Are teachers afforded the same rights as regular citizens in regards to their freedom of speech? Apparently not while at school due to a federal appeals court ruling on October 21 that teachers have no First Amendment free-speech protection for decisions involving their classrooms’ curriculum.

“Only the school board has ultimate responsibility for what goes on in the classroom, legitimately giving it a say over what teachers may (or may not) teach in the classroom,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in Cincinnati, said in its opinion.

The decision came in the case of an Ohio teacher whose contract was not renewed in 2002 after she caused controversy amongst parents over reading selections she assigned to her high school English classes.

Evans-Marshall, who was hired in 2000 with a yearlong contract, received positive reviews her first year and was rehired for a second term in 2001. However, that fall, during a reading of Fahrenheit 451 and an examination into why books are censored, the teacher allowed students to pick books from a list of even more frequently challenged works.  This lead to some students electing to read Lesléa Newman’s picture book, Heather Has Two Mommies, which celebrates diversity in family structures.

In October, 2001, after word of this got out, about 25 parents attended a public board of education meeting to “express concerns about the appropriateness and merit of some materials that had been assigned to the students as optional reading.”

A month later, the number of protesting parents who attended the board of education meeting grew to 100 and the teacher, Shelley Evans-Marshall, had 500 signatures petitioning the school board against her, calling for “decency and excellence” in the classroom. Evans-Marshall also had various run-ins with her principal prior to the parents’ petitions, so despite positive performance reviews before the controversy, the principal’s subsequent evaluations increasingly criticized Evans-Marshall’s attitude and demeanor and her “use of material that is pushing the limits of community standards.” Then in March of 2002, the school board decided not to renew her contract, citing “problems with communications and teamwork.”

Evans-Marshall sued the Tipp City, Ohio, school district and various officials in 2003, alleging that her termination violated her First Amendment free-speech rights. In 2005, the court said that it appeared that Evans-Marshall’s termination was “due to a public outcry engendered by the assignment of protected material that had been approved by the board.”

The suit proceeded until the school district defendants sought summary judgment last year. A federal district court granted the defendants’ motion on the grounds that Evans-Marshall could not prove a link between the community outcry and the school board’s decision not to renew her.

In its October 21 decision in Evans-Marshall v. Board of Education of the Tipp City Exempted Village School District, a 6th Circuit panel ruled unanimously for the school district and other defendants, but on other grounds. (The appeals panel said the teacher had clearly shown that “her teaching choices caused the school board to fire her.”)

But while Evans-Marshall’s case satisfied two earlier Supreme Court standards on public-employee speech (Pickering and Connick), her case could not survive the court’s most recent decision in this area: Garcetti v. Ceballos. In Garcetti, decided in 2006, the high court held that public employees do not have First Amendment protection for speech “pursuant to” their official duties.

“In the light cast by Garcetti, it is clear that the First Amendment does not generally insulate Evans-Marshall from employer discipline, even discipline prompted by her curricular and pedagogical choices and even if it otherwise appears (at least on summary judgment) that the school administrators treated her shabbily,” said the 6th Circuit opinion by Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton.

“When a teacher teaches, the school system does not regulate that speech as much as it hires that speech,” Sutton wrote, borrowing language from a 7th Circuit decision in a similar case. “Expression is a teacher’s stock in trade, the commodity she sells to her employer in exchange for a salary. And if it is the school board that hires that speech, it can surely regulate the content of what is or is not expressed, what is expressed in other words on its behalf.”

The judge questioned how a school system could operate if all teachers had First Amendment rights to make their own curricular decisions. What if a school board, with their students’ best interest in mind, has decided that a particular curriculum benefits students more than what an individual teacher may be proposing?

“Evans-Marshall may wish to teach Siddhartha in the first unit of the school year in a certain way, but the chair of the English department may wish to use the limited time in a school year to teach A Tale of Two Cities at that stage of the year,” Sutton wrote. “When educators disagree over what should be assigned, as is surely bound to happen if each of them has a First Amendment right to influence the curriculum, whose free-speech rights win? [. . . ]Placing the First Amendment’s stamp of approval on these kinds of debates not only would demand permanent judicial intervention in the conduct of governmental operations, but it also would transform run-of-the-mine curricular disputes into constitutional stalemates.”

What do you think about freedom of speech in the classroom? Surely the freedom of speech that students are afforded in the classroom is limited, so is it that different for teacher’s to be also?

Posted by Alex on November 10, 2010 at 3:01pm.

What is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger trying to prove?  The man who depicted, and pretty much made a living as a brutal, man-killing machine throughout his career in both movies and video games is trying to restrict violence depicted in video games. By taking his case all the way to the Supreme Court, is he trying to make a point of turning his back on his old way of life?

A 2005 California bill, which was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger but has been blocked from taking effect by state courts, could criminalize the sale of violent games to minors.

In 1993, when Arnold was at the height of his action star status, the video game industry was a $13 billion industry, compared to in 2008 when it was reported to have become a $54 billion industry.

More kids were being exposed to Arnold’s carnage back in his heyday than they are to today’ mature video game titles and one can reasonably assume most of those kids turned out to be rationally thinking adults.

A new poll conducted by Common Sense Media reveals that a majority of adults, many of whom grew up watching Schwarzenegger terminate things or playing early inceptions of today’s games, actually support a ban on selling ultra-violent video games to minors. The video game industry is fighting the law, which will be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court in November.

Mike Gallagher, head of the Entertainment Software Association, said, “I think gamers have a lot at stake,” in regards to the law that the state of California hopes to have found permissible by the Supreme Court.

“It could have a distinct chilling effect,” Gallagher said, “on the types of games that are made, the types of games that are marketed, and certainly the types of games that are sold, and how widely available they are. All of those things could be impacted.”

The music industry, which often works with video game developers, stood behind their creative peers.

“Culture and art thrives on the preservation of the First Amendment. Any law or effort to weaken First Amendment protection of free expression whether in music, film or video games or other creative content is ultimately a harmful thing,” said Cara Duckworth of the Recording Industry Association of America.

On the other side of the argument is state Senator Leland Yee, a child psychologist representing San Francisco and San Mateo who wrote the California bill.  Yee contended that his legislation was narrowly focused, targeting only the sale of “ultra-violent” video games to children. He predicted that approval of the law would have no impact on what games were made.

“This is not about Leland Yee trying to destroy the industry,” Yee said in an interview. “This is not about Leland Yee trying to prevent any of you game [developers] from developing any more atrocious kinds of games. This is a free society. If you have the imagination to do something even more horrible with the technology, then god bless you. That’s part of our freedom of expression here in America, but you just have to figure out when it’s appropriate and when it’s not appropriate. For me, as a child psychologist you ought not be doing it for kids.”

Senator Yee is clearly unafraid of voicing his opinion on what he thinks of some of the more violent video games that have been produced.  Purposely using adjectives like atrocious and horrible to describe these games, Yee just barely stops short of saying that production of these games should be halted entirely, as to not offend those that might object by saying that Yee is trying to suppress video game developers’ freedom of speech.

To contradict Yee’s opinion that developers, “ought not be doing it for the kids,” one could point out the lack of scientific evidence in regards to the theory that playing violent video games as a child actually leads to violent outbursts from those children, either while they’re young or later in life.  However, a link between the two has not yet been totally disproven either, and gaming technology seems to be evolving more rapidly than ever, further blurring the line between game and reality.

Is the California state government going too far by trying to impose restrictions on violent games?  Does the lack of a restriction on the sale on these games fall within their developers’ rights?  Clearly there will be people who feel differently, but a definite resolution to this controversial issue will have to be arrived at soon, and someone will be left unhappy.

Posted by Alex on October 26, 2010 at 3:50pm.

As midterm elections loom, our TVs are bombarded with mudslinging political campaign spots. Ads recently taking up a lot of airtime in Missouri for example include those for and against Roy Blunt and Robin Carnahan, who are running for the U.S. Senate. Both accuse the other of being a Washington bigwig and not having “Missouri values.” But how much of candidates’ claims about their opponents is true? Can they be sued for libel?

Last Saturday on Weekend Edition, a show on NPR, the host spoke to Bill Adair. Adair, editor of the nonpartisan web site PolitiFact, assessed the amount of truth in various campaign ads. Despite the fact that some were given the rating of “pants on fire,” the ads still run on television.

It’s very difficult for public figures, especially politicians, to sue for libel. In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that to win such a libel case, the politician would have to prove that the defendant knew that whatever they said was false—not an easy argument to make. So, “pants on fire” campaign claims are all too common. Does this make for fair elections?

Not all of the TV and radio spots are sponsored by the candidates themselves. Interest groups, lobbying groups, and others also pay to run ads in their interest. The largest teachers’ union in the country, the National Education Association, spent $15 million this campaign season on advertising for candidates it supports. A controversial Supreme Court ruling in January overturned the ban on corporate campaign spending, so now private corporations and labor unions can “spend freely” on campaigns for or against candidates to try and influence elections.

In the middle of this controversy is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a conservative-leaning lobbying group that represents business interests. The left-leaning Center for American Progress issued a report this month that accuses the chamber of using foreign funds from countries like India, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates to pay for the advocacy or opposition of candidates. The chamber isn’t required to reveal its donors and is denying the charges, so for now this is only an accusation. The chamber is set to run over 8,000 political ads and spend over $75 million by November, making it one of the election’s biggest advertisers. If the Center for American Progress is right, foreign interests could be influencing the elections in a big way.

Is there a way to ensure that political ads are telling the truth, or are candidates, as well as their advocates and adversaries, protected by the First Amendment and allowed to say what they want? Should corporations and lobby groups be allowed to directly contribute to political campaigns? How do you think the decision to allow this will change candidates’ campaigns?

Posted by Nancy on October 19, 2010 at 11:53pm.

A divisive grassroots political movement appeared on the scene less than two years ago—they call themselves the Tea Party Patriots, a name designed to evoke images of colonial rebels dumping tea into Boston Harbor. However controversial, the movement is gaining steam. Tea Party protests have been popping up all over the country: Denver, St. Louis, Seattle, Nashville, Tampa, Boston, San Diego, Cincinnati, New York City—the list goes on. Although it’s only been around since 2009, the party is using a 235-year-old symbol called the Gadsden flag to suggest a connection to the founding fathers and patriotism. Dating back to the American Revolution, the yellow flag features a coiled rattlesnake along with the words “Don’t Tread On Me.” In the past, the flag has been associated with the military—it’s the original flag of the U.S. Marine Corps—but is now attracting more attention as an opposition symbol.

In Connecticut, lawmakers refused to fly the Gadsden flag at the capitol building in April because of the Tea Party’s “political nature,” but they also refused to display it on the Fourth of July at the request of a group of retired Marines. A man living near Phoenix, Ariz. was recently ordered by his homeowners’ association to remove the Gadsden flag flying outside his home, despite his protests that he wasn’t displaying it to support the Tea Party. The American Civil Liberties Union came to his defense, citing a violation of First Amendment rights. In Colorado, a similar dispute over the same flag is ongoing as well.

Historically, the Supreme Court has protected “symbolic speech,” which isn’t expressly mentioned in the First Amendment but usually refers to non-verbal conduct “intended to convey a specific message,” such as anti-war armbands and flag burning.

Should intent be considered here? Although the flag has recently taken on politically charged connotations, it has a much longer history. Residents in Warren, R.I. were angered when the “Don’t Tread On Me” banner was raised at the town common in honor of Memorial Day along with the American and state flags. The Warren Fire Department picked the flag because many Warren residents fought in the Revolutionary War. It was taken down within a few hours because of the complaints. Should the flag have been kept up since it wasn’t intended to support a political movement? Because the flag is now recognized as a symbol of the Tea Party, will it represent that regardless of its earlier meaning?

Some argue that the flag is offensive because of the conservative views of the party. However, others maintain that the controversial and unpopular ideas are the ones the First Amendment was designed to protect; you can’t censor ideas simply because you don’t agree with them. Should the flag be allowed to fly as a historical symbol but not a Tea Party one? A military symbol? Or should it not be flown at all due to its current association with a highly politicized movement?

Posted by Nancy on September 22, 2010 at 12:39pm.

Protests have taken place in the United States for hundreds of years. From the revolutionaries protesting with the Boston Harbor Tea Party to the marches led by Dr. Martin Luther King, to those of today, protesting is something that we associate with ultimate freedom. However, hundreds are arrested every year for being involved in protests that turn violent or break laws. While the Constitution does grant rights to free speech and free assembly, there are limits on the content, time, place and manner of protests. It is important to remember these restrictions when protesting in order to get your message across safely and avoid going to jail.

Peaceful and legal protests generally include the distribution of pamphlets, speeches, parades, picketing and marches. However, some require permits so it’s crucial to know the applicable laws before you begin. Street parades, activities in parks and other public places usually require permits, while street corner speeches do not. Still, if you are unsure it is always best to apply for a permit to be on the safe side.

Permits do not always have to be approved but should be granted when “reasonable”.  A protester’s permit cannot be denied based upon content of the protest alone. This even includes hate speech, based upon the Constitutional right to free speech. However, permits can sometimes be denied based upon other factors, such as time of day or the amount of police force needed to ensure compliance with all laws at the event. For example, when a neo-Nazi group applied for a parade permit in 2008 in my college town of Columbia, Missouri, police denied their request because Columbia did not have enough personnel to man both the parade and home football game that day. If the police simply denied the permit based upon the content of the protest, it would have been unconstitutional.

During the actual protest is it important to not block roadways or private entrances. Entering onto private property without permission or stopping the flow of pedestrian or vehicle traffic are other issues that can land protesters in jail. Time of day is also an issue to consider. Leading a march on a neighborhood sidewalk at 3am with speakerphones is obviously not acceptable. But besides place, time and permission, it is important to remember behavior when protesting as well.

You should never make threats or engage in violence – these situations can escalate out of control very quickly and lead attention away from your main cause. Any act of violence could potentially result in an assault charge and heavy penalties. Profanities should also be kept in check as they can result in arrest in some jurisdictions. It is also important to remember your behavior if you are an onlooker to a protest or even chose to counter-protest because you do not share the same beliefs. Many times violence starts from opposing groups and reacting to protesters with anger or violence will only cause more trouble.

Always cooperate with police and do not resist arrest even if you feel that you have protested within your rights. If you are arrested, despite your best efforts, contact a lawyer and keep calm. Many protesters are eventually released without any charges – but it’s always best to know your rights.

If you feel like protesting is not for you there are other ways to get your message across. Boycotting certain companies, voting in elections and volunteering all can lead to change without picking up a picket sign. However if you wish to get your message across with a protest or demonstration remember these rules on how to do it most effectively within your constitutional rights.

Posted by Rachel on July 23, 2010 at 5:03pm.

A stick figure drawing originally intended to depict Muhammed was changed by a Muslim student to instead depict Muhammed Ali.

South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone have created successful careers on pushing the limits and making fun of just about everyone. In the popular Comedy Central program’s 14 seasons the show has created humor around celebrity scandals, national news events and even religious leaders.  No one seemed safe from Parker and Stone’s outrageous and sometimes controversial cartoon portrayals, however unwanted or undeserved the attention.

For South Park’s 200^th episode it was no surprise that the creators aimed to cross even more lines. Bringing back several of the celebrities they had previously mocked, the episode was based on a class action lawsuit brought on by Tom Cruise against the small mountain town to end the celebrity embarrassment once and for all. Things became controversial however, when Cruise agrees to drop the lawsuit if the town can give him the Muslim prophet Mohammed, who he believes to be the one person immune from satire and ridicule.

The episode contained several references to the name Mohammed and a mascot costume that supposedly hid the prophet from view. Although seemingly innocent compared to depictions of other religious figures the show has mocked such as Buddha, Moses, Jesus and Joseph Smith, many felt as though South Park had finally gone too far.

As part of their religion, Muslims do not believe in any literal depiction of Mohammed, including any kind of drawings or cartoons.  After Parker and Stone received a warning from a Muslim organization that some interpreted as a threat, Comedy Central censored future episodes of images and references to Mohammed and did not allow an uncensored version of the episode to appear on Parker and Stone’s South Park Studios website.

But there’s a fine line between censoring potentially offensive material and compromising free speech. Under the First Amendment, unpopular or controversial material is protected as long as it is not obscene. Even hate speech, or speech based on characteristics such as race, gender, religion or sexual orientation is allowed as long as it does not incite imminent danger.

Those who felt cheated by the South Park censorship took to the internet May 20 to voice their concerns with “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”. With over 81,000 fans on Facebook, users uploaded thousands of pictures and images portraying Mohammed onto the site.

The backlash was severe, however, causing Pakistan to block sites such as YouTube and Facebook over sacrilegious content. After two weeks of blocking the site, a Pakistani court ordered on Monday for access to Facebook to be restored.  However, the formation of a counter-Facebook group called “Against Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”, actually attracted more fans than the original group.

Was it right for Comedy Central to back out on the Mohammed episode, even when South Park is known to attack everyone somewhat equally? Did the cable program decide to take the high road in hoping not to offend or the safe road after receiving threats?

Either way, the best part about freedom of speech is that you have the right to choose what you want to share. Those opposed to “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” could have easily tuned out or chose to protest while those in support found several outlets to express themselves. No matter what your beliefs, freedom of speech will allow you to share your thoughts, even if others choose not to.

Posted by Rachel on June 2, 2010 at 5:06pm.

In a term that has seen major changes in the scope and interpretation of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Stevens, once again invalidated another federal law, this time one that banned certain types of graphic depiction of cruelty to animals.

The underlying case involved a filmmaker named Robert Stevens who was sentenced to three years in prison for creating and selling videos about dog fighting. He was charged with violating a 1999 law that was originally intended to criminalize so called “crush” videos, which depict small animals being crushed to death by women wearing high heels or barefoot in order to appeal to a sexual fetish. Although many forms of animal cruelty (such as dog fighting) were already illegal, proponents of the legislation said it was necessary to stop the production of the videos and resulting cruelty to animals. Although Robert Stevens was not charged with producing any crush videos, the government decided to prosecute him under the 1999 law for producing videos of dog fighting, arguing that it was animal cruelty and therefore criminal under the 1999 law.

Stevens was convicted of the crime in the U.S. District Court and then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit reversed his conviction and the government appealed to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for an 8-1 majority, affirmed the Third Circuit ruling and struck down the law as violating the First Amendment. The Court ruled that although a narrower statute limited to just crush videos might be constitutional, the current law was too broad and could be used against anyone who creates any video where an animal is wounded or killed. As such, the Court feared the law could be used against hunting magazines or documentary filmmakers, even though the law contained an exemption for works of “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value”. Justice Alito was the only dissenter and argued that the law was only meant to protect against animal cruelty and not to suppress speech. Alito warned that the ruling would increase the number of crush videos, which by some accounts have decreased since 1999.

The interesting question which arises from this, as well as other prior Supreme Court cases, is when does the depiction of an illegal act come under the protection of the First Amendment? For example, dog fighting is an illegal act but the depiction of dog fighting is not. On the other hand, crushing or torturing an animal for no legitimate reason is also an illegal act, but the depiction of that act is also illegal. Similarly, prostitution is an illegal act but pornography is permitted under the First Amendment. One could argue that since actors in pornographic videos are essentially prostitutes in that they are paid to have sex, that the underlying act depicted in pornography is illegal. If an act is illegal, then under what circumstances should filming it also be illegal? What about the depiction of actual cases of rape and murder? No reasonable person would believe that such depictions should be permitted under the law. On the other hand if the underlying act in pornography is legal, then why should prostitution be illegal? That would be concluding that an act can be illegal, but once it is filmed or graphically depicted, the act itself becomes protected under the First Amendment.

What seems to be the standard here is one of “offensiveness” (see last week’s post by Becky). Wanton depictions of cruelty or killing, whether of animals or humans, are considered especially offensive and would seem not to be protected by the First Amendment. If the 1999 law was limited to crush videos or even specifically tailored to dog fighting, it would probably pass constitutional muster. The problem the Court had with the law was that it was overly broad, historically a common reason why the Court has struck down federal and state laws. In cases of pornography or videos involving lesser crimes, the Supreme Court has been more reluctant to strike down laws banning the same, citing the protections afforded by the First Amendment. Also, it seems that when an illegal act is committed for the sole purpose of filming it, it is more likely not to be protected under the First Amendment, though pornography would be an exemption to this notion.

Obviously, the application of the First Amendment to our nations law is complex and has been debated heatedly throughout the history of our country. What are your thoughts on this case and when should certain acts, or depictions of them, not be protected under the First Amendment?

Posted by Anish on May 25, 2010 at 6:04pm.

Obscenity vs. expression; morality vs. the First Amendment.  Sexual expression has always been at battle with more prurient interests.  Freedom of speech has managed to protect the porn industry thus far, but a recent court case may inflict lasting damage to a multi-billion dollar industry. The prosecutors in the two year battle against porn producer John Stagliano on federal obscenity violations in Alabama have recently moved the case to Washington D.C.

Understanding the place of obscenity within the protections of free speech requires knowing the precedents that led to today’s definition of “obscenity.”  For decades the standard was one set by Regina v. Hicklin.  This case came to the court as the result of a row over an anti-Catholic pamphlet.  The decision came to which was more important, intent or practice.  The case’s ruling stated that anything may be outlawed that “depraves and corrupts those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort might fall,” clearly coming down on the side of practice.  This standard was so subjective that it was eventually used to ban works by such authors as James Joyce and D.H. Lawrence simply due to single passages and fears that they may offend women and children.

In 1957, Roth v. United States strengthened the standard.  Now the material in question had to have an offending “dominant theme,” which prevented the wholesale banning of works that may have included a love scene or a description of a woman’s body.  The banned works had to be considered to be “utterly without redeeming social importance.”  The justices involved in this decision had very different opinions on the case; two of the justices flatly dissented fearing for the future of the First Amendment, one disagreed with the broad language, and one felt that only the states had the authority to prosecute cases of obscenity, not the federal government.

The Roth standard was so broad that by the time the next major case came forward it had been abandoned in favor of including obscene material in the purview of protected speech.  (This interim period included the famous “I know it when I see it” phrase; praised for its realistic approach to applying the law but also derided for its legal vagueness.)  1973 brought about the case that is still the standard.  The decision in Miller v. California created the Miller test; this is a three-pronged approach to determine whether a sexually explicit work is obscene.  The standards include judging whether the work in question is obscene and also whether it has any sort of merit.  However, the most long-lasting and far-reaching part of this approach is the one that relies on community standards to determine the value of an individual work.  This differed from the national standard requirement of former cases.  Local communities could limit what offended them and more liberal areas were not required to ban works and creators they did not consider offensive.

The community standard issue set by Miller is what is raising all the fuss today.  The crux of the prosecution’s case against Stagliano is that because his production companies are using the internet to reach all corners of the country, they are susceptible to the standards of the most conservative communities in America.  Judge Richard Leon, a federal judge in Washington DC, refuses to dismiss the indictment claiming that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment.  Throughout all the above mentioned cases, justices routinely argued in opinions that all material, even that considered obscene, should be protected to prevent a slippery slope to censorship.  The idea that the government has always favored a blanket prohibition of obscene material, as suggested by the wording in the judge’s decision, is ridiculous.  Despite requiring protections for the average person from being bombarded with lewd images, these decisions have always included protections for free speech, even the types of free speech that may offend some sensibilities.  Equally appalling is the idea of using a new technology, the internet in this case, to restrict American’s access to material they are searching for due to laws in another municipality.  An entire nation’s tastes could be directed by a small group with the right influence and sway.

Not many people think that protecting the interests and rights of smut purveyors to be very important.  However, if we want our rights to be protected, is it important to make sure that even the most extreme examples have their rights maintained — even if what they do with those rights makes us squirm?

Posted by Becky on May 19, 2010 at 4:47pm.

In the search for domestic security, many in the law enforcement community have taken to trampling on the rights of American citizens. Many people feel their safety, and the safety of the community as a whole, trumps the 1st Amendment rights of photographers and videographers. There are three areas where photographers have run into the most trouble: national security concerns as they relate to photographing public spaces, confrontations at protests, and citizens recording their own encounters with law enforcement. The law clearly comes down on the side of those with the cameras, but when the law is supposed to be enforced by those who are flagrantly abusing it, there seems to be little people can do to protect themselves.

In an effort to prevent America from another 9/11, police and other security personal are trying to limit anyone from photographing public spaces and buildings. They are threatening to take film, memory cards, and oftentimes the cameras themselves unless the photographers cease and desist. The thinking is that they are preventing the planning of a suicide bomb-type terrorist attack. In reality they are limiting the access of American citizens to public places. The law clearly states that not only can you photograph public places, you can take pictures or video of private land if you are standing in a public place. Despite the law clearly coming down on the side of individual liberties, security guard and police officers are consistently harassing photographers.

One of the effects of the nation’s increasingly polarizing political climate is an increase in the number of protests, both legitimate and illegal. These protesters are using their rights under the 1st Amendment to publicly state their opinion. Although many of these protests are perfectly legal, law enforcement is generally called in. Their presence is used to ensure not only that law and order is maintained but that the protesters and their opponents are both kept safe. Many people, both professional photographers and ordinary citizens, are documenting these protests for the news, their artistic endeavors, or simply because photography is their hobby. Law enforcement officials have been documented repeatedly taking cameras from people; oftentimes they are refusing to acknowledge press passes. These actions fly in the face of an open and democratic society. Individuals often feel they have no recourse, but large news organizations and civil rights groups are suing police departments and individual officers in an effort to curb these flagrant abuses of power.

Many people who find themselves on the wrong end of police aggression, and even those who just witness excessive force, are using cell phones and digital cameras with video capability to film their brush with the law. They seem to (rightly) feel that in a post-Rodney King era it is to their benefit to have these encounters documented. In many cases this leads to the destruction of their personal property at the hands of sworn peace officers. Other times this leads to the arrest of the videographer. New York City has had to pay out several large sums of money to people falsely arrested for videotaping police officers harassing them. They even had to compensate someone for their arrest while taking pictures in the subway, clearly an illegal arrest as discussed above.

This harassment of law-abiding citizens, all in the name of safety, only reiterates the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin. He wisely said that “those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”  Though police officers are for the most part here to protect the public, people need to educate themselves on their rights, demand that the police respect them, and in the worst cases should sue to make sure the authorities are aware of exactly what they are violating.

Posted by Becky on May 4, 2010 at 3:25pm.

These days, many consider diseases like measles, mumps, rubella, and pertussis to be things of the past. Mandatory vaccinations have largely eradicated them, along with several other contagious diseases, from the lives of the vast majority of Americans. Unfortunately for the cause of public health, a growing number of American parents are taking advantage of relaxing standards to opt out of inoculating their children. This growing problem raises the question of how the government should balance personal liberty and the right of parents to make health decisions for their children with their obligation to protect public health.

The laws on public vaccination are currently left up to the individual states. These vary a bit depending on where a person lives. Every state in America allows children to begin school without a full vaccination record for a verifiable medical reason; in this case the doctor believes that for some reason the child’s health is better served without the standard vaccines. The standard health problems that limit inoculation are usually fear of an allergic reaction or a compromised immune system. All but two states offer a religious belief exemption. This allows those whose faith prohibits vaccines for any reason to choose not to have their children inoculated. These exemptions have various degrees of strength from state to state. Finally, twenty states offer a Personal Belief Exemption. This allows anyone to opt out of vaccinating their children if their personal beliefs do not include vaccination for any reason. Anti-vaccination advocates use these Personal Belief Exemptions to prevent immunization for reasons as varied as fear of side effects, autism, and encroachment on their personal liberty. It is believed by vaccine advocates that these PBEs have have contributed to several mini-epidemics of formerly eradicated diseases and are likely to contribute to several more.

There are at least three recent measles outbreaks in North America. Vancouver is dealing with one due to infected foreign tourists in town for the recent Olympic games passing the disease to unvaccinated Canadians. Brooklyn is also suffering from an outbreak attributed to foreign tourists. San Diego is dealing with another one thanks to a small child bringing back measles from an overseas trip. He passed it on to other unvaccinated children and it was passed on to some children too young to have received the MMR injection.

These mini-epidemics demonstrate the need for mandatory vaccinations in an increasingly global economy. A basic tenet of the science of vaccinations is the importance of herd immunity. This term refers to how the safety to public health comes not just from individual protection but to the disease being unable to gain a foothold through widespread protection of a community. A CDC report on incidences of pertussis found a 90% higher incidence rate in states with lax standards for their PBEs. Studies such as this, combined with a growing rate of these mini-epidemics, make a strong case for increased regulations regarding inoculation of children.

Despite the obvious benefit to public health and safety, the federal government cannot just enact sweeping laws requiring inoculation. These regulations are currently under the umbrella of the states. Health organizations like the CDC and the FDA have no authority to enforce any sort of legislation on vaccines. In addition, the states have traditionally been reluctant to force those who claim religious exemptions into inoculating their children. Many states don’t even verify claims for religious reasons. Message boards abound on the internet helping parents evade the required rounds of treatment. McCarthy v. Boozman challenged the religious exemption in Arkansas on the grounds that it violated the 1st and 14th Amendment rights for non-denominational, nonsectarian individuals who might not qualify for the exemption. The case led to a loosening of vaccination standards and set less strict philosophical exemptions in their place. The view that forced inoculations are an encroachment on individual civil liberties has been around since the 19th century. This is the crux of the anti-vaccination movement; fears of autism and other health problems being caused by the vaccines themselves may make for flashier headlines, but these parents are demanding the right to make their own decisions regarding the health of their children.

How does the government balance these conflicting problems? No one wants the government legislating their parenting style, but the government is quick to step in when other domestic problems occur. Statistics prove the benefits of widespread vaccinations far outweigh any potential harm. However, many parents are adament that vaccinations have harmed their child and have violated their rights. Should there be more regulations to ensure that young children receive the necessary antibodies to combat preventable illnesses, particularly when their parents’ religious and philosophical convictions are against vaccinations?

Posted by Becky on April 19, 2010 at 4:01pm.