The Five Freedoms Protected by the First Amendment

This past week we began studying the First Amendment and exploring the five freedoms protected by what some call the most important provision of the Bill of Rights.  

Each year since 1997 the First Amendment Center has conducted a survey of American adults to assess their knowledge of the First Amendment.  The 2012 survey of 1,006 adults had a margin of error of +/- 3.2%.  The survey respondents were asked, among other questions, to name the five  freedoms protected by the First Amendment.  The results were as follows:

               ...65% could name freedom of speech
               ...28% could name freedom of religion
               ...13% could name freedom of the press
               ...13% could name the right to assemble
               ...4% could name the right to petition
               ...27% could not identify any of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Although these results may seem less than optimum, the percentages have generally increased each year since the poll's inception.  More importantly, the other questions asked indicated  that Americans value the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment even if they can't link them to a specific Amendment.  For example, 69% agreed that musicians should be allowed to sing potentially offensive songs; 57% believed that schools should not have authority to discipline students who use their own computers at home to post material administrators consider offensive; 75%  believed the news media should act as a government watchdog; and 59% do not believe the government should be allowed to take control of the internet and limit access to social media in the event of a national emergency.

I anonymously polled my students on their knowledge of the five freedoms protected by the First Amendment and I am pleased, although not surprised,  to report that their knowledge and understanding is significantly higher than the general public.  14 of my 15 students (one was absent) were polled and the results are as follows:

               ...all 14 could name freedom of speech and freedom of press
               ...13 of 14 (92%) could name freedom of religion
               ....9 of 14 (64%) could name the right to assemble     
               ... 5 of 14 (35%) could name the right to petition
               ... 5 students (35%) could name all five freedoms


As an aside, a national survey done in 2006 by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that while only one in 1000 of the respondents could name all five First Amendment freedoms, 22% could name five of the The Simpson's cartoon characters.  Of course, Homer is in the most need of free speech protections as he is constantly being offensive,  politically incorrect and religiously intolerant.  In fact, The Simpsons is a wonderful pedagogical tool to teach First Amendment freedoms and other constituational rights. See http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/articles/constitution

I also polled my students on their primary source of news and what social networks they used.  Here are those results:

               ...11 of 14 (78%) identified the internet as their primary sources of news while  2 of 14 (14%) identified newspapers. Interestingly, none identified TV or radio, although 11 of 14 could identify at least four of the five major U.S. TV news networks.

               ...all 14 students had Facebook accounts and Twitter accounts (a Twitter account was a  course requirement), 6 students had a Google+ account and 3 students had accounts with Reddit, Instagram and Pinterest.

               ...the students averaged three accounts each and five had four or more accounts.

Oh, and as to their knowledge of the Simpsons family?  Six could name all five and 11 of 14 could name at least four family members.  Only one pop culture deprived soul could not name a single family member!

              

 

"Ground Zero Mosque"

On December 08, 2009, The New York Times published an article regarding the plans to build an Islamic cultural center two blocks away from Ground Zero in an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory. Controversy sparked as the nation began taking sides on whether or not the building of an Islamic cultural center so close to Ground Zero would be disrespectful to those whose lives were taken as a result of September 11, 2001 and the family members who survive them. Blogger Pamela Geller’s anti-Muslim views and hostility towards Muslim causes played a large role in bringing controversy into the limelight of mainstream media with the posting of an article a few hours after the New York Times’, and another article a few weeks later.

The Islamic cultural center is referred to as Park 51 after controversy arose due to its original name- Cordoba House. Some relatives of the September 11 attacks are speaking out in opposition to the cultural center, saying that building there is insensitive and a “stab in the back” to the family members of those who were killed. One woman referenced Ground Zero as her mother’s grave site, and stated that although she realized that it may seem like an irrational and emotional argument, she doesn’t want an Islamic cultural center so close to that “sacred ground.” The Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero is often compared to building a Japanese cultural center near Pearl Harbor.

Many of those in support of the Islamic cultural center view it as two-fold. By moving forward with the cultural center not only is the Muslim community able to exercise their constitutional rights, but the nation as a whole is sending a message to the extremists. The extremists would be delighted if the United States banned the building of an Islamic cultural center, it would put the power back in their hands and show the world that the United States doesn’t back what it says about equality and freedom.

The Pentagon, another building attacked on September 11, has built a chapel as part of a memorial to those who were killed when American Airlines Flight 77 flew into the west side of building. The nondenominational chapel, opened just a little over a year after September 11, holds prayer groups and weekly worship service for Muslims, in addition to providing services for Jews, Hindus, Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, and Episcopalians. It’s reported that no one has protested the chapel or the services it holds.  

At the end of the day it seems that this is more of an emotional controversy than anything else. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) is a federal law that “prohibits the imposition of burdens on the ability of prisoners to worship as they please and gives churches and other religious institutions a way to avoid burdensome zoning law restrictions on their property use.” Denial of the cultural center would violate RLUIPA, and when it’s all said and done when do we let emotions veto constitutional rights?  

Sources:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/12/mosque-at-ground-zero-adding-insult-to-agony.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/july-dec10/groundzero_08-10.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_51#Opposition

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-6786911.html

Freedom for all? Or freedom for some?

September 11^th, 2001, will forever be imprinted in our memories as a flashbulb, a day when time seemed to stand still, a day that contained unforeseen and tragic loss. The area around ground zero is fairly sacred to Americans, and the sentiment is strong today. The plans to build what was then the Cordoba House first surfaced in 2009, in a New York Times’ article. The view that the majority of Muslims hold extremist views that fall in line with the terrorist who committed the attack was spread, and the original name of the project fell to discussion. Cordoba was a Christian city conquered by the Muslims (some said it would be a trophy of Islamic conquest), but also a harmonization of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths, and a place of learning.  Due to this controversy the name was changed to Park 51. Often called the Ground Zero Mosque, it is neither at Ground Zero (2 blocks away) nor a Mosque. The building on the plot of land, however, was damaged by plane parts from the 9/11 attacks.  Before, the building was already being used as an overflow Muslim prayer space. Polls at the time showed that most Americans didn't agree to the project being built at the location, but I’m guessing most of those people didn't have all the information and didn't realize that Park 51 would be more like a YMCA and not a mosque.

The last large question is that about funding. The investors include Soho Properties, the Cordoba Initiative, the ASMA, and a non-profit. The Cordoba initiative raises very little money, which is somewhat suspicious, and the CEO of Soho changed the plan to Park 51 from a condominium complex after being convinced by an Imam related to the Arab league. Some people view this as no issue, but others debate that some of the funding may be related to radical Islam. Under the First Amendment, freedom of religion allows Muslims to practice the peaceful Islamic values that most of them believe in and to repair Americans’ view of the religion.

Freedom of religion, petition, and assembly all fall under the First Amendment and relate to this issue. The right to petition allowed residents of those in the area to petition against the building of the project under two main reasons:  first, the need to respect those who lost their lives to Muslim extremists in the attacks and two, the continuation of the restoration of the Italian Renaissance palazzo style (neither has been successful).  Supporters of the project argued that there were many Muslims who also lost their lives in the tragedy, and that they deserve remembrance also.  Freedom of assembly protects the right of people to come together in the prayer space, auditorium, and other parts of Park 51. I believe Park 51 is legitimate and not allowing it to be built would simply reinforce stereotypes and break the First Amendment that we all love. Unless there is imminent threat, I don’t see a good reason to keep stalling the project. It’s interesting that when a Christian extremist commits a terrorist attack in America, all Christians aren’t stereotyped as extremists but when a minority religion (Islam in the US) suffers the same extremism problems, the religion is labeled as extremists.

Sources: "Park51." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Oct. 2012. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51>.    

New Assignment for October 31 Class on Freedom of Speech

The previously anonymous internet troll, Violentacrez, was recently outed by Gawker, which outing  has prompted a raging online debate within the Reddit community specifically and the online community in general about freedom of speech and the role of anonymous speech. 

For the October 31st class, in addition to the reading assignments listed on the syllabus, go to the following link http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/10/19/violentacrez-reddit-troll-behind-creepshots-tells-cnn-he-did-it-for-those-meaningless-internet-points/?utm_source=alertsnewcomment&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20121019 and read the article and comments, view the embedded CNN video and come to class prepared to discuss the following:

If you were King For A Day and had the power to dictate the rules of the internet regarding anonymity on the web and mete out punishment for anyone who violated those rules, would you 

          (1) allow anonymous speech in all circumstances and on all subjects and let the web community itself police any abuses?

          (2) allow anonymous speech, but only in certain circumstances and for certain subjects? (If so, identify the circumstances or subjects)  

          (3) ban anonymous speech entirely? and 

          (4) punish Michael Brutsch further or has he been punished enough?  If further punishment is warranted what would that punishment be?

          

We will break into groups of five students each to discuss these questions and then each group will report its conclusions to the entire class.  Come to class with your personal answers to these questions and advocate your position within your assigned five student group.  Each student group will be required to come to a group consensus on each question.  

This exercise will be in lieu of the "Mafia hit-man book" exercise listed in the syllabus.

Theories of Criminal Sentencing

On September 16, 2009 Joe Lipari, a comedian, visited an Apple store in New York to have his iphone serviced. Frustrated with having to wait hours to receive service, he subsequently updated his Facebook status posting, “Joe Lipari might walk into an Apple store on Fifth Avenue with an Armalite AR-10 gas powered semi-automatic weapon and pump round after round into one of those smug, fruity little concierges.” This post was made while he watched Fight Club after returning home from the Apple store, and is a near verbatim quote from the movie. Unaware of the repercussions this would have, Lipari was surprised when within 95 minutes of his posting the SWAT team arrived at his door. Apparently one of his Facebook friends had reported him to the NYPD. Lipari was later charged with two felonies- making terrorist threats and weapons charges (even though he didn’t own a gun). After years of legal battles, charges against Lipari were dismissed by a Queens criminal court judge.

            This is one of many examples of social media giving rise to unique legal issues. Of particular interest in this example is the issue of social media as it relates to theories of criminal sentencing. Although charges were dropped, Lipari faced up to seven years in prison for what the comedian intended as “a simple joke.”

            There are three general theories of punishment that are involved in criminal sentencing. These are known as retribution, deterrence, and reformation. Retribution focuses on enacting revenge, assuring accountability, and denunciation of the crime. Deterrence is “forward-thinking” and focuses on preventing harm. The theory of reformation is to avoid repetition of the crime and focuses on the underlying causes of the criminal behavior. Within these theories is the concept that the punishment should fit the crime. Do you think that current sentencing practices in cases involving social media are correctly following currently employed theories of sentencing, and doing so without disparity in relation to other criminal cases? For example, did the proposed seven years in prison fit Lipari’s crime (or was it even a crime for the comedian to use social media in this way?)?

            Another example to consider is the case of State vs Altajir. In this case, the defendant had been convicted of involuntary manslaughter in a drunk driving accident. While on parole the defendant had posted photos of herself partying and drinking alcohol. At a probation revocation hearing the state introduced these photos, explaining that inferences could be drawn that the defendant had not reformed and may have been drinking and driving. The judge revoked the defendant’s probation stating, “I’m looking at these pictures, and all I can think of is, where is the remorse?”     

In United States vs Villanueva, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed sentencing enhancements of a convicted felon for being in possession of a firearm based on the discovery of MySpace photographs and a YouTube video. In spite of the defendant’s argument that the firearms were plastic pellet guns, the court upheld trial court findings that the weapons were real, and in addition to this they upheld that the weapons were different- this lead to a two-count sentencing increase.

In production of this post these sources were used:

http://www.angelilaw.com/wordpress/pdfs/The%20Impact%20of%20Social%20Networking%20in%20Criminal%20Cases.pdf

http://www.metro.us/newyork/local/article/902097--joe-lipari-the-poster-child-for-internet-stupidity