RSS   Twitter   Sign inLogin or Sign-up

User Posts

School: Sioux Central

Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

Consource Badge

Written by olsonaplc-31a

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution should allow schools the right to punish students statements they make outside of school on the internet depending on the severity. Students and people in general are allowed to express their opinions because of the First Amendment. Although there is this amendment, there is a point where stating your opinion can and has gone too far. As far as the First Amendment goes, if a student publishes anything online off campus, then they are safe from any consequences from the school. This is the law, but there has to be line drawn. People have the right to freedom of speech, but they do not have the right to create a fake profile or account so they can make vulgar confessions of a made-up sexual encounters dealing with their peers and principal, or false possession of alcohol and drugs. In many ways the act should depend on the malignity of the situation. For example if a student is venting their feelings of the day on a status or tweet, this is completely different to the cases that have been addressed to the Supreme Court. The point where venting turns into hateful posts, harassment, and false profiles and pages, is when the school should be allowed to step in.   This is a prime example where common sense would tell anyone that this is a disruption of the school and community. Making false accusations of anyone on a social network in a sense has nothing to do with the First Amendment, but has more so to do with harassment and false accusations. The problem with a student posting or creating false profiles on the internet to make fun of or lie about someone else is that many times it may be on their own home computer or laptop. The school, in all honesty, cannot do anything with it being at home and on the family’s own property. The position that the school has to take then is to take it to a higher power. If the school cannot punish them, the court system should be able to find some reason for punishing this student. The size of audience or who the victim is, should not be a determining factor on how much of a punishment the person/student should receive. The punishment should solely rest on what the person has done and how many school codes and government laws the person has gone against. The fact that a student/person has made this offense, will create friction, disrupt school environment, and perhaps even cause an uproar within the school. So, in reality when one looks at it, not only does it affect a student/person’s life and family, but it causes problems within the school and even the community. School systems and parents need to start the process of eliminating harassment online as much as they can and make it a way that can be effective. Schools also need to let their students know of the consequences of their actions online, not only because of the trouble they could possibly get with the school, but now with law system.

 

consource

This post has been awarded the
Consource Badge (300 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Very interesting post. Well done!


Rehberg v. Paulk and CongressionalIntent

Written by olsonaplc-31a

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

If a judge were to interpret laws based on the judge’s belief of the legislature, or Congress, this would mean that a judge must know what the law meant when it was passed. The method of interpreting laws is a confusing, perhaps because your conscience or other outside forces get in your way, of making the lawful decision. The reason for interpreting laws is to focus on the main point of the case and to make sure you make the correct decision. If one was to find reasons against the interpretation of laws, perhaps may be some one who felt they were not given a fair law interpretation at court. It may also be, because they think that a judge’s own conscience of right and wrong should acceptable in a court case. Let us say that a judge were to supposed to attempt the meaning of Congress from 140 years ago, why would this be difficult? It may be difficult, because first, it takes a lot of time and patience to translate or decipher the language of 140 years ago. There is also the chance that people may think that because we are now in the 21st century, there should be no reason to interpret these laws, as long as American citizens understand them.

rehberg

This post has been awarded the
Rehberg v. Paulk Badge (200 points)


Cost of Safety

Written by olsonaplc-31a

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

On September 11, 2001 the United States was never the same. It changed our lives, but it also changed our level of securities. Before major terrorist attacks posed on our country, airport security was very lenient on checking bags and people. Any major or minor event in our country will mostly favor in American citizen’s security. Although our country’s officials have to maintain our freedom, yet protect us too. Current events effect our security in major ways, because of the fact that many people cannot be trusted, thus making it hard to keep the balance of the fourth amendment and citizen’s safety from terrorists. The balancing of the security and freedom scale is a difficult one to balance. In order to have security and safety in our lives, security officials must enforce the new laws. This is where it causes problems. Our freedom rights must be kept too, so in reality this scale may never be balanced.

criminal-justice

This post has been awarded the
Criminal Justice Badge (50 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Can you give specific examples of the balance being moved recently? What are the specific effects of the balance being moved too far in either direction?