RSS   Twitter   Sign inLogin or Sign-up

User Posts

School: Sioux Central

Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

Consource Badge

Written by olsonaplc-8d

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

The first amendment gives the freedom of speech, but there should be limits on how far people can go. It is one thing to say something, and post it online was a “status,” but it is another thing to make a page of false information. When this is online people may see it, and believe these false accusations. It can cost people a job, because they do background checks online and may find this, and either fire this person or not hire them. This is not fair to the person the lies are about. It is so easy for anybody to sabotage another person online these days. They should not to be able to do this to an individual.

The speech on networking sites outside of school can definitely disrupt in-school time. Bullying takes place online all of the time. It is freedom of speech, but it can hurt others in many ways and even help lead to a suicide to being committed. When the school then informs the whole student body of this tragedy, they cannot focus in school and it really is tough on everyone and little is accomplished in the week after this horrible event. It can also trigger fights between students during school hours. This may result in suspension, or expelling, but definitely is a distraction. Words can lead to wars.

This student is legal when it comes to the first amendment for the freedom of speech, but by making this profile of someone else, they then crossed the line of identity theft. Also, if they would have said it on their profile on MySpace as a “Status,” then it would be different, because it is their own expression of their thoughts. However, in the first amendment it says freedom of speech, press, assembly, petition to the government, and to their own religion (United States Constitution). This is beyond the freedom of speech and the other four do not permit it to be right either. Along with the Madison’s Resolution for Amendments to the Constitution (June 8, 1789) also says they can publish opinions, speech, writing, and press, but this is more than writing, opinions, speech, and press. They do not protect this student from being able to do this act.

If school officials could discipline students for off campus behavior though, many more students would be getting in trouble. Many students do illegal acts. It would be hard to discipline them all for it. The worst they really could do for these actions are to expel or to suspend them. School officials cannot and should not be able to stop the students freedom to internet speech. They should be able to inform students of the harm they are causing to the emotions of others, but it is their freedom to speech.

From looking at the first amendment and Madison’s Resolution for Amendments to the Constitution, it does give students the ability to give their opinions to others and say anything they want. This case shows it was not an opinion or just words, and was trying to give false information to others about this school official. This student should be found guilty.

consource

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

Harlan Institute Feedback: Very well done.


Congressional Intent – Constitutional Law Badge(150 points)

Written by olsonaplc-8d

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

Congressional Intent - Constitutional Law Badge(150 points)

The methods that support this legal interpretation are the laws that came forth in section 1983,(Title 42 of the U.S. Code) giving them the right to invade the privacy rights if there is a suspicion the individual has committed a crime and needs to be investigated without knowing about it. The reasons against is that it is going against the rights of American citizens by destroying the fourth amendment, giving the right for people to have privacy. The should not figure out what the laws were 140 years ago and they should apply modern understandings. The reason for this is because 140 years ago does not matter if the laws have changed and these are the current laws. I believe it is wrong to invade someone’s privacy, however it can be useful and send guilty individuals to jail or prison where they belong. It is wrong to falsify documents as they did though, even if it was all for a good cause because they lied under oath. You can not do this. The immunity plea should not be used because you should have to take responsibility for your actions and face the consequences. So the way I see it, it was wrong for Paulk to invade the privacy of Rehberg. However, I do not believe Rehberg should get the sums of money he is requesting, maybe enough for any damages Paulk caused but no more than that.

constitutionallaw

This post has been awarded the
Constitutional Law Badge (50 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Congratulations!


Social Cost- Criminal Justice Badge(50 points)

Written by olsonaplc-8d

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

Social Cost- Criminal Justice Badge(50 points)

Mr. Florence may have been violated, but if they do not do the cavity search, then there could be dangerous people go in to jail with a dangerous weapon. It is in order to keep others safe. For this reason even if they are not considered dangerous, they need to be checked and cleared. In this case Mr. Florence should not have even been put into jail because he had documents that even showed he paid. They should not be able to arrest someone for something that they have not proven is accurate.

They need to be treated the same way because even people without criminal records for 20 or more years of life have gone off on a rampage and murdered many people. It is hard to trust people and know whether they tell you the truth or not. We need to treat them the same. It is for the safety of others.

criminal-justice

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

Harlan Institute Feedback: What should be the standard for "something that they have not proven is accurate"? If police must arrest suspects on full information and proof of accuracy, then what is the point of the trial?