Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged amendment

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Payton Whiteaker

Arizona Anti-Troll Law - 5 views

dailycaller.com/...trolled-for-anti-trolling-bill

Government Anti-Troll Law Arizona

shared by Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12
     
    This is possibly one of the funniest laws I have ever seen. Man I am glad I do not live in Arizona, internet trolling is fun, as long as you are not mean about. I really want to see what others think about this.
  • ...15 more comments...
  • Jeremy Vogel on 01 Sep 12
     
    "It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person." This is some of the language of the out of the bill (I found it in another article on Forbes). It seems reasonable, at least this section as I haven't read the whole law, except for the parts that say, "annoy or offend" and "use any obscene, lewd, or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act". We have laws that say you cant threaten, intimidate, threaten, or harass people in person or to threaten to inflict harm on another or their property so it makes to do the same thing over the internet. The fact that they added the annoy or offend and other parts I mentioned is a little ridiculous because just stating your opinion, and what you believe, on Facebook or in a comment section on a news article could "offend" someone. There is a big difference between being offensive, which is and should be legal, and trying to threaten, harass,terrify, and intimidate someone.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 04 Sep 12
     
    I can see why they want to remove the whole terrify, intimidate, and threaten part, but in all reality, the rest of the law is what is accountable to what most consider, "trolling." I personally don't get why annoying people would be against the law, it's human nature, and you cannot change that. And offending someone online means you do so verbally, and have a separate opinion from the person you are offending.You would be violating freedom of speech if you put that last bit in.
  • Alex beck on 04 Sep 12
     
    the expressed opinion that annoying someone else is human nature makes me question if you truly understand human nature. However, you are also incorrect about your freedom of speech theory. The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters. Do you honestly believe that it is your free right to harass a person, or to intentionally offending someone, which can logically be derived as a branch of harassment? I don't mean to sound rude or agressive, but I really don't see that falling under a freedom of speech infraction
  • Rainie mccubbin on 04 Sep 12
     
    I agree with Alex plus it says the intent to do those things... If you're stating your opinion you aren't really intentionally setting out to annoy or offend anyone. You are just stating what you think
  • Jeremy Vogel on 04 Sep 12
     
    I have to disagree that intentionally offending a person is a form of harassment. Casually stating god isn't real to a person you know to be a devote Christian could potentially be offensive but it isn't harassment. On another note being intentionally offensive has been upheld by the Supreme Court, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, as being in the parameters of protected speech. However, in Virginia v. Black the Court said that being offensive as to intimidate a person or group is not protected speech. Some comedians are intentionally offensive to specific groups but because they aren't being offensive as to intimidate, harass, terrify, or threaten others their offensive speech is protected.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    an interesting point, Jeremy. However, if I may ask, would hunting down a specific group on the internet in order to state a belief against theirs for the sole purpose of antagonizing that group not be harassment? I cannot argue against the logic presented in those cases that intentionally being offensive would be protected... however, entering a church in order to proclaim that there is no god (as an example) would be the equivalent of hunting a group down and posting that on their forums. I know that isn't the only reason that a post would show up like that, but it seems the most likely to me. I do enjoy a good, offensive comedian, but if he were to come to me specifically because he wanted to tell me how my beleifs were incorrect, I think that would fall under religeous harassment, (spelling?) just like a religeous person can be charged for harassment for hunting down a person with opposing beleifs and proclaiming their message, shouldn't people trying to tell them that their beleifs are incorrect be treated in kind?
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Sep 12
     
    Great discussion... another issue to consider is whether or not the listeners are "captive audience" or not. Freedom of speech is an incredibly complex topic (which we will discuss more soon in class) There is a big difference between an offensive comedian that I choose to go watch at a club and the same comedian that shows up on my doorstep to deliver an offensive message... if the second scenario continued it would seem to rise to the level of harassment pretty fast. The bigger question in my mind is do we want to prevent "offensive speech" at all or would that be a slippery slope to taking away more of our right to expression?
  • Kirstina Michl on 05 Sep 12
     
    I don't think that being annoying or offensive (so long as it's not harassment) should be illegal. It's kind of like cussing - it's frowned upon, but shouldn't necessarily be illegal (unless used in an act of violence or threatening someone).
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    Alex, you stated earlier that, "The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters." That is false, and why the law has not been passed as of now, and unlikely to be passed ever. Not to mention that it is to unclear upon its wording to be held up in court. I also do know that this law clearly states, "annoy." I annoy people, I do it daily, should I be jailed for 25 years for it? (The maximum time period in which this law can jail a person for). Also, I can go into a church and say, "God is not real." What exactly can you legally do against me? Can you jail me for going in there and stating my beliefs? At the most, you can make me leave by request or have me jailed for trespassing. That's like being jailed for saying, "I hate the U.S. government," which I have a clear right to say as in our first amendment. As for the idea of "Religious Harassment," one can have there beliefs. If I go to a church, and decide to start screaming on the top of my lungs, "God is not real!" I am stating my beliefs were I please, which is protected under the first amendment. A Christen probably would not like it, but if one comes up to me and says God is real, there is not much either on can do to convince the other the other that they are wrong, and both are entitled to there own opinion. This law would jail someone for stating there religious beliefs, which is not legal by our constitution. Would that not be "Religious Harassment?"
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    Payton, you state that my reference to the law is false, however I took that as a direct quote from Jeremy. Perhaps you should do a little reading? as for what I can legally do, I can report you for religious harassment and get you a ticket. By there you mean to post "thier", just so you know. Simple mistake. Anyways, specifically looking for someone to aggrivate by stating thier beliefs are no longer just looking to state their beliefs. I am not arguing against one's ability to annoy, by the way. I do tend to do this on a regular basis. I am stating that it is harassment to seek out persons that I know will be offended by my remarks and verbally assault them, and they may do as they please with this assault. I do appreciate your use of 'reductum ad absurdum' or the reduction of an opposing argument to its most rediculous or nonsensical interpretation. However, I am not suggesting jail time.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    Alex, you do realize the law itself suggests a minimum sentence of 6 months, to the max of 25 years in prison for one simply stating something as simple as beliefs on the internet. As well as that 2nd hand reference, that I assume you simply went off the word of another with, is still false, the bill did not pass because it broke the first amendment. As for that ticket, I would be ticketed for expressing myself about my religion, and in no way did I say anything bad about another religion, that would be freedom of speech before religious harassment.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    That ticket would be for harassing a group of people for their beliefs, and you know it. If I were to hunt you down and assault your every belief, whether it be right or wrong, and do it, not just for no reason, but simply because I want to cause anger and controversy? That goes against everything our country stands for. We have certain inalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness, and dealing with someone who just wants to make you angry directly interferes with that.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 06 Sep 12
     
    I'll first start off by saying that in my last post I misspoke when I said that I didn't believe that being intentionally offensive is harassment. I should have said that it isn't necessarily harassment. Payton the law did pass the Arizona Legislator and it reached the Governor's desk, that is why people were worried about First Amendment Violations. The Legislator then pulled it back before Governor Brewer signed it into law, stating that they may rework the wording of the Bill to narrow the broad language in hopes to remove parts that could potentially violate Free Speech. The revised bill has since been signed into law. This is the first form of the Bill passed by the Legislator but was brought back to be reworked: http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/AZ-HB-2549s-as-passed-by-legislature.pdf This is the reworked Bill as to narrow it's scope which became law: http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/HB2549-as-amended-most-recent-04_2012-full-bill.pdf Alex and Mr. Pregon do make a good point about seeking out specific groups. I think after looking into it a little more Mr. Pregon is right about Freedom of Speech being a complex topic. Looking at the two court cases I mentioned and then two others I ran into while looking things up seem to contradict each other in someways yet support each other at the same time. Snyder v. Phelps and the parts of the majority ruling that were in an article I read, actually found the full ruling and opinions and plan on reading them, make it seem like, to me at least, it is in fact okay to seek out a group and say things that are unpopular, potentially offensive, and controversial as long as you aren't trying to intimidate, threaten, etc. that group as V
  • Payton Whiteaker on 06 Sep 12
     
    Alex, there is a difference between stating a belief, such as not believing in god, and discrediting a religion based on that belief. That would be an odd situation, but as long as one does not go into detail as to how a religion is superior/inferior to another, it should not be considered offensive. Jeremy, this article was written previously to the revised bill, due to it being highly ambiguous. I also agree as to the newly revised bill. The bill previously was going strictly reduce freedom of speech, which will no longer be that well restricted, although I doubt it will be easy to enforce.
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 06 Sep 12
     
    Of course you would put this up Payton....
  • Jazmine Orellana on 07 Sep 12
     
    I don't see why they have to ban it. I mean this happens in every state. Some states have it worse then AZ. I think we need to take care of physical problems before we get to the internet.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 11 Sep 12
     
    Well said Jazmine.
Bryan Pregon

Flag burning: President Donald Trump calls for Supreme Court to reconsider flag burning... - 14 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 02 Jun 20 - No Cached
  • jmrgm16 on 03 Sep 20
     
    I think it's honestly disappointing that Donald Trump is going against our first amendment right to burn the flag because I just think it's a piece of fabric and there are tons and tons of flags sold almost everywhere in the U.S.
  • ...8 more comments...
  • xxchrysxx on 03 Sep 20
     
    Yes, he is the president, but the first amendment was made the first amendment in 1791 and is still the first amendment today. In today's day in age, change is all around us but, we choose no to change certain things because why fix what's not broken. if the first amendment hasn't changed since then, then there is no reason to fix it.
  • bradenlasale on 14 Sep 20
     
    I think it is completely disrespectful to the people that fought for this country and families who are handed that flag when their kid has died in battle and you people think it's okay just to burn it and think of it as just a piece of fabric. It is a resemblance of what people fought in for..this country, freedom.
  • bayliegirres on 14 Sep 20
     
    I think burning the flag is so disrespectful. So many people fought for our country and the flag is a way of honoring them. I agree with Trump, it is a disgrace that people think it is okay to burn the flag.
  • briannanixon on 15 Sep 20
     
    I think burning the flag is disrespectful. Not just because it is the flag of our country but because so many people have fought and sadly dead for this country and we should respect that. There should be a consequence for burning the flag.
  • mmailey052 on 21 Sep 20
     
    I think burning the flag is very disrespectful. We have so many people who fight for our country under the flag. I think that burning it is disrespecting the dead soldiers and our own country. I think a punishment should be put in place for anyone who purposely burns a flag.
  • emilysmith200 on 23 Sep 20
     
    I agree with Marissa; burning the flag is very disrespectful, and if this happens I will be very disappointed.
  • jcooley186 on 28 Sep 20
     
    Burning the flag is definitely not a good thing, as many people above have talked about, it is disrespectful. But I think making laws like "Loss of citizenship" or "Jailtime" is a bit much compared to many other crimes going around unpunished now.
  • aurora216 on 28 Sep 20
     
    I agree no one should burn down the US flag because it's not right.
  • kennalee04 on 28 Sep 20
     
    loss of citizenship is extreme but I understand the concept, like if you hate this country enough to disrespect our most meaningful symbol and the many people that fought for the right to fly the flag why not just leave? they should definitely be punished in some way.
  • olijohnson on 28 Sep 20
     
    Historically I can understand why people don't like flag burning, but it should in no way be criminalized. It may symbolize something but when you break it down its just a piece of cloth you can buy for a dollar.
Bryan Pregon

Petition for Texas to secede from US reaches threshold for White House response - U.S. ... - 5 views

usnews.nbcnews.com/...shold-for-white-house-response

petition texas

shared by Bryan Pregon on 15 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • caseyyard on 15 Nov 12
     
    We should all know this is not going to happen. This is more of a state tantrum about wanting their state rights back. Personally I agree completely with the states that are doing this because the federal government is way past the boundary. The federal government is in place to protect us from others not are self's.
  • ...15 more comments...
  • patrick boian on 15 Nov 12
     
    it says clearly that andrew johnson made it so no state for any reason could secede from the union,their will be another election in 4 years o if everybody would just relax and chill everything will be fine
  • joecarbis on 15 Nov 12
     
    I think this is just a way of Texans and those other states to show their frustration with the government
  • Jeremy Vogel on 15 Nov 12
     
    There are now three other states; Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana, that have reached the required 25,000 signatures on We the People to prompt a response from the White House. I am just waiting to see how the White House will respond to any of the four petitions.
  • jacob whalen on 15 Nov 12
     
    they must think that they can do it better then the normal government. so if they think they can and if the fail they fail if not then good for them.
  • jordan bywater on 15 Nov 12
     
    i think the white house will respond with a no
  • bvasquez13 on 15 Nov 12
     
    i think there only trying to do this because there mad that Obama won , and that he will lead the state in to bigger dept.
  • Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 15 Nov 12
     
    If the proclamation says the states can't separate they would need to rewrite it and make a new set of laws, also what would happen if they fail at a new government? would they just want the US of america to take them back?
  • gharvey949 on 15 Nov 12
     
    I think that this will never happen. Although they might not believe that being apart of the U.S. benefits them, It truly does.
  • garrett lee on 15 Nov 12
     
    it would never happen but it will be interesting to see if any changes happen in response to this
  • jessicavaldez on 15 Nov 12
     
    I don't think this is going to happen but it is still pretty scary that people are that mad at the government. I think that people always blame the government when they are not happy. If we didn't have the government we would be in more trouble than we are in now. Yes our economy is getting hard and we need more jobs. But some people are lazy and should not make the government pay for everything.
  • Melissa Christensen on 15 Nov 12
     
    I believe that Texas would do well in its own government, but it would be better to keep the 50 states.
  • aaron valdivia on 15 Nov 12
     
    Texas is probably just upset with the turn out of the election therefore just trying to create their own government to get what they think deserve.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 16 Nov 12
     
    I'm not sure if the point of the article is, "Why Texas wants to Secede." I'm moreover focused as to, if it will happen, and if it is a right of the state to leave the Union. Personally, I would say it is the right of a state to decide if they want to secede. Let us look at the tenth amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The state has over 80k people who signed a petition asking for a secession. If this is the majority, our 10Th amendment would likely give the state the right to secede, as long as 50.1% of the population wished to secede. (Doubt that they actually have a majority that wishes to secede.) In English: The 10Th amendment grants the states the right to secede if the majority of its population sees fit. This is caused by the lack of detail in the constitution. The lacking detail being whether or not the states have the right to secede. (Founding father: Let's put state secession here next to gay marriage and abortion!) Anyways, as long as the majority of Texans wish to secede, I doubt there is any way that the United States could actually tell them they could not, at least not without some sort of conflict.
  • Kirstina Michl on 16 Nov 12
     
    I have to be . . . not serious here. Just a word of advice to the states who want to secede, based on what happened in the Civil War: If you secede, you won't succeed.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 16 Nov 12
     
    Payton I think the Supreme Court has already decided in Texas v White that States can't unilaterally secede from the government. They have the right to secede through revolution or by asking the other States and getting their permission. At least that's how I read the ruling. Unless there is a newer ruling on secession then Texas v. White. "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."
  • Payton Whiteaker on 16 Nov 12
     
    Jeremy, what am I trying to state, is that states do have a right to secede, because we are not in a perpetual agreement to join the union. It was perpetual during the Articles of Confederation, the supreme court ruled that they have do not know if the constitution. "It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words." English: The Articles of Confederation declared it to be a perpetual union. The Articles of Confederation no longer exist. The supreme court literally state that they are going by ground of the Articles of Confederation, a.k.a. not a valid ground to take a stance upon. Now, if we look in history. plessy v. ferguson was a supreme court case that was overturned. This case can be overturned. Also, Jeremy, your understanding is correct on most of it. But from what the case as a whole states, under the Articles of Confederation, what you states is Valid. The Court ruled this with the usage of the Articles of Confederation. (Personally, do not think you should be able to do that, and that the courts ruling is a mistake.) Finally, I am simply stating the states have a right to secede if they want to, this is because the constitution, and not the articles of confederation, is vague about the idea of secession, applying the 10th amendment, the states should have a right to secede if they have a majority of people, unless we plan to be a hypocritical society that has already forced others to use the policy in which most people want to deny.
  • Sidnie Lewis on 19 Nov 12
     
    I think this in an interesting topic. The idea of states attempting to secede from the union is mind blowing. We know our government is faulty and far from flawless... but in comparison to others, we find it to be the strongest. We defend such a government, yet there are states that want to withdraw from it! I would actually like to look into this topic a little more, so I can understand all factors in the state's decisions!
Bryan Pregon

Congress Is Quietly Abandoning the 5th Amendment - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic - 2 views

www.theatlantic.com/...266498

amendment congress Government

shared by Bryan Pregon on 20 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 20 Dec 12
     
    a specific law that has passed both the Senate and the House, and is presently in a conference committee, where lawmakers reconcile the two versions. Observers once worried that the law would permit the indefinite detention of American citizens, or at least force them to rely on uncertain court challenges if unjustly imprisoned.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 21 Dec 12
     
    Personally I believe that the NDAA for 2012 should never have been signed. I also think that it is a little late to try and fix this because people in Congress have already agreed that they want to permanently detain American citizens without trial and now are just trying to save face by "opposing" it. After all the author of that amendment, Senator Feinstein, voted for the NDAA for 2012. What really confuses, and kind of angers me, is that Obama said when he signed the NDAA for 2012 he didn't want that part in the law but he was signing it anyway (I don't have a quote but I'll find one). Now he is trying to defend indefinite detention of citizens in court after a federal judge found it unconstitutional. Another interesting article about this is this one. It shows that even people who generally would work together disagree about this bill: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/ndaa-indefinite-detention_n_2326225.html
Jeremy Vogel

Move to Amend's Proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution - 2 views

movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment

Constitution 28th Amendment Government Elections

shared by Jeremy Vogel on 11 Feb 13 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 11 Feb 13
     
    What do you all think about this proposed amendment?
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Melissa Christensen on 11 Feb 13
     
    I agree with this amendment making sure that corporations are not treated as people within law.
  • blakewilladsen on 11 Feb 13
     
    This is a really interesting movement. While I think most people (people being the keyword there) would be more than happy to see this passed. Unfortunately I feel the corporations that hold a lot of influence in our government won't allow this to get the proper attention where it counts.
  • caseyyard on 12 Feb 13
     
    Although if it were to be passed then it would show that the people can still indeed overpower the large corporations and their political pull.
Bryan Pregon

Schiff introduces constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United | TheHill - 0 views

thehill.com/...nt-to-overturn-citizens-united

shared by Bryan Pregon on 08 May 19 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 08 May 19
     
    "Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Wednesday introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which eliminated restrictions on corporate campaign spending."
Bryan Pregon

Indiana Appeals Court Says Forcing Someone To Unlock Their Phone Violates The 5th Amend... - 3 views

www.techdirt.com/...e-violates-5th-amendment.shtml

shared by Bryan Pregon on 30 Aug 18 - No Cached
  • collinhuntley on 31 Aug 18
     
    i agree that it should be protected by the 5th amendment
Bryan Pregon

Vulgar or protected speech? Supreme Court examines 'FUCT' trademark claim - CNNPolitics - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 15 Apr 19 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 15 Apr 19
     
    "Entrepreneur Erik Brunetti says he founded a clothing brand -- called FUCT -- in 1990 to question authority and the assumptions of society. On the way, he also triggered a First Amendment dispute that has landed at the highest court in the land."
Bryan Pregon

Louisiana student says prayer was forced at school, so she sued - CNN - 4 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 23 Jan 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 23 Jan 18
     
    "The change came because Kaylee Cole and her mother Christy had finally had enough, and decided to take on the school system by filing a lawsuit alleging there is systematic official promotion of religion at Webster Parish schools in violation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution."
  • kileywalden on 30 Jan 18
     
    The school forcing religion among the students goes against the first Amendment, we as citizens of the U.S. have a freedom of religion and it is against the law for public schools to force a religion on anyone.
  • emedina132 on 30 Jan 18
     
    Cole had a great offense when her school was promoting to pray. Which was something she did not please. To the fact that the school she attended was "public".
Bryan Pregon

Abortion laws in the US: Here are all the states pushing to restrict access - CNNPolitics - 2 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 28 May 19 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 28 May 19
     
    "These laws may be unenforceable because of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. But abortion opponents are hoping that the legal challenges will serve as a vehicle for the Supreme Court to eventually overturn the Roe ruling."
  • rhuntley101 on 10 Sep 19
     
    banning abortions is against the constitution because the 14th amendment gives a women the right to have a abortion or not
  • aidan_morgan on 11 Sep 19
     
    While I personally agree that abortions should be legal, the 14th amendment doesn't give any particular rights to anyone. The 14th amendment basically just says the government can't take away the inalienable rights away from legal citizens (such as freedom of speech, press, religion, right to a trial, etc.) Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee an abortion for any reason. That's the exact reason this debate is so large and divided. There are no legal standards because we've never had the technology for these procedures before. The only standard is the Roe v. Wade decision which essentially says that first trimester, there can be no regulations. Second trimester, the government can impose regulations that are reasonably related to maternal health. Third, states are allowed to entirely prohibit third-trimester abortions. But even Roe v. Wade is just a supreme court decision that can be overturned.
Bryan Pregon

Virginia Students Suspended After Protesting Confederate Flag Ban - NBC News - 22 views

www.nbcnews.com/...lags-disrupting-school-n429456

shared by Bryan Pregon on 05 Jan 17 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Jan 17
     
    "More than 20 students at a southwestern Virginia high school were suspended Thursday after wearing clothing bearing the Confederate flag in protest of school policy."
  • ...22 more comments...
  • zayned on 05 Jan 17
     
    I think that most of these students have as little or no knowledge of the flags origin and are just doing it to get attention and publicity.
  • thaase5 on 05 Jan 17
     
    I agree with zayne
  • nate kliegl on 05 Jan 17
     
    I agree with zayne when he says they don't have that much knowledge about the flag because they said it wasn't about hate
  • ashley926 on 05 Jan 17
     
    I think they are trying to just get attention from the school and social media they don't really know what the flag means or stands for.
  • delaniehubbard on 05 Jan 17
     
    I think this whole situation is kind of blown out of proportion, Instead of expelling these students I think they should have dealt with the situation a little differently.
  • Landon Mohr on 05 Jan 17
     
    I don't believe that it would disrupt their school. I also don't believe that the reason that they are wearing, flying, or painting the flag is racist. Like in Hannah's case she is using the flag to support her brother who served. When it is wrongly used I believe it can be racist but in this case it's not.
  • Josh C. on 05 Jan 17
     
    I think that the school did the right thing banning the flag
  • lauren rambo on 05 Jan 17
     
    This is a touchy subject, however, i think it's unjust that they were suspended for showing their opinion. I disagree with the symbolism of the confederate flag because it is a racist symbol that encourages a war to keep slavery. But the first amendment protects our opinions and the ability to share and express them in speech, clothing, or whatever else. So according to the first amendment they are allowed and cannot be punished for showing this flag no matter how much others disagree with the meaning and symbolism.
  • haleyborgaila on 05 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Zayne because they probably don't know much about it
  • Faith Otten on 05 Jan 17
     
    In the article I wanted to hear an actual explanation of what the flag means to them if they are just ignoring the history and origin of the flag, but there was none. They just said, "Welp I say it's not racist so..." and that was it. If they want people to respect them and want to be able to wear the flag they have to at least try to explain or persuade people that it's not racist and causing a problem.
  • russellboi on 05 Jan 17
     
    These people were not defending their right to free expression, as it was causing danger (the fights leading to the ban) so they shouldn't break the rules as they are constitutional. I agree w/ zayned
  • lmcdowell956 on 05 Jan 17
     
    I think that if they want to wear this flag on their clothes or whatever that's fine but they should also respect their school rules.
  • bayleefox1 on 05 Jan 17
     
    i think anyone should be able to have the flag, wear the flag on clothing, etc, if its used for a good/right reason then i think it should not be banned.
  • dbratcher097 on 05 Jan 17
     
    I think this is ridiculous and they should be able to wear it or display it if they want to. They shouldn't be stopped from expressing themselves just because some people interpret it the wrong way. Being from deep Missouri I've seen plenty of them and heard a fair amount of reasoning from it (most of it coming from heritage) and whether I disagree with it or not, they should be able to do what they want with it.
  • trump16 on 05 Jan 17
     
    They have the right to do wear what they want. school does not need to get involved with it. Its there right that is why we got the bill of rights so the GOVERNMENT or in this case the SCHOOL does not mess up with those peoples rights or anyone's right. The people who dont like it boo hoo they will have to deal with it. Its a right get over it period.
  • mwheeler21 on 05 Jan 17
     
    This whole incident has some students result to threats and other violent ways, I think the school had a right to ban the flag because the student's behavior got out of hand and it is a matter of others safety.
  • anonymous on 05 Jan 17
     
    They shouldn't have banned their freedom of speech, because this sort of tells us that we don't have the right to have our own opinion.
  • ogomez1025 on 05 Jan 17
     
    I think that many of the students should know the real meaning but they do those things to attract the attention of others and that way they publicize what they do. But they can also be badly informed and that way they do it without any idea of what it is really.
  • agrosas on 05 Jan 17
     
    I think that they had the right to have that flag on there shirts and cars because they are not using it for anything wrong, they are wearing it to show their family and to support people.
  • ebouvier878 on 05 Jan 17
     
    I do not agree with the school banning the flag.
  • tbrockman469 on 05 Jan 17
     
    I feel like if the kids have a legit reason to have the flag they should be able to have it. But if its just for hate they shouldn't.
  • nick perry on 05 Jan 17
     
    Though it would be nice why they would explain why its racist, but they never did, but overall I believe these people are making this a bigger deal just for attention.
  • ahopkins571 on 05 Jan 17
     
    The students who are representing the flag may represent it for their own reason but if it offends other people because it's known widely for the racism coming from it in history.
  • Deven Przybylski on 09 Jan 17
     
    The flag was created to show the support for slavery, it was the face of the southern states, the reason they flew it high and proudly was to fight FOR slavery, not just to show pride. It was offensive then, it's offensive now.
selena99

Trump takes aim at First Amendment - 4 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by selena99 on 30 Nov 16 - No Cached
  • selena99 on 30 Nov 16
     
    The President-elect called Tuesday for punishing anyone who burns the American flag by "perhaps" jailing them -- or even stripping them of citizenship. The Twitter broadside revived concerns that the incoming President isn't fully aware of the limits he will face in office or that he may try to eliminate as many curbs as possible.
Bryan Pregon

Atheists continue battle against World Trade Center cross at memorial - 2 views

religion.blogs.cnn.com/...trade-center-cross-at-memorial

Government liberties religion 9.11

shared by Bryan Pregon on 11 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 11 Sep 12
     
    As we discuss how our government balances the needs of society with protecting our civil liberties I would invite your respectful comments on both sides of this article. There is a HUGE comment thread on the CNN site, please add your thoughts to our Diigo.
  • ...8 more comments...
  • Jazmine Orellana on 11 Sep 12
     
    I think having a cross at the museum is acceptable. The meaning of a cross varies from person to person. Yes many victims might not have been Christians but people affected from 9/11 should also have the right to display any religious symbol here as well.
  • Dennis Owens on 11 Sep 12
     
    it is a nation under god so they shouldnt have a problem with the cross "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, (one Nation under God), indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
  • Holly Jensen on 12 Sep 12
     
    If it's okay to put up a cross then it should be okay to put up any symbol of any religion. As long as they do that then I think it's okay.
  • Alex Snipes on 12 Sep 12
     
    I agree with you Jazmine and Dennis, this is a nation under God. We live in a free country that was started by Christians and to this day, they should be honored. With the honor of those who died in 9/11, should be remembered with a cross and it should not be taken down because of those who don't believe in God. Even if someone doesn't believe, it doesn't mean the ones who do have to cater to them by taking the cross down. If it doesn't effect you, don't worry about it, because those who it does effect, want it there and they should be respected as well
  • Jaacob Tatta on 12 Sep 12
     
    i agree people have the right to believe in whatever they want so if that means putting up a cross at ground zero then that's fine. It also says in the pledge that we are a nation under god, and i believe that there many more christian people in the United States than Atheists so i believe that it was the right thing to do.
  • Rainie mccubbin on 12 Sep 12
     
    I"m Atheist and I don't see the reason why there shouldn't be a cross put up. It's a sign of 9/11 not a sign promoting God. It's not like people are going there to worship God they are going there to remember those who died in 9/11.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 13 Sep 12
     
    The article points out that there are other publicly funded museums have religious art work in them because religious artwork has both cultural and artistic value. However, in my opinion using the argument that we are a country under god is a subjective and highly personal belief. If there is an atheist that lives in Happyland, Connecticut and they don't believe in god how can they, in their view, live in a nation under god. The First Amendment is to prevent the government from establishing and/or favoring one religion over another or religion altogether over no religion at all. I don't feel that the cross alone violates this part of the First Amendment if placed in a museum because I don't see it as the government promoting or favoring a religion that uses a cross as their religious symbol. The way I see it the government is allowing an artifact from a disaster the affected the entire population and has become a cultural and possibly artistic representation of the 9/11 attacks in to the museum. In my view it would be different if they added something about Christianity or religion to the display along with the cross, but if they were to just put an information card that says, "The 'World Trade Center Cross' was discovered in the rubble of the World Trade Center," or something similar then it wouldn't cross the line.
  • Hope Philbrick on 13 Sep 12
     
    I really like that fact that the cross was found in the rubble. Its not like some artist decided to make it from the rubble. I'm sure if there was a different symbol of any religion found it would have been put on display just like the cross was.
  • Jake Warnke on 13 Sep 12
     
    I think that the cross should go in the museum because it was part of the twin towers and it was a world wide icon after the attacks
  • Jared Holcomb on 14 Sep 12
     
    I like the fact that the cross is being displayed. It gives a symbol of hope for the Christians, and in all reality, to the outside world, and inside our borders, we are commonly seen as a mostly christian people. Atheists, Jews, Muslims, and members of many other faiths did die, and weer affected by this tragedy. But the fact that the cross was made from rubble, and was made by the falling of the towers, is a symbol to those that are Christians, and whatever our personal beliefs on the matter is, a symbol of faith and hope to countless people that has good reason, and good context should be allowed inside the museum. We would not disallow Atheists, Muslims, Jews, and countless other faiths from putting pieces of there faiths that give them hope. So neither should Christians.
Jeremy Vogel

Tennessee Teacher Pushed Out For Supporting Free Speech Of Gay And Atheist Students - 1 views

thinkprogress.org/...ch-of-gay-and-atheist-students

shared by Jeremy Vogel on 11 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 11 Sep 12
     
    In May, the Lenoir City High School faculty was threatened with a criminal investigation for publishing a yearbook story titled, "It's OK To Be Gay."
  • ...8 more comments...
  • Holly Jensen on 11 Sep 12
     
    This is ridiculous. It's so disrespectful not only to the students but to any community that's suffered discrimination. Who's to say they won't start being sexist or discriminate against African Americans?
  • Alex Snipes on 11 Sep 12
     
    I don't think it is necessary to put something in a school yearbook about being gay, because there is nothing about being straight. Yes, people may think being gay is OK, but there is no reason for that to be in a high school yearbook, that has nothing to do with the school. If no one is allowed to talk about their religion or God in school, then we also shouldn't be able to talk about being gay. I've never seen a section in a yearbook titled "Its OK to be Christian." Yes, people should be allowed to be gay, but it doesn't need to be flaunted like that.
  • Bryan Pregon on 11 Sep 12
     
    I had read about this story before, and as a teacher I am impressed that Mr. Yoakley had the courage to let his students have a voice. Putting myself in his position, would make for a hard decision when faced with losing a job you love but I hope I would do the same.
  • Holly Jensen on 13 Sep 12
     
    I understand them not having to have something in the book but maybe it was for their LGBT Club and they wanted to do a story on it just like they would for some other club or student council. I don't think it was right for them to fire the teacher for it. And you can talk about religion in school you just can't try and force or push it on others. I know that here were have a club for christian athletes and they even pray under the flag in front of school.
  • Mallory Huggins on 14 Sep 12
     
    In Iowa, at least, I know that it's illegal for a school to bar a student run publication from publishing a piece. Yes, there aren't sections in yearbooks with titles like "it's OK to be Christian," but I think that's because no needs to be told that. Homosexuality is currently a big political issue. I think that if Christianity were currently an issue as large as homosexuality students would be writing about it. Besides, saying we shouldn't talk about political issues, or that gays shouldn't be allowed to "flaunt" their sexuality is, in my opinion, simply another way of condoning persecution of them.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 14 Sep 12
     
    The fact as to how they treated this teacher is outrageous. He is allowing students to express themselves, and the school is completely violating the first amendment. A student explaining there beliefs is allowable, and in no way breaking a law. Considering this is a student written newspaper, you cannot bar that students article simply because it talks about religion. They would be oppressing atheists, and showing support to those with religion, the school should not be able to bar an article like that. This is no different from a student expressing there sexuality. If you truly have a massive problem with it, think of it in the following hypothetical way: An article is written in the school newspaper about the upcoming homecoming dance. There is a little bit of advice for girls saying they should make there man pay for them. This is supporting heterosexuality, and is in no different from an article supporting homosexuality. Either the above hypothetical in the newspaper should be say, man (Or women depending on your interests,) or it should be removed if you cannot place an article about being gay in a newspaper.
  • Kirstina Michl on 14 Sep 12
     
    As a Yearbook student myself, I would honestly be a little surprised if someone brought up the idea to place a story about homosexuality or atheism in the yearbook, but only because the Yearbook tells stories about the entire school year, and doesn't really talk about the opinions of the writers. I personally think that it would make more sense to place it in the opinion section of the school's newspaper. However, if they want to place the story in the yearbook, then they need to be allowed to place it wherever they please. Like most people pointed out, it's violating the first amendment.
  • Michaela Koopmeiners on 14 Sep 12
     
    It's okay for him to stick up for people that are gay or being atheist, but that shouldn't be published in a yearbook, which has nothing to do with school.
  • Alexis Theos on 20 Sep 12
     
    ^ Michaela it has to do with gay bullying, i believe it is relevant.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 21 Sep 12
     
    Michaela, homosexuality is a part of almost every high school. GSA, (gay straight alliance) a club at our school. That alone means it has to do with school. A yearbook article on that would be just as relevant on a article about chess club, or mock trial, or a sport. If you honestly, and truly disagree with me, then how is it not as important as any of those things?
Jeremy Vogel

The Tale of Two Second Amendments - 0 views

www.huffingtonpost.com/...-two-second-ame_b_1866063.html

Government Guns

shared by Jeremy Vogel on 14 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 14 Sep 12
     
    I think that this article, although biased, gives a good overview of how divided the conversation of the Second Amendment really is in the united States.
Bryan Pregon

Judge throws out Occupy arrests as unconstitutional - chicagotribune.com - 0 views

www.chicagotribune.com/...-0928-20120928,0,3817020.story

occupy protest Government judge

shared by Bryan Pregon on 29 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 29 Sep 12
     
    The mass arrests of Occupy Chicago demonstrators that city leaders praised as a model for respecting protesters' rights were ruled unconstitutional Thursday by a Cook County judge who also declared that the city's overnight park curfew violates the First Amendment.
Bryan Pregon

Federal judge rules drivers allowed to flash headlights to warn of speed traps | Fox News - 1 views

www.foxnews.com/...rn-other-motorists-speed-traps

shared by Bryan Pregon on 05 Feb 14 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Feb 14
     
    "A federal judge in Missouri ruled this week held that drivers have a First Amendment right to flash their headlights to warn other motorists of nearby police and speed traps. "
  • deahnna on 14 Feb 14
     
    Motorists flash lights at each other to warn about lots of different things, such as animals on the road, police being nearby, or slick roads. It would cause more harm than good to outlaw it.
  • nlarsen15 on 17 Feb 14
     
    I think the person above me says it well. I don't see a HUGE problem with allowing the lights to be flashed in these situations (though I can see why some may be opposed).
Bryan Pregon

Supreme Court unleashes its inner Libertarian - CNN.com - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 03 Jun 15 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 03 Jun 15
     
    "Those are the messages of two important Supreme Court decisions that were issued today. It's unusual for the libertarian roots of the Bill of Rights, especially the First Amendment, to be displayed as dramatically as they were today."
Ellie Croson

Creighton Prep announces mandatory drug, alcohol testing for students - 2 views

www.ketv.com/...index.html

shared by Ellie Croson on 08 Jan 14 - No Cached
maceep and john cannon liked it
  • Ellie Croson on 08 Jan 14
     
    Creighton Prep on Wednesday announced it's implementing mandatory and random drug and alcohol testing for all students.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • Bryan Pregon on 09 Jan 14
     
    RE: Eric, Creighton Prep is a private high school so none of the students are 21. This is a really interesting case of your right to privacy. If this were a public high school like ours, I believe the courts would not allow this type of drug/alcohol testing without a suspicion for ALL students. (4th Amendment rights?)
  • williamdoner on 14 Jan 14
     
    It is not invading our 4th amendment rights because most jobs require drug tests so why cant *Private* School do the same.
  • Daniel Bonner on 14 Jan 14
     
    I think that this is a good idea if students don't take it they should be kicked out of the school.
  • chrislegg263 on 14 Jan 14
     
    i think this is a good idea because you can't really play good when your on drugs and you could really get hurt.
  • gweiss164 on 12 Mar 14
     
    I think that this is a good idea if students don't take it they should be kicked out of the school.- Daniel Bonner
Bryan Pregon

Memphis took down two Confederate statues. State lawmakers are punishing the city for i... - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 18 Apr 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 18 Apr 18
     
    "lawmakers in the Tennessee House passed an amendment to a state appropriations bill that strips $250,000 in funding that the city was to receive for its upcoming bicentennial celebration. Rep. Steve McDaniel, admitted this was in retaliation for Memphis removing the Confederate statues."
1 - 20 of 50 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page