Over the past month and a half I have found myself emerging from a cocoon of perpetual knowledge and I have found myself making personal discoveries about my rights as a citizen of the United States. Previous to the project, I had a basic understanding of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and specifically the first amendment, but there were definitely particular laws and restrictions that had eluded my knowledge over the years. I decided to approach the project with the mindset of how I could apply specific freedoms to my student career as well as in my upcoming years as a filmmaker. This open attitude truly helped me grasp more specific examples of artistic rights, especially those found in Case Law studies. Through constantly blogging about my discoveries and creating a project that displayed an aspect of the First Amendment, I now feel that I have a very clear perspective of citizens’ rights and how I can apply them to my life. With this comprehension, I have determined that the most important factor in maintaining these rights is to understand what they are, proclaim their relevance to the population, and fight for what is and isn’t constitutional. Only then can we take advantage of or freedom in its fullest extent.
While delving into the Bill of Rights, I was able to become more aware of the first amendment freedoms: freedom of speech, religion, press, petition, and gathering. I could identify the general ideas about what was included in my rights but to my surprise, I found that there were many more restrictions. My Case Law Blog focuses on the rights that students hold in a school setting and what authoritative figures can or can’t do to censor students. Upon further investigation of case laws dealing with students’ rights, and using the case of Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier as a reference, I found that authoritative figures hold a significant amount of power over students even if students are in compliance with first amendment laws outside of campus. I find this loophole very unconstitutional because it contradicts the very idea of free speech. Regardless of where an individual exercises his or her first amendment rights, citizens should not be forced to comply with specific rules based on public institution. Public schools are exactly that, public institutions available to all citizens and lawfully binding to all persons under the age of 16. These public settings should not pace limitations to the free speech freedoms granted to them by the constitution. If schools are truly public, all freedoms would be upheld and protected.
One of the most interesting concepts I took from this project was the specific case of Ward Churchill vs. the University of Colorado. Churchill was fired from the institution on the grounds of academic misconduct for his public speeches in protest of the war in Iraq and academic freedoms. The true cause of his termination however, was his comments regarding the events of 9/11. These comments surfaced on the Internet shortly after the Patriot Act was enforced in the U.S. under the Bush Administration. This case was extremely important to me because it dealt directly with the rights that teachers and students hold under specific circumstances in a learning environment. Given the historical context of the event, there is a strong argument that the government’s implication of the Patriot Act was a necessary measure in preventing terrorism in the United States, but this does not justify the actions of the government in its enforcement of the Act. There has always been a pattern of panic and paranoia following disastrous or frightening events such as 9/11, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and the discovery of the Russian nuclear capabilities. People become targeted due to their racial or national background or their critical viewpoints of the issue at hand. Although this is a historical pattern, we should not subject ourselves to fear and protect all cases of speech weather damning or correct. Churchill was eventually reinstated as a teacher but the case leaves the question: Will we ever reach a point in the U.S. where the basis of speech turns into “you’re either with us or against us?”
Ultimately I feel that I have emerged from this project with a newfound perspective about my freedoms as a citizen. I find that the First Amendment is perhaps the right that truly separates us from a majority of other nations and defines the freedoms we enjoy on a daily basis. However, these freedoms often come with a price. It is the duty of every American to learn and understand their right in order to prevent the total control of the government in regards to our speech rights. Only then can the constitution be truly upheld and protected by the people the constitution was created for; the citizens of the United States.
While delving into the Bill of Rights, I was able to become more aware of the first amendment freedoms: freedom of speech, religion, press, petition, and gathering. I could identify the general ideas about what was included in my rights but to my surprise, I found that there were many more restrictions. My Case Law Blog focuses on the rights that students hold in a school setting and what authoritative figures can or can’t do to censor students. Upon further investigation of case laws dealing with students’ rights, and using the case of Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier as a reference, I found that authoritative figures hold a significant amount of power over students even if students are in compliance with first amendment laws outside of campus. I find this loophole very unconstitutional because it contradicts the very idea of free speech. Regardless of where an individual exercises his or her first amendment rights, citizens should not be forced to comply with specific rules based on public institution. Public schools are exactly that, public institutions available to all citizens and lawfully binding to all persons under the age of 16. These public settings should not pace limitations to the free speech freedoms granted to them by the constitution. If schools are truly public, all freedoms would be upheld and protected.
One of the most interesting concepts I took from this project was the specific case of Ward Churchill vs. the University of Colorado. Churchill was fired from the institution on the grounds of academic misconduct for his public speeches in protest of the war in Iraq and academic freedoms. The true cause of his termination however, was his comments regarding the events of 9/11. These comments surfaced on the Internet shortly after the Patriot Act was enforced in the U.S. under the Bush Administration. This case was extremely important to me because it dealt directly with the rights that teachers and students hold under specific circumstances in a learning environment. Given the historical context of the event, there is a strong argument that the government’s implication of the Patriot Act was a necessary measure in preventing terrorism in the United States, but this does not justify the actions of the government in its enforcement of the Act. There has always been a pattern of panic and paranoia following disastrous or frightening events such as 9/11, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and the discovery of the Russian nuclear capabilities. People become targeted due to their racial or national background or their critical viewpoints of the issue at hand. Although this is a historical pattern, we should not subject ourselves to fear and protect all cases of speech weather damning or correct. Churchill was eventually reinstated as a teacher but the case leaves the question: Will we ever reach a point in the U.S. where the basis of speech turns into “you’re either with us or against us?”
Ultimately I feel that I have emerged from this project with a newfound perspective about my freedoms as a citizen. I find that the First Amendment is perhaps the right that truly separates us from a majority of other nations and defines the freedoms we enjoy on a daily basis. However, these freedoms often come with a price. It is the duty of every American to learn and understand their right in order to prevent the total control of the government in regards to our speech rights. Only then can the constitution be truly upheld and protected by the people the constitution was created for; the citizens of the United States.
RSS Feed