorsing religion” (Oyez, 2005b, para. 3), which was the basis for satisfying the claim. The parts of the cases cited above can be used to make a decision in the present case because they indicate the judgment should be based on whether or not a reasonable observer would consider the monument as a religious endorsement. Hamilton and McConnell (n.d.) mention that this reasoning is called an endorsement test and it has been widely applied to similar cases in the United States.

The Decision

Based on the facts of the case, the related Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the selected precedents, the monument violates the Constitution. On the one hand, it can be defined as a government-owned religious symbol, which makes the Religious Establishment Clause applicable here. On the other hand, the endorsement test yields a positive result since the monument was erected in the town square among statues containing no religious messages. This means that a reasonable observer would most likely perceive the monument as a sign of endorsement of the Christian religion by the government, which is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

References

Hamilton, M. A., & McConnell, M. (n.d.). The establishment clause. Web.

Oyez. (2005a). McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky. Web.

Oyez. (2005b). Van Orden v. Perry. Web.

Introduction

Amendment 1 of the US Constitution states that the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (US Government Printing Office 1013). The exercise of this freedom has at times seen its interpretation being stretched to the limits of normal moral ethical behavior as well as attempts to limit such a freedom. The question therefore arises whether Pornography or Obscenity deserves protection under the First Amendment.

Discussion

Proponents of ethical behavior argue that pornography debases and has been a catalyst in encouraging crimes against women. Because Pornography appeals to baser human instincts, it has a wider following and tremendous commercial success which then encourages women to take up prostitution as a profession. Pornography is easily available, even to under aged children and that serves to corrupt their impressionable souls, feeding wild juvenile fantasies and possibly leads to deviant social behavior with its concomitant effect on the larger society. Thus, in their view Pornography deserves no protection under the First Amendment and must be banned.

The proponents of the First Amendment argue that it is very difficult to define what is pornography and obscenity. Both terms are subjective in nature and because no precise definitions exist, a blanket ban will only serve to limit the freedom of expression and indeed lead to the death of a free society as promised by the Constitution. Consequently, proponents of Pornography have been hauled to courts on a number of occasions. The most famous case was Hustler Magazine, Inc., v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) case in which The Hustler had portrayed a parody of a Campari advertisement in which Jerry Falwell, a well known evangelical figure was shown to ‘state’ that he had an incestuous relationship with his mother while drunk. Falwell lost his case for invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress in the US Supreme court which upheld the Hustler magazine right to publish a parody under the First Amendment. Since then Courts have sought to limit the First Amendment under the Obscenity exception as Saunders observes that “The Supreme Court has recognized several categories of speech that are unprotected by the amendment” (46). This observation however has been found to be extremely difficult to legally uphold.

The obscenity exception applies to child pornography and other acts or depictions in any literary expression that may be construed as obscene. In the age of internet, enforcing restrictions is impossibility, a fact recognized by the US Supreme court which struck down a 10 year old anti-child pornography law. “In striking down the law on free-speech grounds, the justices said parents could protect their children by installing software filters on their computers” (Savage para 2).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be summarized that while pornography and obscenity have their negative side effects on the society, the present recourse to protect the right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment may be the best option to preserve the free society and the individual ‘pursuit of happiness’ which is the epitome of the American way of life.

Works Cited

Saunders, Kevin W. Violence as Obscenity: Limiting the Media’s First Amendment Protection. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996.

Savage, David G. “Supreme Court lets Internet porn law die.” 2009. LA Times. Web.

US Government Printing Office. First Amendment- Religion and Expression. 2002. Web.

Video games make a big part of the American culture, and this industry constantly keeps growing. According to Taylor, almost half of the U.S. population play video games and twenty-five percent of families possess a game-playing device (Taylor). It implies that the video games industry has a tremendous effect on consumer’s cognitive, social, and psychological behavior. Many legislators have tried to regulate access to video games. California law of 2005 prohibited the sale of violent computer games to children under eighteen. However, in 2011 The Supreme Court of the United States video games were given full protection under the First Amendment because free speech applies to the digital era and new types of media (Gutterman). There are many opinions on whether violent games should be given First Amendment protection or not. Violent games appear to be a legitimate type of media with its right for free expression; however, minors should also be protected from the violent and sexual content of video games because they lack media literacy to make rational decisions and are vulnerable to the violent and sexual content of video games.

The definition of a video game, along with its target audience, has changed with the progression of modern technologies. In the beginning, the nature of video games was very primitive. Whereas today, video games have a compelling storyline, individual characters with realistic graphics, and professional sound design that provide a very genuine experience. Initially, video games were considered to be only for children. Now an average U.S. player is 35 years old; females also make up almost half of the American players (“Excuse Me Princess – Gender in Video Game Culture”).

Proponents of giving protection to video games, such as Entertainment Software Association base their argument on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which grants freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. It is interesting to note that U.S. courts have ruled thirteen times that video games fall under the category of protected speech. According to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, “video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And ‘the basic principles of freedom of speech… do not vary’ with a new and different communication medium” (ESA, 1). Indeed, video games are considered a communication medium because they can raise important philosophical or political issues, communicate cultural values, human relationships, and unite communities.

On the other hand, it is impossible to ignore the negative effects of video games. Video games can help stimulate cognitive and personal development, but at the same time, excessively violent games can cause a person to be more aggressive and lack social skills. The American Psychological Association (APA) found a correlation between playing violent video games and aggression: it was expressed in “an increase in negative outcomes such as aggressive behavior, cognition, and affect and as a decrease in positive outcomes such as prosocial behavior, empathy, and sensitivity to aggression” (16). Players watch the scenes of virtual violence constantly, and eventually, they forget that aggression is not acceptable in society. Moreover, APA believes playing violent video games is a “potential causal contributor to act as a mass homicide” (1).

Children and adolescents are certainly under the enormous influence of violent video games. Following the Social Learning Theory of Bandura, children can quickly learn aggressive behavior through observation (McLeod). After seeing and killing people and other characters in games, players perceive it as something natural. Many recent shootings in American schools were done by young people with the unstable psychological condition who frequently played violent video games. Therefore, underage players are most vulnerable to violence and their gaming activities should be guided. Researchers have been investigating the effects of video games for more than 20 years. An explicit link between violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior was found through various methods of studies. However, up to now, courts have found the research regarding the harm of violent computer games to be unpersuasive.

The adverse effects of violent video games have raised parents’ concerns about the safety of their children. Video games also have sexual content and encourage the use of offensive language. However, it should be noted that violence is present in any media. Scenes of violence, blood, fights, and insults in large amounts are depicted on TV screens, and now also in social networks. Even the news regularly shows violent scenes to an unrestricted audience: YouTube videos where people are knocked down by cars, harassed, and beaten pop up here and there. There are federal and private regulations in some fields, but not all media is regulated. For instance, there are certain categories for each movie- for general audiences or restricted. Recently major social networks like YouTube and Facebook have implemented their content policies; public broadcasters cannot stream indecent content. On the positive side, all media is protected from copyright infringement and piracy. Other forms of artistic expression- books, paintings, music with violent content are freely available. Compared to other types of media protected by the First Amendment, video games do not only show aggressive behavior but make players kill using various methods like decapitation, burning to death, and torture. Thus, video games have a serious imprint on a person’s character.

Furthermore, each video game has its community which serves as a perfect stage for sexual harassment, language abuse, and more privacy issues. Male players tend to dominate, and use this medium for aggressive communication and offensive sexual behavior towards females. There are 84 million female players in the U.S., with two-thirds of them hiding their gender to avoid sexual harassment and sex discrimination. For instance, Anita Sarkeesian- a famous feminist media blogger received rape and death threats for raising the issue of women’s portrayal in video games (“Excuse Me, Princess – Gender in Video Game Culture”). This is a clear example of how violent games caused aggressive behavior. Sexual harassment could be reduced by implementing better player behavior policies. However, acceptable behavior in online games does not appear to be demanded in the community as it has become a big part of this culture.

The emergence of new technology allowed artists to tell realistic stories through video games. Along with social networks, video games let players interact with their creators directly. Thus, video games have a direct influence on a player and have become an integral part of the American culture. Video games were found to be associated with aggressive, socially maladaptive behavior; they tend to promote sexual harassment and language abuse. However, these effects can be reformed through the implementation of nicer player behavior policies and developing media literacy skills. Also, video games can be a useful educational resource. Thus, violent video games as a type of digital media certainly have a right to be granted the protection of the First Amendment because video games incorporate many forms of digital art and communicate social and cultural values.

Works Cited

American Psychological Association. Technical Report On The Review Of The Violent Video Game Literature. 2015. Web.

ESA. Essential Facts About Video Games and Court Rulings. 2011. Web.

“Excuse Me Princess – Gender in Video Game Culture: Stirling Little at TEDxUNC.” YouTube. Web.

Gutterman, Roy. “Violent Video Games and The First Amendment.” Huffington Post, 2011. Web.

McLeod, Saul. “Bobo Doll Experiment.” Simply Psychology, 2014. Web.

Taylor, Rich. “Video Games’ Place in American Culture.” Huffington Post. 2015. Web.

Introduction

It is important to note that the Supreme Court was considering a case that dealt with the controversial issue of whether Maryland’s requirement violated the First Amendment’s established clause. The requirement was that a candidate for public office declare a belief in God, which is one of the statements that a candidate is obligated to make. Accordingly, during the consideration of the case in the Supreme Court, it was found that such a requirement violates the civil rights of people (Blankholm, 2018). This is because, in this case, preference is given to those people who believe in God, and others are discriminated against. Moreover, the Supreme Court unanimously approved that the position of the State of Maryland promotes discrimination against people on religious grounds.

Case Outline

• Title: Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) (Blankholm, 2018).
• Facts of the case: Roy Torcaso attempted to become a notary public in Maryland but was denied. This was because he was required to declare his belief in God, and the candidate was an atheist (Blankholm, 2018). Accordingly, a controversial issue arose when the Maryland Constitution contradicted the human right to religion.
• History of the case: The candidate filed a lawsuit in the Maryland Circuit Court alleging violations of the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit was dismissed, and Torcaso appealed to the Maryland State Court of Appeals, which also affirmed the previous decision (Blankholm, 2018). Therefore, the plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Legal questions: Does state law violate a right guaranteed to a citizen by the Constitution?
• Decision or holdings: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and found that this requirement restricts his religious beliefs (Greenberg et al., 2020). The reason is that Maryland favors one category of people and neglects the needs of others on the basis of religion.
• Verdict and opinion (judgement): Judge Hugo L. Black delivered a unanimous opinion (De Maio, 2018). Judge Felix Frankfurter and Judge John M. Harlan concurred in the outcome.

Conclusion

The judges found that the plaintiff’s religious rights should not be violated. Basically, US citizens received a judicial confirmation of the supremacy of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. This was the right decision, because it eliminated discriminatory conditions for obtaining a position.

References

Blankholm, J. (2018). Secularism and secular people. Public Culture, 30(2), 245-268.

De Maio, G. (2018). The republican schoolmaster and the problem of religion in America. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 30(1), 169-194.

Greenberg, E.S. et al. (2020). The struggle for democracy.Pearson.

Displaying student work conveys a number of important messages: teachers respect what students accomplish on paper. Students in the classroom also collaborate on projects while learning from one another. However, sometimes the content of students’ papers might contain some controversial themes like religion. Here, teachers need to determine whether to allow such papers to be shared in the classroom or not. In general, the purpose of this paper is to make some attempts to address how to deal with similar inconvenient cases.

In the given circumstance, the first thought that would cross my mind is if it is suitable to express ideas from the essay. The right to education is protected by human rights legislation guaranteeing to adapt education to the requirements of individuals and communities that are evolving and to the needs of students in their varied socio-cultural contexts (Yemini & Furstenburg, 2018). The student’s essay might not match the religious beliefs and perspectives of the other pupils, which could result in a disagreement in class. According to the Supreme Court, teachers who exercise editing supervision over the tone and substance of student expression do not violate the First Amendment as long as their decisions are logically connected to valid educational considerations (Shepard & Culver, 2018). Therefore, if it becomes necessary to moderate various extremes that may cause significant inconsistencies between pupils, I am permitted to change some expressions before showing them. That is one way of adapting education for all students considering the contextual needs.

The second question is if I can show the class this particular image because, once more, it might cause a certain amount of stress. The Supreme Court argues that entering a school does not revoke a student’s fundamental rights (Yell & Bateman, 2017). Therefore, the First Amendment protects students’ desire to communicate their opinions. I would infringe on this student’s fundamental rights if I forbade the display of the essay and photo. However, as I have stated, I may need to implement some modifications.

In light of the critical US Supreme Court ruling, the third issue could be framed as follows. Displaying the given work can be interpreted by the teacher as a religious prescription. According to the Supreme Court, no official may behave in a manner that contravenes the First Amendment (Patel, 2018). The precedent appears to be relevant in this situation since the fundamental idea of the provision indicates equal treatment for each US resident (Dadon-Golan et al., 2018). Therefore, I must consider the preferences and interests of each of my students. Without concentrating on or bringing up a religious component, I will rate the work under the established grading standards.

The situation mentioned above—which might occur in my class—is a crucial one to examine in the context of the First Amendment. Three US Supreme Court cases provided a logical and constant line of reasoning. It was proposed that the Amendment serves as the cornerstone for good social interactions in the nation. As mentioned earlier, the following legal concerns were presumed to exist within the context of the case. The first consideration is whether editing the essay is appropriate. Second, given the potential conflict, I want to know if I can present the paper to the students. The third is that I must respect the opinions of each of my students without making any exceptions.

References

Dadon-Golan, Z., BenDavid-Hadar, I., & Klein, J. (2018). Measuring (in) equality in Education.Education, Equity, Economy, 219–242.

Patel, K. S. (2018). Testing the Limits of the First Amendment: How Online Civil Rights Testing Is Protected Speech Activity. Columbia Law Review, 118(5), 1473-1516.

Shepard, J. M., & Culver, K. B. (2018). Culture wars on campus: academic freedom, the first amendment, and partisan outrage in polarized times. San Diego L. Rev., 55, 87.

Yell, M. L., & Bateman, D. F. (2017). Endrew F. v. Douglas county school district (2017) FAPE and the US supreme court. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(1), 7-15.

Yemini, M., & Furstenburg, S. (2018). Students’ perceptions of global citizenship at a local and an international school in Israel. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(6), 715-733.