Posted for Discussion

Taken from http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6888837/:

First Amendment no big deal, students say
Study shows American teenagers indifferent to freedoms
The Associated Press
Updated: 10:20 a.m. ET Jan. 31, 2005

WASHINGTON - The way many high school students see it, government censorship of newspapers may not be a bad thing, and flag burning is hardly protected free speech.

advertisement
It turns out the First Amendment is a second-rate issue to many of those nearing their own adult independence, according to a study of high school attitudes released Monday.

The original amendment to the Constitution is the cornerstone of the way of life in the United States, promising citizens the freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly.

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes “too far” in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

“These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous,” said Hodding Carter III, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which sponsored the $1 million study. “Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation’s future.”

The students are even more restrictive in their views than their elders, the study says.

When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes. Only 83 percent of students did.

Indifference, misunderstanding
The results reflected indifference, with almost three in four students saying they took the First Amendment for granted or didn’t know how they felt about it. It was also clear that many students do not understand what is protected by the bedrock of the Bill of Rights.

Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It’s not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can’t.

“Schools don’t do enough to teach the First Amendment. Students often don’t know the rights it protects,” Linda Puntney, executive director of the Journalism Education Association, said in the report. “This all comes at a time when there is decreasing passion for much of anything. And, you have to be passionate about the First Amendment.”

The partners in the project, including organizations of newspaper editors and radio and television news directors, share a clear advocacy for First Amendment issues.

Federal and state officials, meanwhile, have bemoaned a lack of knowledge of U.S. civics and history among young people. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., has even pushed through a mandate that schools must teach about the Constitution on Sept. 17, the date it was signed in 1787.

The survey, conducted by researchers at the University of Connecticut, is billed as the largest of its kind. More than 100,000 students, nearly 8,000 teachers and more than 500 administrators at 544 public and private high schools took part in early 2004.

Lack of education
The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don’t make the matter a priority.

Students who take part in school media activities, such as a student newspapers or TV production, are much more likely to support expression of unpopular views, for example.

About nine in 10 principals said it is important for all students to learn some journalism skills, but most administrators say a lack of money limits their media offerings.

More than one in five schools offer no student media opportunities; of the high schools that do not offer student newspapers, 40 percent have eliminated them in the last five years.

“The last 15 years have not been a golden era for student media,” said Warren Watson, director of the J-Ideas project at Ball State University in Indiana. “Programs are under siege or dying from neglect. Many students do not get the opportunity to practice our basic freedoms.”

One word comes to mind. Whatever (heh)

Don't you know it's what eva!

And there was me thinking it was wot eva.

*sighs*

Maybe it is wot eva...

<font color = lightgreen>I have a copy of the text of the Constitution saved as a text file on my computer and a CD. When TJ gets older, I will make him read it and explain it to me so I know he understands what it means.</font>

That reminds me of this episode of Sliders, I love that show, where the gang slid into an alternate world where Edgar Hoover became president in the past and changed the Constitution to the point where the US was really Big Brother.

He even had it covered up to the point where the current generation thought that that was how the Constitution really was!

However, there was an underground movement of Freedom Fighters that had information that the Constitution had been altered, but they needed real proof, an original text of it.

I can't totally remember how the episode ended, but the Sliders gave them a CD with the original Constitution saved on it.

Incidentally, the law enforcement in this world all wore skirts, and Kurt Cobain's greatest hits were Christmas Songs :D

<font color = lightgreen>With Hoover in charge, I'm not surprised. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] </font>

And these people are going to be voting in a few years time...

I don't know if Base Grade Schools are different from Off-Base Grade Schools, but when I was in the fifth grade and attending Scott Air Force Base's Scott North School, we had to learn the Bill of Rights, the Preamble (Recite it for a test no less!), and the First Ten Amendments. Do/Did they do this at other schools?

Thank good we've got an unwritten constituion, i wouldn't like to learn it.

Maybe it is better that way. The written constitution can be a guiding light or an albatross around the neck.

Statute laws (Government made) from Magna Carta onwards defining the boundary of, but never over ruling, the unwritten Common laws (ancient accepted practices) are technically the UK constitution. Which makes it worrying is that the UK is not a democratic country with its house of lords and hereditary peers (still not all gone I believe) and that old slapper the MAJ on her throne.

Right now I'm taking world-civics in highschool and they make us memorize the first 10 amendments, although we dont have to recite it(or the preamble) from memory(gasp), just take some tests on it.

Ah ok. Back in High School I took Civics (Was a required Freshmen Class) and I can't remember if we did have to memorize any amendments or not.

I was lazy freshmen year, almost flunked.

<font color = lightgreen>Academic Decathlon during my senior year--that was eons ago, mind you--featured the Constitution for the Super Quiz competition. We had to be familiar with all aspects of everything in the Constitution, even the parts that have been amended over the years.</font>

Maybe it is better that way. The written constitution can be a guiding light or an albatross around the neck.

Statute laws (Government made) from Magna Carta onwards defining the boundary of, but never over ruling, the unwritten Common laws (ancient accepted practices) are technically the UK constitution. Which makes it worrying is that the UK is not a democratic country with its house of lords and hereditary peers (still not all gone I believe) and that old slapper the MAJ on her throne. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, we are democratic, we vote for our House of Commons. There are still some heriditary peers left, but the Parliament Acts mean that they can, given due process be over-ruled. The Crown, although technically allowed to veto legislation, no longer does so, and would provoke a constituional crisis if she did, other than that the crown has little direct power over the government of the country. The UK constitution is one of residual rights, i.e. what is not forbiden we have a right to do, and segments are also found in judicil decisions and statutes. Statutes do over-rule common law, in that the are the ultimate source of legislation, although not superior in terms of validity. Common law can be the only law relating to an offence, i.e. murder, or it can fill in legislation, which sets a frame work, such as theft, orit can adapt the law to fit situations where the statutory provisions alone would not be enough to secure conviction. I feel i is a good system, that allow for Parliamentary supremacy, but for the flexibility of case law to remain.

You seem to confuse custom, old parctices which are protected by law, with case made common law, although case law was based on custom, it evolved significantly and are now quite different.

[ 02-05-2005, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Aragorn1 ]

Also, the Queen is the head-of-state of Australia, does that make your country un-democratic?

Furthermore, that the Lords aren't democratic was a strength IMO.

If you ever watch debate in the Lords and compare it to the Commons the standard is far far higher - thoughtful, measured and civilized.

They don't pander to the electorate in the way that MP's have to and thus avoid the squalid vote-grabbing debates that can often happen in that chamber.

The only poor performances I have seen in the Lords have actually been from these new Labour appointed 'life peers' - definitely lowering the standards.

The reason the Lords have been getting so much negative publicity is largely due to Tony Blair's government stampeding over the constitutional heritage of our parliament. The Lords is supposed to act as a moderating force to the actual process of law-making which avoids any confrontation. Blair is just running into problems because his legislation is ill thought-out and (rather than moderate his bills) chooses to try and ram it through with the Parliament Act.

Unfortunately, all Blair has to do is simply blame the Lords obstruction on their being undemocratic and the average punter laps it up without having any knowledge about the standard of debate in the second chamber. A sad state of affairs. I would be willing to bet that no Prime Minister in British history has ever taken such liberties with our constitution or our parliamentary conventions. He needs a good kicking.

[ 02-05-2005, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

I also support the Lords. You can never get an overwhelming majority in both houses with the Lords, something which could lead to undemocratic practices.

America is not a democracy. It is a republic. Don't automatically think a democracy is a good thing, a republic or a constitutional monarchy are fine ways to rule.

http://www.mcsm.org/truth1.html
http://www.trimonline.org/website/deceived2.htm

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -cies
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Would you now like to explain why America isn't a democracy?

Perhaps someone should inform these guys that this isn't 1800, and that the system we use to now is different then the the founding fathers established.

[ 02-07-2005, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Seraph ]

We had to memorize the preamble last year, it wasn't that hard really. What anoyed me was the teacher played that School House Rock song so much like we were babies. Glad that's over. Oh, and maybe this is just my ignorance, but aren't the first 10 ammendments and the Bill of Rights the same thing?

And that litle fact burns my very soul [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

<font color = lightgreen>With Hoover in charge, I'm not surprised. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] </font> </font>[/QUOTE]Aha, the trouser tyranny was broken in at least one alternate universe, time to spread the love.

Absolutely true, the Bill of Rights is the 1st ten amendments written by the founding fathers to restrict the power of the federal government.

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/ar...hp?id=20050202

notable for the commentary to the right of the actual comic, of the democratic process in Canada.

Prime Minister Martin really wants to see it passed, but a lot of Liberals (not to mention almost all the Conservatives) oppose the legislation. So, in order to ensure it goes through, Martin is going to use his special Prime Minister powers and force all members of cabinet to vote for the legislation or be fired. You see, the PM controls whether or not members of parliament are "allowed" to vote freely or not. And yes, this does make every vote in parliament a largely meaningless charade, and no I don't know why we consider this to be a true democracy.

[ 02-08-2005, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

Well lots of folks don't understand what is meant by free speach in the 1st admend. It means the goverment can't stop you from speaking your mind. It doesn't mean what you say is right, wise, or non-offensive. The 1st admend. doesn't give you protection from other citizens, we have other laws that do that. Nor does the 1st admend. give one protection from the consequences of one's speech. Here's some free advice from an OLD COOT that gets called all kinds of things: when it comes to free speech if you can't stand the heat stay the "Hale" out of the kitchen. Don't put yourself through that kind of crap, if you don't like other having the freedom to speak their mind.

Well the person who wrote that on that site, Morg, is wrong and is trying to mislead you. But if it fits with what you want to believe then don't let a little thing like the truth stop you from believing it anyways.

1st: It says in that statement: "You see, the PM controls whether or not members of parliament are "allowed" to vote freely or not." That is a lie. How can the PM, a Liberal, tell a Conservative MP to vote his way? Answer: He can't. How can a Republican Congressman tell a Democrat to vote his way? Answer: He can't. Martin is having a free vote on the Bill for Liberals except Cabinet members who have been told to tow the PM's line. He can tell Liberal party members to tow the party line (we call that leadership) which may or may not be democratic but that is not what the person wrote in that statement.

2nd: The PM can't fire an MP, only the people who voted for them can. He can fire them from the Liberal party, as he did with Carolyn Parish (she was fired from the party for her anti-American rhetoric) but they remain MP's representing their constituents, just independants without a party, at least until the next election. ;)

So that person who wrote that has excerised their right to free speech to lie to you. And you have repeated it here spreading the lie.


Also: Most Liberals support the bill and so do the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois, which will give it the support needed to pass despite opposition from most Conservatives and some Liberals.

<font color = lightgreen>With Hoover in charge, I'm not surprised. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] </font> </font>[/QUOTE]Aha, the trouser tyranny was broken in at least one alternate universe, time to spread the love. </font>[/QUOTE]Viva la revolucion!