Hate Speech: Civil Rights v. Civil Liberties

For most areas, advocates of civil liberties and advocates of civil rights agree. However, there is tension between the two groups in regards to hate speech. Hate speech can be defined as a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people. Civil libertarians have traditionally opposed legal codes that attempt to suppress hate speech, utilizing the following arguments:

• It violates the first amendment (freedom of speech)
• It is a principle of liberty that there is a right to individual expression
• Free and open debate is valuable , even if that debate is offensive

Civil rights advocates often argue that hate speech is wrong based on the following:

• It violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment
• Groups that have been persecuted in the past are sheltered by the 14th Amendment
• In terms of education, the goal is to achieve full participation and achieve educational objectives, not to feel marginalized and uncomfortable in certain settings

During the 1990s, one of the large political debates was over hate crimes. The primary question that was asked was, "can a crime be punished more severly if that crime was based upon prejudicial beliefs or committed in a prejudicial manner?" Recently, universities, workplaces, and other areas where the public congregates have had hate speech codes introduced, limiting what can and cannot be said.

Are such codes constitutional? Should speech be suppressed if it offends one person or a group of individuals?

Consider the following two scenarios:

• A local community college in Georgia passes a sexual harassment policy stating, “Conduct is prohibited that has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s academic performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive learning environment.” A female student brings forth a complaint against a professor who makes references to sexual topics and uses profanity in class. The professor, in response to the accusation, argues he is aware of his confrontational and provocative style, but that he has never heard complaints before. The professor is placed on unpaid suspension for a semester.
• A fraternity at a school in Michigan hosts a competition called “Ghastly Girls.” A contestant paints himself with black paint, wears a black wig with curls, and stuffs pillows to exaggerate bust and buttocks. The university dean of students, upon urging of several students, views photos of the competition on Facebook. He disciplines the fraternity for what he sees as putting forth racial as well as sexual stereotypes. The fraternity appeals the decision to the university president.

Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail

While in jail for parading without a permit in Birmingham, MLK Jr. penned one of the most influential American documents to date. This letter was written as a response to a newspaper editorial by several Birmingham ministers who urged King to find a different means of achieving his civil rights goals. King wrote his Letter as a reponse explaining his motives and actions. Read an excerpt here: http://www.auburnschools.org/ahs/wbbusbin/ap_assignments/lbj_final%20excerpt.pdf.
What makes a law just or unjust in your opinion? How might you differ from Dr. King? What current laws do you believe are unjust?
Also, when is it justified to break an unjust law? In what manner should one break a law? Would you break one of the laws you consider unjust?

Judicial Power: Least Dangerous Branch?

Is the judicial branch truly the least dangerous branch as Hamilton writes in Federalist #78?
Consider the fact that there is the lack of term limits-as a matter of fact, the term is for life. In addition, what is the potential power of judicial review? Is this a power that is necessary or is it something that is to be feared for abuse? Does the ability to decide what the Constitution mean make law useless?
Yet, is the judiciary perhaps the most essential branch? Does the absence of election and term limits protect the branch from political and electoral realities? Is judicial review perhaps the most necessary check and balance?

Gun Control and the Second Amendment

Well, the blog is back.
Last year's BIG CASE DC v. Heller sparked a national debate about gun control and the Second Amendment. The case brought forth several passionate debates on how the Constitution should be interpreted.
On the more liberal side...Some felt that gun violence and the fear of crime provides social justification for finding new meaning. While others feel that the progress of the ages have made the Second Amendment irrelevant and that the needs of the Founders are not ours. Still, others feel that the Second Amendment never guaranteed the right to bear arms, but merely permitted militias.
While on the more conservative side...Many believe that the Second Amendment is the last strong protection against a tyrannical government and must be held in place. Some feel that the Constitution must be analyzed as strictly as possible. Another perspective is that to interpret the Constitution is to respect the views of the Founders. Yet, even some simply feel that to take away the Second Amendment would rob them of a recreational pasttime or make them vulnerable to robbers, rapists, etc.
I often ask: is the Second Amendment absolute? Are there areas of grey? Could either of these sides find a common ground?
How would you have decided in DC v. Heller? Do you feel the nation needs a stronger gun control policy? Or, should we respect the Second Amendment in an absolute right to own guns? Does your perspective provide an insight into how the Constitution should be interpreted?

Best President?

I apologize for us not having the time to host this discussion in the classroom. The presentations were wonderful and very informative. Thank you!
With this being said, who is our best modern president? What did he accomplish to earn such a recognition?
And, how do we define such? What standards do we use to judge or critique a president?
Who was the worst president? What did he accomplish (or not accomplish) that earns him this distinction?

Civil Liberties during War

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
This is the oath of office as outlined by the Constitution. Yet, the question of many is the section about defending the Constitution. Several Presidents have argued that in order to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" that they must sometimes take away liberties and freedoms. Examples include Lincoln, FDR and Executive Order 9066 as well as Bush and the PATRIOT Act.
Does war constitute a justified reason for restricting civil liberties that are promised in the Constitution? If so, under what circumstances should these decisions be made?
Does one sometimes have to violate their own principles to uphold these in the long run?

The Pledge of Allegiance

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
One simple sentence. Have you ever stopped in the morning to think about what it means? Or, what it means to recite this sentence?
The Pledge was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a socialist, anti-racist, and Baptist minister, for two purposes: (1) to celebrate the anniversary of Columbus discovering the Americas and (2) to try to reunite the country following the Civil War. He wanted the phrase "equality" included but it was not. It was not until 1954 that "under God" was included by President Eisenhower and Congress; the purpose was to distinguish the religious nature of the US from the secular Soviet Union.
BUT...what do the words mean? What is the meaning or symbolism of...Flag-one Nation-under God-indivisible-Liberty-Justice-for all? Are any words missing or should some be deleted?
Are we pledging to a country that has been established as expressed in the Pledge? Or, are we pledging to help achieve an ideal country?
Should we say the Pledge every morning? Is this robotic or symbolic? Why do adults not have to say the Pledge at work every morning? Is it okay not to say the Pledge...is this patriotic?
What does it mean "to pledge?" What is "allegiance?" What does this require of us?