Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

While people in Texas are struggling for power, on top of a global pandemic happening Ted Cruz should not be leaving for Cancun.

This is especially sad as well because up until now he denied climate change, and when he was proven wrong, instead of helping, he just left.

I think that him and his family are wrong because he didn't believe in climate change and not that he knows that iyts real hes not going to do anything to help, hes just going to leave.

I don't think what Ted Cruz did was okay. It shows that he doesn't care about what the people in Texas are going through and just makes him look bad in general.

I feel like if you are someone who is viewed as a leader, you should not run away from the problems at hand. He is a congressman in Texas and I feel like he should've stayed home with his people and not go stay in Cancun while his state is under duress

I think Ted Cruz leaving to go on a trip to Cancun with his family was extremely immature and inconsiderate. He is a well known politician with a large following that leaves a lot of people looking up to him. As soon as things got bad he decided to leave when instead he should have been helping and thinking of recovery plans for the people in Texas.

I think that Ted Cruz leaving was really dumb on his part. Peoples houses are literally falling apart and flooding and people are dying and he is doing nothing about it. So unless he's out there making plans on how to save everybody, he doesnt deserve the title he has.

I feel like this was not right of him to do. Ted Cruz is an important figure there in Texas and if he can't be there to help during the bad times, he shouldn't deserve to be there for the good.

I understand that even if he had stayed most likely it wouldn't have had that much of an effect on the situation but it's basically a slap in the face to all the people who didn't have the fund's in Texas to even heat their homes if that was an option and could only dream on going on a vacation to Cancun. He at a minimum could have donated the money the family spent on the trip to help some of the people freezing to death and losing their homes.

I believe he did not do the right thing in that situation and he should have stayed and helped Texas instead of running away like a little baby.

This made me so mad. I know that he was just trying to be a good dad, but he's not just any dad. He's a senator. And there's a crisis going on and he's flying to Mexico while people are literally dying.

He should've stayed in Texas to help the texans in crisis instead of going to cancun for warmth.

Personally, I don't think Ted Cruz should have left Texas because it was a time that people needed help from the government most and he wasn't anywhere to be seen.

Ted Cruz should not have left but there was not much that he could do being a senator in DC. The most he could have done much like Dan Crenshaw was hand out water, or food. And that is better than nothing but he had no control over what was going on or had no way to actually help bring the power back.

I think it's ironic to say that Joe Biden was hiding during the campaign trail in the 2020 election. Then proceeds to "Hide" in Cancun when his state was in a crisis.

This especially makes me mad since most of my family lives in Texas and they had no power and no running water and he just left them alone there to go to Cancun. This is a situation involving his own state and he doesn't even show the decency to pretend to care about the people there as their senator

Honestly, the mandate is lifted (for Iowa at least) so if you do not want to wear a mask, vaccinated or not you shouldn't have to. It is your choice. And you should especially not have to have the vaccine to travel and put something in your body not proven to be safe or cause long-term effects. There are bigger problems to worry about than if Americans will lie and say they're vaccinated to not wear their mask especially if it's not mandated in the area.

I am interested in how the cases will turn out now that more people are not wearing masks. If it gets too bad I'm sure something else will be put into place.

I wonder how the government is going to force non vaccinated people to wear a mask. It is real easy to just say you're vaccinated when you really aren't.

i don't think that people will be honest about their vaccinations only to not wear their mask. not everyone carries their vaccination card with them(although we should, i know i don't)

I think this is going to be interesting to see. So many people were already refusing to wear masks and I think this might just make it worse.

I don't think this was the right move, as America is nowhere close to herd immunity

I have still seen people on social media that have admitted to not wearing masks and not getting vaccinated citing "My body, my choice". This is idiotic and people think that the government is out to get them and control them by wanting them to wear masks and getting the vaccine. There are also people who don't trust the vaccine for no good reason.

I don't think many people are out there being honest. Many are going to think that if it isn't required why would they wear one? It's a lot of trust on something you don't have a definite answer for.

now people might not be required to wear a mask if they are fully vaccinated so fewer people will stop wearing masks. Even people who are not vaccinated are going to use that excuse that "they are vaccinated"

People are going to lie about being vaccinated, just like they lie about having a medical exemption. All we can do is hope that people will be honest.

I think that it's good that we got new restrictions, but I don't think people will follow them for very long.

I think it is good there are more restrictions being put in place, but I don't think it will help anyone, because people are still going to big gatherings.

I think the new regulations needed to be put into place to help decrease the covid cases. I think that the governor was justified for wanting to put a mask mandate in. People in Iowa were not being and so I feel that now was a good time to put restrictions in.

This is definitely for the best, cases are rising quickly and people weren't taking it as seriously as before. I hope people will do these things to save not only themself, but other people as well.

The speech was well thought out and very well written. I think it's interesting how inspiring she's been to people due to the speech.

I think her speech was amazing. I never really listen to those kinds of things or pay attention, but I'm glad I did. However, I'm not sure going from giving a speech, to being president is very realistic. More power to her though for thinking ahead like 15 years.

I was lucky enough to be able to watch the inauguration in my classes. I was enthralled by Amanda Gorman's speech. I feel like her words were well said and represented Americans of all ages and backgrounds. I believe that her speech has influenced younger generations to have a voice. While she has quite a ways to go, I do believe that she could be president someday.

I think her speech can reach all different people of different race, gender, etc. I think she can talk to different generations, especially the younger ones who one day will be the voices of our society. I think it was well thought out and a very good speech.

I thought her speech was amazing. I like how she worked to make sure it could reach all kinds of people. I also thought it was really inspiring reading about her speech impediment and how she didn't let it prevent her from writing and performing her poems.

Amanda's poem was amazing. Her words were so inspirational. I think Americans needed to hear something about hope, especially after last year's crazy events. And I'm sure that if she was able to overcome her speech impediment to speak in front of so many people, she can do anything she sets her mind to, even becoming a future president. I can't wait to see what other things she achieves!

I think that she had a really good speech. I liked the way she would word things and reached all different kinds of people. It was a very inspirational speech and i feel like she has a good future in front of her.

I understand how unique this poem is and how well it is said and written, but honestly after listening and understand each individual sentence and word ( including definitions of words ) it just sounds like what other people have been saying for the past 365 days without the high-level words. She talks about how much America is broken after everything that happened in 2020, how many steps we need to take so everything is not back to the way it was before, but where we want it to be and where we want it to go. Congrats to her by all means, but hearing the same things being said over and over again just makes her poem less impactful. Of course, these problems need solving but most people just the problem not how to fix them.

KC news is reporting on petitions to have the Westboro Church classified as a hate group and remove their tax exempt status as a "church" http://fox4kc.com/2012/12/17/westboro-meets-its-match-thousands-sign-retaliatory-petitions/

I don't condone the activities of this group but they have freedom of speech and the right to do whatever they want with it no matter how hateful it is and people could have private funerals

They should leave people be, to bad they most likely never will, Because the parents can't even stop them without likely being sued by Westboro.

I do not agree with their way of think about homosexuals. I think that the church should mind their own business in their own sate. The parents and everyone should just ignore the Westboro Church.

i think we should ignore the group otherwise we are giving them the attention they want.

It is sad that this church will stoop this low to get their (totally invalid) point across. They are a bunch of idiots if you ask me.

I think that they have the right to be there, but they should understand that this is not a good time to do this. They should understand how hard it must be for their parents, and would feel the same way if one of their children died. I also do not agree with the fact they blame homosexuality for all the problems and say God hates America. In reality God does not hate anyone because we are all his children.

I can truly see the side of the Westboro Baptist Church but it does not mean that I agree with it. I find that America itself has quite a few strange beliefs itself defended by these rights. I don't have any means to go against these rights.

I think that they have the ability to not allow the Church to protest.

I'm all for free speech. But I think there should definitely be a line drawn as where freedom of speech ends.

It is a women's choice to choose abortion but you have to make sure it's what you want. if you feel you made the wrong choice, you should deal with it because the doctors did what you wanted.

I think that this is stupid because the article says that it's a difficult decision for the woman, and that they should get a recourse if they have mental health issues because of the decision. It's the woman's choice to have it done so why should she get money back for her mistake, the doctor has no choice in doing the procedure so they should not get sued for doing their job.

It was the women's choice to get the abortion in the first place. Which means that they wanted the doctor to the procedure. It is NOT the doctors fault if you get an abortion and then feel bad about it. You should NOT be able to sue the doctor for emotional damage. I can understand physical damage only if the doctor did not do the procedure right and the physical damage is because of that. But emotional damage is total ..... Anyway, in the article it says "that many studies show that only a small percentage of women regret their abortions." Regret is NOT the same as emotional damage. Just because you REGRET something that YOU did does NOT mean that you can put all blame on the doctor because of a decision that YOU made. "Chelgren's emotional distress bill says a woman could sue the doctor who performed the abortion anytime during her lifetime." this means that you could have had an abortion 20 years ago and then sue the doctor. It doesn't even make sence and it is NOT the doctors fault for doing his or her job.

I agree with Kelsi because it is the women's choice to have the abortion in the first place and its the doctors job to do the procedure. The doctor did not make the choice, the women did, the doctors are just doing their job. It's like suing a dog for peeing in the wrong place. It's just ridiculous. The only thing it will accomplish is putting abortion clinics out of business causing people to try aborting the child on their own which can cause a lot more deaths.

I agree with kelsi, I don't think women should be able to sue a doctor for an abortion she choose. The doctor gives you a choose if you want an abortion. You can't blame the doctor of your mistake.Women have a choice and if they decide to have an abortion and if she regret later, then you have to deal with it.

I agree with Sydney, this is ridiculous. It was the woman's decision in the first place, the doctor is just doing his job so I think it's unjust to sue them if they later regret their decision.

I agree with Kelsi! The doctor is doing his job and I think that once a woman has made a choice to or to not to get an abortion, there should be a contract signed that before the doctor does the actual abortion the woman can not sue later in the future. Its not like the doctor is forcing you to get an abortion they are only doing it for the sake of the woman's decision.

I agree with Sydney and Lauren. It was the woman's choice to get the abortion. Not the Doctor. They shouldn't be able to sue because they had a change of heart and thought they made the wrong decision.

I think that when women choose to have an abortion they are giving the doctor permission to kill their baby. Its not the Doctors fault their just there to make sure you have the procedure done right. Everyone is aware of the emotion damage of losing a child.

Its the woman's decision not the doctors. There just doing there job and if they could be sued for it then no doctor is gonna do it.

Women should not have the right to sue the doctor for carrying out their act kill their baby, because with their body their choice saying, their choice, their consequence not the doctors.

I don't think that women should be able to sue a doctor due to emotional distress after they gave consent to the doctor to go through with the procedure. If they have emotional distress they should blame themselves because they were the one who decided to have an abortion. Now if a doctor forced it then i can see why she would sue.

I understand why Trump wants to build a wall but why does he expect Mexico to pay for it when it's clear they don't want the wall to be built in the first place.

Why does he think building a wall is going to accomplish anything? If they are determined to get the US than it will happen whether we want it or not. We just have to find a way to know if they are here to harm us or are at peace with us and just want a better life.

I agree with Kim ^ the wall isn't going to do anything because if someone wants to come to America they're going to anyways

Mexico shouldn't have to help pay for the wall to be built. Donald Trump wants the wall to be built so I think that he should pay for it.

I agree with Mallori and Kim. Its his ideas to keep the Mexicans out of the U.S. Why would he even think their president would help build it?

I get what Trump is doing, he does not what people to just come over to America from Mexico but making them pay, I don't think that will happen. The people in Mexico will find other whys to get in still, we just have to make hard for them to get in just like Canada is hard to get in.

I think trump's idea of having a wall built is dumb because people from mexico will still try to get over that wall. And its not fail to all the people who got deported and there's still people here living illegally. I mean they aren't really doing anything wrong, or hurting anybody.

I understand that Mexico should help pay for the wall it wants and proposes to do President Trump because that way it would help a lot in the control of immigrant people

i agree with mallori, i dont think the wall will stop much

Mexico's president has every right to deny this wall, and Trump insisting that he pay for something against his wants is absurd.

If you are building a fence for your house, does your neighbor pay it? I don't think so and neither should Mexico. If he wants a wall so badly, then he can take it out of the taxes of all the people who voted for him in the first place.

I agree with Ayin, Trump can't force Mexico to pay for something he wants.

With Mexico refusing to pay for the wall, I don't think the wall will even go up. So we should worry less about walls and more about the important things.

I agree with Makenzie, don't worry about the wall but worry about what's important

If he does what he always said in a way that benefits each of the citizens we work and live in a good way always striving for what we have is a good idea but if it is to harm people and thus humiliate them I am not made a good idea

I agree with McKenzie, even though the wall has been a topic for a few months now... people are realizing this is getting close to happening... I don't blame Mexico for not wanting to help pay for the wall. It's probably not even gonna happen anyways. Trump needs to work on making people happy and "making America great again".

It seems like Trump is trying to get to much accomplished at one time, he's not focusing on one problem, so nothing is going to get done. My problem with the wall is that it doesn't solve the problem people will always find a way in so unless we are putting a wall up around the whole US we will still deal with people trying to get in.

Even though trump said he's going to build a wall people are still going to get over it. Unless he is planning on putting a wall all around. I think he's just gonna make it worst for us, he should do the little things first and work his way up with the big things, because what is he changes his mind about what he's doing.

I agree with kim, he is doing everything so fast hes not really focusing or thinging about anything as long as it gets done.

Donald has been doing everything he said he was going to but i dont think he is seeing what he is doing because he is doing everything so fast. i also dont think he will put the wall up because mexico wont pay. people are going to find a way around the wall too

He is a man of his word, the word most people voted for, so that means he is going to do what he says and listen to the people.

I agree with Justice because people are just going to find another way over or around the wall. Illegals are still going to jump the border and some of them will still make it into the United States. I don't understand why he is trying to do everything so fast. He does know that he has four years right? Maybe someone should inform him of that. The wall is a pointless thing especially if he's trying to get Mexico to pay for it.

the wall is not a pointless thing. He will get mexico to pay for it. He is a man that keeps to his word. He is not bought and paid for by lobbyist, and super PACS. The wall is a great idea. Just remember would you want to take in some homeless person into your house? thats what a front door is for. that is why we need a wall.

Mexico will not pay for the wall he's insane for thinking that they're going to help stay out. All he's doing is humiliating immigrants and kind of bullying them. If he plans on bullying people all four years he has then he's not going to do anything for us and that should worry people.

I agree with Landon. Mexico is most likely not going to be willing to pay for the way so therefore its pointless. People are still going to try and do what they want, a wall is not going to stop them.

Mexico might not pay. But Abby, you say he is humiliating immigrants, he is welcoming to other foreigners he just dislikes illegal immigrants, it's like somebody broke into your house and is living in your attic without you knowing. He is blocking immigration from the middle east not because he hates all muslims but because most terrorism is from that general area.

I think the general concept of what he's trying to accomplish is a good idea, but of course there's plenty of flaws in the system. Mexico's obviously not going to be on board for covering the funds necessary to build the wall, and neither would any country in their position. You're going to have plenty of Mexican citizens who are totally against this and might even try to wreak havoc on the project which will only stir the pot more. On the other hand, he's making an effort to keep illegal immigrants out and follow through to his word by building the wall.

I agree with Landon, Mexico might not pay for the wall. If Mexico doesn't pay for the wall to go up what are the chances that the wall is actually going to be put up?

Mexico will pay for the wall if the like it or not. America will just stop sending them financial aid that we give to them every year. There is many ways to get Mexico to do what we want and we finally have a president that will stop the illegal immigration and do what he promised he was going to do. Amen!

I think it is insane that Trump proposed the idea of building a wall, and now is trying to make Mexico pay for it. Why would they? How does that even make sense? If Mexico doesn't pay-which they wont, American tax payers will be the ones paying for it. And it is a multi billion dollar project.

Abortion is never the way to go no matter what circumstance. Whether its an accident, and inconvenience or cause by rape, abortion is never the answer. People who get abortions are selfish, if rape is the issue and you don't want to have the kid because you don't want to be reminded of that instance in your life, then give the kid up for adoption. Whether you have the abortion or not, you will always have that memory. So give that life a chance, just as you had a chance when you were born. Everyone deserves a chance at life, no matter the reason they were brought into this world.

Here's the way that I see the whole abortion issue: Personally, I am pro-choice. Even though it could be considered ethically wrong to get an abortion, it's the mother's body, and she can do as she pleases with it. However, it IS wrong to use abortion as birth control. I think the issue is that some people think that they don't have to use proper birth control, and can just get an abortion. But abortion should definitely be allowed in situations of incest, because inbreeding is just never good. It causes the child in question to have problems, and while people with physical or mental issues are accepted in society, it's just common sense to prevent it when it CAN actually be prevented, like incest (don't abort the child if it's not incest). I also think that teenage girls deserve the right to get an abortion, because they're typically going to still be going to school, and I imagine that going to school pregnant is hard in every way. Of course, the best option is proper birth control, but it unfortunately isn't available in certain situations.

I agree with Kirstina, abortion shouldn't be used as birth control, birth control should be used. I also think that abortions need to be available in cases of rape, as well. It's easy to say "just give the kid up for adoption" but it's much harder to guarantee that the child will actually be adopted into a good home, or will even be adopted at all. Many children spend their lives in foster homes. Besides, you would still be forcing the mother to carry a fetus for nine months, putting her life on hold for something that isn't even conscious.

Being morally correct is so much more important than being politically correct. Abortion is in so many ways is morally wrong. To be for something that should very well be considered murder is absolutely absurd. I agree, everyone has the right to do what they want with their body, but that doesn't mean that what they're doing to their body IS right. That is like being pro drugs. Yes, if people want to do drugs, I guess that's their right, but is it right that they're doing drugs? No. That applies to abortion. And yes, "just give the kid up for adoption" IS the better way to go, because whether or not they go to a good home shouldn't be your biggest concern, it's whether or not they even HAVE a home. So give the poor helpless baby a chance, just like you had a chance, because that baby could grow up and do great things. Whether it was raised in a foster home, orphanage or by an unfit family, if you (the one who's pregnant) feel like your unfit to raise your child, wouldn't you think anything else would be better for it than killing it without ever giving it a chance?

i think in cases like that abortion should be allowed. i am pro-choice but when a dumb 15 year old gets an abortion just because they chose to have unprotected sex is not right. they should take responsibilities for their actions. but if the situation is like this, when the kid will be abused and poor and neglected i believe abortion should be allowed. it was sad to read this article but also good to read.

But when you're pregnant, how do you know they will be abused, if the parent would just have the baby and take responsibility for their actions in the beginning then they wouldnt be abused. Wouldnt you make sure of that? for the sake of your child? or are you just going to give up, take the easy way out and kill it?

Its really sad to think that someone would have wanted their mothers to abort them. Even if it was what could have been best for them.

"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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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).

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Of course you would put this up Payton....

asking a little kid 2 change his name is ridiculous. the boy has a right 2 his own name just like any person does

I think asking a young child to change his name just because they think it looks like a gun when its simply his hand sign to represent his name is ridiculous. It is an actual sign to represent his name and is no way a threat to the other children or staff. Kids that little don't even think of things as weapons like that.

that is crazy that they would ask him to change his name just because of a school rule

that is stupid that a school ask a family just to change the kids name just because of a rule, even though the sign is approved by the S.E.E. And the school also does not have the right to ask the parents to change the kids name when it is the parents right to name their own kid.

I personally think the the school is being ridiculous. He's just a kid, he's not gonna know what a gun is.

That's his name, his identity. They have no right to tell him to change it. He's a child and I see no problem with him and his name sign when it's registered and causing no legitimate harm.

This rule seem very unfair. He has already been saying his name this way for three years. He has no other way to communicate, he can only use his hands. Which i think is ridiculous, they don't make hearing (i don't know how else you would describe them) people change how they say their name. It also doesn't seem to represent a gun in any way, in my thoughts, so it should be fine.

I also find it to be unfair because it's his name, so he shouldn't have to learn or make a new name.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think that the SUV's will be good for catching drivers texting. If the word gets around there will probably be less accidents and less desire to text while driving.

I think this is more of a scare tactic. People seeing those big SUVs will stop texting knowing that they are looking for texters.

i think that suvs will be a good thing to stop drivers that are texting

I think the drivers will still text, because there can't be cops everywhere watching for it. Especially if there are more serious problems going on.

The SUV could be helpful

Good idea, but I think they should have used a different method than just buying SUVs for all New York Troopers

I think drivers are still going to text while driving because they don't care. You can't have cop everywhere because one, there isn't enough and second because there is more important thing then set at every street.

I don't think it matters because texting is a second offense. Which means that a trooper cannot pull you over just because you are texting. You have to commit a first offense and get pulled over to be charged for the second offense.

I say go for it, it's about time the minimum gets raised while employees actually work hard

YES! I think raising the minimum wage is a GREAT idea. Once some states do it, more tend to follow. I think raising the minimum wage will really benefit part time workers because many work part-time hours but only make enough to pay bills. This raise may allow many to not live paycheck-to-paycheck.

I think the minimum wage should be raised because the minimum wage we have now doesn't get you as far as it used to and people need more money to meet standards of living.

I think this is a wonderful idea. Raising the minimum wage will allow people that work part-time hours that have bills and needs that need to be met, will have money to support themselves and have a little extra support money instead of them wondering if their next paycheck is gonna cover everything.

I don't know if raising the minimum wage would be to good of an idea. Although yes most high schoolers and some adult would really enjoy it. But because that raises the businesses have to pay more, which means they will raise there prices, and we will be back in this situation of people wanting it raised. And we can't just raise it every year.

Raising the minimum wage to 9 or 10$ would be great if everything stayed the same. But according to our government that's not possible. Prices would go up and places would stop hiring. Even making 10$ an hour most likely still isn't enough for someone to live off of. Either way it's almost impossible for things to change for the better.

I agree that the minimum wage should be higher because it allows us to pay for things by ourselves and a lot of part-time workers are college students and they have a lot of bills that they have to pay for school so I think that would help them out a lot.

I don't think minimum wage should be raised because that would only make the prices of everything go up to. Including the price of living. I think that if people want to make more money they should work hard for it and get a better education.

I don't agree with raising the minimum wage at all. Once minimum wage gets raised nationally, prices will go up and workers will be layed off. The people who would still be at the store would have to have more hours as well since they wouldn't have as many people there often.

I feel like Obama is actually trying to help us because America has done a lot of snooping and getting in other's business these past few years. The bombs in different cities are a huge problem and he's trying to resolve it, but not in war. America is trying to make peace with everyone, but we really can't when there's so much fighting and hate in the world.

I agree with what president Obama said, I think that since the attack its finally opening his eyes and realizing that were in danger to snd they need to take action and do something about it.

I think that Obama is taking very good steps in the fight against ISIS by showing the international community that we are willing to help and that we need the help of other countries to be able to defeat a force that affects everyone. I think he is doing the right thing with our defense against ISIS getting agents in our country with focusing the fight online and in our immigration process.

I agree that Obama should at least act on the threat because of the attack. Its bring violence to his doors that he needs to act upon before its to late that terrorists are running up and down our streets. ( ZAC OLSON )

I think that Obama is doing a good job to comfort the concerns of the U.S., and I also think why so many people think the government is doing nothing is because they have to keep some of it secret for our own safety and so ISIS does'nt known our plan.

i think obama should act on the threat

I believe President Obama has the right idea in taking on terrorists this way because he's not just having us as one country going after ISIS. He's having us as a group of countries go after this group that continues to terrorize for no other reason than for public awareness and publicity on their organization. He also has a good view about the "gun control" with automatic rifles, he is just saying that it's better to make sure that no one who isn't a professional can't use the weapon.

If you are not a woman, you should not have a say in what women can and cannot do with their body. This is an unconstitutional law and it greatly endangers women's health care all across Mississippi. Every day, women are raped and become impregnated, but many may not know they are pregnant until after 15 weeks. How does the Mississippi government expect that woman to carry out the pregnancy under the circumstances that had caused her to be pregnant in the first place? It is clear the Mississippi government has not fully taken every circumstance into consideration when creating this law.

I think that the only constitutional ban we could put onto abortions is when the fetus can feel pain. At that point, you shouldn't be allowed to get one. Possible exemptions being if the women was raped, forced to have a child, or if having the child could hurt or kill the mother.

I can see why people would want to ban abortions after a certain time frame, even though I disagree with where they put the cap. However, I really don't like how there's no exceptions for rape, and I especially hate how there's now exceptions for incest. Inbred children tend to be incredibly unhealthy, and if the mother doesn't want to carry them to term, they shouldn't be forced to.

I agree that there should be a certain time frame for when you can have an abortion, but 15 weeks is to early to decide. I also think that if the mother doesn't want to her have the baby then she shouldn't be forced to, depending on what the reason is. Like if she was raped or could harm herself, then she shouldn't be forced to have the child, but say she just doesn't want to because she isn't ready then maybe she can think of others options like adoption because their are many people who can't have a baby that do want one.

I agree that there should be a time frame but also I believe that women should be able to do what they want with their bodies. There could be many different reasons for abortion like rape, self harm or just to young. But people should also think before they take action. I say this because people know what could happen when they have sexual intercourse. They know the consequences. But there are other options other then abortion, like adoption. There are plenty families that want kids but cant have them so instead of abortion they could end up helping a family.

I agree with this law. 15 weeks is plenty of time for someone to decide if they would like a child in their life. People do make mistakes and rather than the child not having a good life they decide to not have the child.

I would normally disagree with abortion, but I believe that you should be able to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't directly affect anyone else. Someone could say the same thing about drug use. As long as you don't hurt anyone, it is okay. Why would someone try to control someone else's body/life?

I feel as the argument over abortions comes down to if you consider the egg as living or not during early pregnancy. As abortions are the woman's choice this still gives them that opportunity to make that decision if it feels just, but after so long the egg does start to develop where then you could be ending a life. Then that is where they draw the line and are basically saying that it is past the point of being harmless, so I can agree with this bill.

I agree that there should be some time frame for when you can and cannot have an abortion. 15 weeks to me seems like enough time for the women to decide if they want to keep the child or not. People do make mistakes. I think that it would be better to not have the child if its going to be born into a bad life. But I think that decision is ultimately up to the mother of the child.

I think that its good that they made it 15 weeks because at that time the baby is still not too big and it gives the mother some type of time to make a decision

i agree with the law too because they are well developed at 15 weeks

I don't know how I feel about this, I think scientist are super smart people but there not using there knowledge to the best of there abilities... I personally find making animals live longer and possibly in the future creating a "medicine" or treatment to transform adult cells back to there embryonic form disturbing. It will probably cost a whole lot of money to. Its awesome how far they have come, but its weird when you mess with the life span of animals... it could also mess with natural selection.

I think that it's amazing that science has come this far and they might be able to do this, but I don't think that we should reverse aging because we don't know the side effects on humans. I think they should just know they can do it but not use it because it could be harmful.

"The breakthrough could also help people stay healthier for longer. The ageing population means that the risk of developing age-related diseases, such as dementia, cancer and heart disease also rises. But if the body could be kept younger for longer then it could prevent many deadly diseases for decades." It has a lot of pros and cons to this i think they shouldn't mess with the life span of make cells younger because that means there will be more people and the world could come over populated. But living longer would help a lot because you will learn more and be able to educate young people with better knowledge

hilarious but ridiculous I do not agree with net neutrality

I think that it is slightly weird that a food chain restaurant is commenting on net neutrality. I doesn't really seem like they should care either way about the ruling. I think they might just be trying to cash in on the recent controversy to make an ad that people will share and talk about.

I think fast food places doing net neutrality is really weird and frustrating for their customers. Having to wait a certain time until you get your food would be very frustrating as a customer. So that's saying that jimmy johns would not be freaky fast anymore if we had net neutrality, it would only be fast if you paid for the most expensive one???

I think the customer should ask worker what is slow MBPS before to buy burger, then they don't have to spend time for a just burger.

I really agree with this. I think that we should do more things like this for the public especially with people who are having trouble with the law. Instead of putting people in prison for nonviolent charges they can hopefully learn to live a better life before they commit a worse crime and end up serving life in prison. The purpose of prisons is to rehabilitate those who can't live in the public and I think that to a certain extent it does that but clearly, it's not doing enough.

I think this is good because you never really know how somebody could feel until you up them to test and to see if they can feel Normal human emotions

I like this idea and I think they should try and implement it in more areas. Helping people try to get better out of prison would do great measures because if no one helps them or tries to point them in the right direction, they will go back to their old ways.

I feel like this was a really good idea and should be present in all parole officer's training. It allows them to see from a different perspective and open their eyes up a bit more. Helps people get out of difficult situations.

I think this is a really good thing. I think it's super beneficial to the officers and the inmates

I think that it was fair to ban it as the message it sends today is one of hate. While some may not consider it hate speech, we must take into account the opinion of the people that symbol hurts. As such the only place I think that flag should be is in a museum.

I agree with Emma that banning flags isn't fair. Just because you don't agree with a flag someone has doesn't mean it should be banned.

I think that emma and baylie are racist

and i agree with @margaretgrover <3