1/3 of H.S. students say 1st amendment goes "too far"

[atomic_angel]

Tell me that this is not just the least bit frightening.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6888837/

A snippet: "Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories."

So are we raising a new generation that will see fit to dispense with the freedoms we have generally enjoyed for so long...or are these the immature ramblings of a bunch of kids that will eventually "wise up" as they get older?

[segovius]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
Tell me that this is not just the least bit frightening.

This is not the least bit frightening.

There is no cause for alarm.

Your government loves you and has your best interests at heart - safeguards are unnecessary and an invitation to distrust.

This is not the least bit frightening.

You are totally under control.

[SDW2001]

Um, yes it is frightening. This is 30 years of liberal indoctrination for you. Many high school students also think the government owes them a job.

[Stoo]

So liberal indoctrination is persuading young people that they don't need as much liberty? An odd proposition.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Stoo
So liberal indoctrination is persuading young people that they don't need as much liberty? An odd proposition.

No, it has just convinced them that they should trade it for financial security.

Nick

[e1618978]

Originally posted by trumptman
No, it has just convinced them that they should trade it for financial security.

Nick

This is the same group of people that (during the Clinton sex scandal) answered no to the following two questions:

do you think that fallatio is sex?
do you think that intercourse is sex?

In other words, don't worry too much about high school student polls, at least polls of students in US public high schools.

[groverat]

This thread really need to take a path towards substance. And it needs to take that path very soon.

[Anders]

Originally posted by e1618978
This is the same group of people that (during the Clinton sex scandal) answered no to the following two questions:

do you think that fallatio is sex?
do you think that intercourse is sex?

In other words, don't worry too much about high school student polls, at least polls of students in US public high schools.

Yes I agree. They just parrot what the government tells them. The times when they rebelled against the opinion of authorities are over unfortunately.

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Um, yes it is frightening. This is 30 years of liberal indoctrination for you. Many high school students also think the government owes them a job.

This statement makes absolutely NO sense to me. First "liberal" is about liberty. Second what do government jobs have to with anything in this article or thread?

[Scott]

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.

That's obviously false. Some "indecent material" is illegal. I guess the people who wrote that article are not as smart as they thoguht they were.

[Common Man]

This is one of the most critical rights we have and one of least understood and most abused. I wonder if those polled are confused as to what our real 1st Amendment rights are?

[giant]

Originally posted by Scott
That's obviously false. Some "indecent material" is illegal. I guess the people who wrote that article are not as smart as they thoguht they were.
or maybe it's a difference between 'some' and 'any'

[Scott]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
This statement makes absolutely NO sense to me. First "liberal" is about liberty. Second what do government jobs have to with anything in this article or thread?

You have to remember that these kids grew up under Politically Correct indoctrination. If in high school you are not allowed to express an unpopular opinion or maybe express some reservations about how the followers of a religion act then why would they think the free press should be allowed to? They were educated in an environment of censorship under the guise that strong opinions will hurt "diversity" and judgments on how people conduct their lives is wrong.

If there no freedom of expression in high schools why do people think these kids will be hatched as defenders of free speech?

[Harald]

Can you think of ONE 'liberal' on these boards who thinks that government should control free speech?

Can you think of ONE 'conservative' on these boards who does not think that in this time of crisis, some of our fundamental human rights may have to be compromised?

Black is white, white is black.

[groverat]

If there no freedom of expression in high schools why do people think these kids will be hatched as defenders of free speech?

I don't know.

People need to calm down and remember high school in America.

It is unreasonable to think high school kids, by and large, would do anything but carry the party banner.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Harald
Can you think of ONE 'liberal' on these boards who thinks that government should control free speech?

Can you think of ONE 'conservative' on these boards who does not think that in this time of crisis, some of our fundamental human rights may have to be compromised?

Black is white, white is black.

I've seen plenty of incidences where liberals support government controls of free speech. Plenty spoke out about Sinclair's efforts to broadcast an anti-Kerry documentary before the election. They claimed that public airways shouldn't be allowed to run that documentary.

Many of the same members support speech restrictions in the form of limiting campaign contributions.

Another easy find is any sort of "hate" speech and forms of religious speech that they claim forces them to believe that they should not even have to hear or see.

Nick

[johnq]

Anyone know the actual text of the questions asked? I'm curious.

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
Plenty spoke out about Sinclair's efforts to broadcast an anti-Kerry documentary before the election.
Ah ... you still haven't given up your favorite tool: dishonest spin

BTW, this has nothing to do with liberal/conservative. Both sides have their elements that speak out against freedom of speech wrt whatever their pet issue is.

[Harald]

Originally posted by trumptman
I've seen plenty of incidences where liberals support government controls of free speech. Plenty spoke out about Sinclair's efforts to broadcast an anti-Kerry documentary before the election. They claimed that public airways shouldn't be allowed to run that documentary.

Many of the same members support speech restrictions in the form of limiting campaign contributions.

Another easy find is any sort of "hate" speech and forms of religious speech that they claim forces them to believe that they should not even have to hear or see.

Do you think that it should be legal to, say, call Black people "niggers" in the workplace, or in schools?

Do you think that it should be legal for, say, the Democratic party to pay CNN to run partisan stories in their news broadcasts as news?

Serious: what do you think about these two examples?

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by Harald
Do you think that it should be legal to, say, call Black people "niggers" in the workplace, or in schools?

Do you think that it should be legal for, say, the Democratic party to pay CNN to run partisan stories in their news broadcasts as news?

Serious: what do you think about these two examples?

Well the first one ought not be illegal. In certain cases it is offensive and in poor taste...but there are also black people that use the term amongst themselves. But, more to the point, there are lots of words and ideas that are offensive and in poor taste, should we ban those?

The second probably shouldn't be illegal either, though it certainly is questionably ethical. The end result (over time) will be a reduction in credibility of new sources that do this. It is sort of like things like the National Inquirer...should this be illegal? Probably not. Is it credible. Not to most people that have more than two brain cells to rub together.

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by Scott
You have to remember that these kids grew up under Politically Correct indoctrination. If in high school you are not allowed to express an unpopular opinion or maybe express some reservations about how the followers of a religion act then why would they think the free press should be allowed to? They were educated in an environment of censorship under the guise that strong opinions will hurt "diversity" and judgments on how people conduct their lives is wrong.

If there no freedom of expression in high schools why do people think these kids will be hatched as defenders of free speech?

This is a legitimiate observation. The PC movement/culture in the public school could easily engender these ideas/beliefs/notions.

[Harald]

Originally posted by atomic_angel
Well the first one ought not be illegal.

The second probably shouldn't be illegal either,

So:

Racism or discrimination in the workplace is permissible, and the democratic process should favour the rich.

Explain why this is a good thing.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Harald
Do you think that it should be legal to, say, call Black people "niggers" in the workplace, ...

Many black comedians would be out of work if that was enforced fully. :p

[giant]

I guess what I don't understand is this from the article:
Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.
Under what circumstances do these kids think the government should limit the freedom of the press? I'm guessing it should be rather obvious if it's about half. It also doesn't seem like there would be a PC motivation behind this.

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by Harald
So:

Racism or discrimination in the workplace is permissible, and the democratic process should favour the rich.

Explain why this is a good thing.

I'm not sure how you got either of these from what I said. I said nothing about the rich and the democratic process.

Second, we're talking about free speech here. And while I understand that certain words (and ideas or expressions) are very offensive. I don't think it is fair to assume the next step (which you have) of discrimination. Just because someone uses an offensive racial slur like the one you've mentioned doesn't automatically mean they are discriminating.

The emergence of this idea of "hate speech" is a bit troubling to me...because it seems like anything that some person or group doesn't like is falling under that umbrella. Soon we we be unable to say anything if our language is strip of everything that offends anyone.

I'll go further and suggest that expunging a word like "nigger" (and all of the offensive conotations that go with it) only serves to potentially erase from people's memories the power of the word.

Finally, it's not the word it is the motives, feelings, intent behind the word. This is where we get to "hate speech"...unfortunately it can be truly difficult to measure the internal motivations and feelings of another person. We can expunge the words...but we'll never remove the hatred. This is done by changing hearts not vocabularies.

[shetline]

I wonder how much better adults would do in a poll like this. I vaguely remember hearing the results of other polls about free speech issues taken among adults, and the results weren't all that much more encouraging than with these high school students.

The Founding Fathers knew that freedom isn't well entrusted to the masses. The next time anyone here feels tempted to complain about "elitist judges", they would do well to remember that by design judges are supposed to be elitist. To a much higher degree in the judicial branch than in the legislative and executive branches, education and intellect are considered key virtues. The Founding Fathers wanted people with good educations and broader minds to have a special place of influence in the affairs of government, put as far away from populist political pressure as is practical.

An important part of the function of the judicial branch of government is to provide a balance against majoritarian influences, influences which are not renowned for their respect for individual liberties, especially the liberties of minorities (meaning not just racial, cultural, or religious minorities, but political and philosophical minorities as well).

[atomic_angel]

Originally posted by shetline
I wonder how much better adults would do in a poll like this. I vaguely remember hearing the results of other polls about free speech issues taken among adults, and the results weren't all that much more encouraging than with these high school students.

The Founding Fathers knew that freedom isn't well entrusted to the masses. The next time anyone here feels tempted to complain about "elitist judges", they would do well to remember that by design judges are supposed to be elitist. To a much higher degree in the judicial branch than in the legislative and executive branches, education and intellect are considered key virtues. The Founding Fathers wanted people with good educations and broader minds to have a special place of influence in the affairs of government, put as far away from populist political pressure as is practical.

An important part of the function of the judicial branch of government is to provide a balance against majoritarian influences, influences which are not renowned for their respect for individual liberties, especially the liberties of minorities (meaning not just racial, cultural, or religious minorities, but political and philosophical minorities as well).

It must also be remembered that the Founding Fathers were also trying to design a system that would (at least somewhat) hamstring the government (which tends to be a tool used to oppress minorities).

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Scott
That's obviously false. Some "indecent material" is illegal. I guess the people who wrote that article are not as smart as they thoguht they were.

Read the quote again, Herr Scientist.

[giant]

So I got the questions:
http://firstamendment.jideas.org/

One thing that clear: it has nothing to do with politcal correctness. Far more students believe offensive song lyrics should be allowed and that unpopular opinions should be freely expressed than believe that the press should be free of gov't intervention or that people should be allowed to deface the flag.

In other words, the bias is on the right end of the spectrum.

And you guys failed. Again. Not that it will stop you from promoting yet another one of your myths.

[Anders]

So compressed: People should be allowed to listen to gangster rap but not be allowed to say what they feel about the war in Iraq? Freedom to diss each other but not those in power (or the symbol of their power)?

[addabox]

Belligerent nationalism leads to increase in violent attacks on immigrants: it's the liberal's fault!
More and more wealth concentrated in top 1%: it's the liberals fault!
Erosion of standards leads to increased toxicity in the environment: it's the liberals fault!
Massive deficit spending cripples the governments capacity to respond to new challenges for generations to come: it's the liberals fault!

Just saving time for later......

[Scott]

Originally posted by giant
So I got the questions:
http://firstamendment.jideas.org/

...

I can't find the questions there. Are they hidden in some deeply nested link?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
I can't find the questions there. Are they hidden in some deeply nested link?

here (http://firstamendment.jideas.org/students/students.php).

[giant]

and graphs (http://firstamendment.jideas.org/findings/findings.php)

you might need this (http://hsc.unm.edu/wbc/browser_scroll.html)

[midwinter]

I think I may be more disturbed by the 3% of teachers who don't think people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions. Or the 20% of teachers and principals who believe that newspapers should get gov't approval for their stories.

[tonton]

I recently saw an episode of "Boston Public" where a bunch of kids beat the crap out of a kid, almost killing him, for criticizing US policy WRT the war while he was representing France in a mock UN conference in the classroom. They said that that kind of speech should be illegal.

Remember the teenage Apple Insiders who claimed that Michael Moore had committed treason and should be arrested (or was it executed)?

There are lots of kids out there who think this way. And this is what this poll reflects. And yes, this kind of thought is unequivocably "anti-American" to the core.

[tonton]

It doesn't take a PhD to parse the difference between "some" and "all". That is the most basic reading comprehension. Our education system has failed in so many areas.

[Scott]

52. Under current law, does the government have the right to restrict indecent material on the Internet?

49% Yes

51 No

49% of the kids got it right.

[Scott]

Originally posted by tonton
I recently saw an episode of "Boston Public" where a bunch of kids beat the crap out of a kid, almost killing him, for criticizing US policy WRT the war while he was representing France in a mock UN conference in the classroom. They said that that kind of speech should be illegal.

...

You do realize that "Boston Public" is a fictional TV show. There is no libreal media.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
49% of the kids got it right.

Indeed.

[timmy o'tool]

Jesus Christ! What is happening to this country. When I was a kid, any form of censorship would have been rejected on priciple. Are all Americans turning into sheep. I want my country back!

[midwinter]

Originally posted by timmy o'tool
Jesus Christ! What is happening to this country. When I was a kid, any form of censorship would have been rejected on priciple. Are all Americans turning into sheep. I want my country back!

The mainstream media is evil and must be contained. Didn't you get the memo? I think either James Dobson or Don Wildmon might have an extra copy.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Scott
You do realize that "Boston Public" is a fictional TV show. There is no libreal media.

I'm not saying anyone has really been put in hospital at any schools (though they may have, I just don't know). But there is definitely that sentiment there. And that's what the writers of the show wanted to say.

[giant]

Originally posted by Scott
That's obviously false. Some "indecent material" is illegal. I guess the people who wrote that article are not as smart as they thoguht they were.
or you're not

Indecent material can't be restriced, and there is a distinction between indecent and obscene. When the Communications Decency Act went to the supreme court, the court ruled that indecent materials couldn't be restricted online. So the survey question is accurate.

And, as noted earlier, political correctness is clearly not what's motivating these kids to think that free speech should be limited. The results show that far more support offensive speech than support freedom of the press or freedom of speech aimed at the gov't.

[shetline]

Originally posted by giant
So I got the questions:
http://firstamendment.jideas.org/

What I think is interesting/amusing/sad about the results from questions like "People should be allowed to express unpopular opinions -- agree or disagree?", which, in and of themselves get decent, free-speech-respecting results like 83% is that, as soon as you ask about specific unpopular opionions, numbers that high with go right out the door.

If students -- and adults for that matter -- truly understood the right of free expression, the answers would be exactly the same for all of these questions:

People should be allowed to express unpopular opinions -- agree or disagree?
People should be allowed to express disagreement with government policy during time of war -- agree or disagree?
People should be allowed to express disagreement with the Bible -- agree or disagree?
People should be allowed to express disagreement with evolution -- agree or disagree?
People should be allowed to express unpatriotic opinions -- agree or disagree?
People should be allowed to express sexual desires which the majority in their communities consider "perverse" -- agree or disagree?
People should be allowed to express support for communism -- agree or disagree?
People should be allowed to express support for foreign goverments at odds with our own government -- agree or disagree?
People should be allowed to express disdain for soldiers -- agree or disagree?
People should be allowed to express disdain for racial minorities -- agree or disagree?

You can safely bet, however, that the support for expressing specific unpopular opinions will be lower, perhaps much lower, than support for the vague general notion of expressing unpopular opinions.

[Aurora]

Kids are stupid, not having the First Amendment opens the door to the tryants,powermongers control freaks that seem to infest all govts. Govt's everywhere would love to be able to run our lives as it sees fit. wrong. 1st amendment and freedom of the press is the main glue of our democracy without it we could easily become another police state with tyrants ruling. Think of the Saddams,The Hitlers,the Stalins and even our own George who had no problem with wiping out our rights under the discraceful freedom robbing and liberty stealing Patriot Act. These same stupid kids are ripe for the picking for these tyrants. Govt loves to control things. Look at France & Germany and all the stupid things they are doing to take away liberty's and freedoms. Cant say this or your arrested? cant wear a scarf to school? take that cross off before you offend someone.Those 2 countries are trying like hell to run and control the E.U. Govt needs to get the hell out of our lives but from what these stupid kids say they want someone running their lives telling them what to do every moment. Without freedom of speech democracy is dead and the door is open for Tyranny and abuse of power. Power does corrupt. Its happening allready in Russia. any excuse to quell freedom of speech. That country is falling right back into Communism/Dictatorship watch and see.This is easy when the Govt controls the press. Only thing stopping it here in the U.S. is the First Amendment. Imagine George Bush running this country with no one to be able to challenge his positions or even counter argue. The world is on its way to a police state and all Govts will use the terrorist threat to sap away our freedoms in the false guise of security. People better wake up to this or we will have another World War on our hands. Nazi Germany happened only 50 years ago and this same thing could happen again.

[Eric_Z]

@shetline

One of the major rules when creating polls is that the question should use language that is as easy [using "complex" words is a big no no] and un-ambigous as possible.

I'm not an native english speaker, but when I read that survey I get the feeling that the word "express" in that survey could possibly cause some cunfusion. I.E it breaks the above "rule".


Cambridge dictionaries online gives the meaning of express yourself (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=27150&dict=CALD) as: To communicate what you think or feel, by speaking or writing, or in some other way. [emphasis added]

for example when they ask People should be allowed to express sexual desires which the majority in their communities consider "perverse" -- agree or disagree?, what do they mean with "express"?

The highschool kids might agree on that you should be able to talk and communicate about your "desires". Untill the though occurs "but can express allso mean to act out? When I want to express myselfe through [insert hobby] I physically do something, should peadophiles be allowed to express themselves by molesting small children?"

Not that I think that the poll means to use the word "express" in such way wich is argued above, but I can understand if some people get confused.

[spindler]

There's something REALLY stupid about this poll. They should have asked high school *graduates* or those done with history, not 9th or 10th grades. It's like asking someone if they think math is important before they have taken algebra. I don't see why you would ask a high school student who has not completed all their requirements in American history about the first amendment and then use this as part of a statistic.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by groverat
This thread really need to take a path towards substance. And it needs to take that path very soon.
I thought that you, as a moderator, would have learned by now that all PoliticalOutsider topics should be locked before they're posted.

[johnq]

40. The First Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution more than 200 years ago. This is what it says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Based on your own feelings about the First Amendment, please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.

12% Strongly agree
23% Mildly agree
19% Mildly disagree
25% Strongly disagree
21% Don’t know


*sigh* I knew the actual question would be like this.

Since the First Amendment is not one thing but many, the question is misleading.

Look at what it is showing and what it is asking.

A RepubliKid is going to see:

(Disagree that it goes too far)
The First Amendment, prevents Muslims, Hindus etc. from injecting their religions into our government, aids our Right-wing protesters and media so they can say whatever they want to about the Left, allows our Pro-Lifers to protest in public, and guarantees the People will be heard.

OR:

(Agree it goes too far)
The First Amendment, the thing that the ACLU is always hiding behind, prohibits our Republicans in Congress to promote and further religion, aids the Left-wing protesters and media so they can say whatever vile lies they want to, allows the anti-American freaks to protest in public, and guarantees their lobbyists will be heard.


A DemoKid is going to see:

(Disagree that it goes too far)
The First Amendment, the thing that the ACLU is always using to help the discriminated and oppressed, keeps the Republicans in Congress from promoting and furthering religion, aids protesters and media so they can say whatever they want to and exposing tyranny and injustice, allows the American public to protest in public, and guarantees their voices will be heard.

OR:

(Agree it goes too far)
The First Amendment, the thing that the KKK is always hiding behind, hinders our Democrats in Congress from reducing religious influences in government, aids the Right-wing protesters and media so they can say whatever vile lies they want to, allows the anti-Choice freaks to protest in public, and guarantees their gun and tobacco lobbyists will be heard.

Ok, I'm misinterpreting the First Amendment a bit and each sides actual views, but the point is that the readers can contribute equally to every total:

12% Strongly agree (RepubliKids & DemoKids)
23% Mildly agree (RepubliKids & DemoKids)
19% Mildly disagree (RepubliKids & DemoKids)
25% Strongly disagree (RepubliKids & DemoKids)
21% Don’t know (RepubliKids & DemoKids)

Truly useless statistic.

Argh. Oh well.

(Forgive my binary RepubliKids/DemoKids labels, I know the real world is less black and white. Um, I hope anyway.)