Let’s be honest, people overuse the benefits of the First Amendment. Everyone talks about hiding behind the Fifth Amendment, but what about the opposite? People abuse the First Amendment because they think it gives them carte blanche to say whatever they want. But to quote Walter Sobcheck, “This is not ‘Nam, Smokey, there are rules.” There are rules that need to be followed; and when there aren’t rules, there are codes that should be followed.
State lawmakers are proposing a bill that would protect students from being punished for what they say on personal blogs. The case subject is a 16-year old high school student who posted on her blog that her teachers were “douche-bags.” The school disciplined her by prohibiting her to run for student government. Now the lawmakers want to take this case all the way up to the Supreme Court because they believe the student’s First Amendment rights were violated. If you read my blog from a few weeks back, I talked about how the internet is public domain, not private. So if the internet is public domain, what is the difference between what the student did and if she were to go into the school hallway and scream it? Not every student or teacher in school would have heard her scream, but you better believe they would have heard about it. Similarly, maybe not every student or teacher read the blog, but it got around and they heard about it. So what’s the difference? If the student were to yell disparaging remarks in the hallway about her teachers, she would be disciplined. Likewise, she should be disciplined for this. If she is out of school for summer or if she graduates, she can say whatever she pleases. But if she is enrolled in the school and those teachers have authority over her, then she should be punished. That’s why we have rules—to keep some semblance of order. It’s also a respect issue. Would she say those things to the teachers’ faces? Not likely, hence the blog. We have to be able to discipline kids—they don’t make the rules. That they don’t know any better is what makes them kids. When they get old enough they can make their own rules, but until then they need to follow the ones in place.
Joe Torre is exercising his First Amendment right by telling all in his new book, The Yankee Years. Joe can write whatever he wants; that’s his right. But just because it’s a right, doesn’t mean that it is right. Once again, this is a respect issue more than a First Amendment issue. Players and managers alike respect the so-called “sanctity of the clubhouse.” It’s not everyone’s business to know what happens behind those closed doors. How are the players supposed to be themselves if anything they say or do is going to be public knowledge? If that’s the case, can you blame a guy like ARod for putting on a front? Torre says that nothing in his book is new information. Really? So why put out the book? Joe must be either spiteful or greedy. Or both. Books of this nature can be highly entertaining—look at Sparky Lyle’s Bronx Zoo, a book about the players on the 1978 Yankees team. Sparky was shunned by players on future teams he played on because they were afraid of being written about in the sequel. I wouldn’t be surprised if Joe Torre’s current players feel the same way. Granted, Los Angeles isn’t quite the mess that is New York, and the baseball spotlight shines much more heavily in the Bronx, but the principal remains the same. Joe violated the code. But that’s why the unwritten code is in place—to protect the people who abide by it.
I don’t understand why we have such a hard time following the rules anymore. It seems like people, in one form or another, feel that the rules don’t apply them; that they’re above the law. It’s unfortunate that people hide behind the First Amendment and almost use it as a vehicle to circumvent the rules. Every American has the same rights, though clearly not everyone has the same ethics.
The First Amendment, my favorite. I'll try to keep this as concise as possible but it will probably end up being a blog in itself. Your first point in that there needs to be rules or codes for freedom of speech only applies when people are in danger of being physically injured, i.e. yelling "Fire" in a movie theater. The minute that you place any other rules or codes on freedom of speech is the moment that it stops being a freedom. Gray areas can't exist when it comes to freedom; either it is a freedom or it isn't. Should we, for example, put rules or codes on comedy as Reverand Al advocates for racial humor? According to him, as well as the leaders of numerous other special interest groups, comedy that offends or insults shouldn't be allowed. According to their code, any comment that hurts a person's feelings has no place in our society. In the words of Jim Norton, "We're a nation of children, of diaper-wearing babies." Our society has given words too much power while simultaneously becoming too sensitive. If words offend you or hurt your feelings then don’t read that blog, don’t see that comedian, don’t listen to that radio program. You have the right to ignore anything you want. However, the moment you react to words that hurt is the moment that you give power to those words.
ReplyDeleteNow moving on to the case in point. The only jurisdiction that the school has over her is anything written on her blog on a school computer. The school can make the argument that the computer wasn't used for an educational purpose. Other than that they have no right to punish her for having the blog or for what she may write in it. In your blog you compared writing in her blog to screaming it in the school's hallway, and asked what's the difference. The difference is that saying something on school property is completely different from saying something on the internet. The school has jurisdiction (I hate to use that word again) over words and actions said on school grounds. It has no jurisdiction (time for me to buy a thesaurus) over the Internet; no one does. This is absolutely a First Amendment issue -- putting aside the fact that the school can say it punished her for the misuse of school property -- and I'll tell you why. Suppose that she had blogged about how great her teachers are and how much she enjoys their classes. Would the school have an issue with the blog? Of course not because it paints the school and its staff in a golden light. But the First Amendment was not created to protect safe speech because there is no need to protect safe speech. Our forefathers created the First Amendment in order to protect controversial speech, with offensive speech falling under this umbrella. You also raised points about her age and it being a respect issue. Her age has nothing to do with it. Offensive comments can be disrespectful but that doesn’t mean that she has any less of a right to say or write them, regardless of her age. Should the freedom of speech not apply to her because she is a 16 year old writing about people older than herself? And which already-established rules is she breaking? As far as I know there is no rule or law that forbids her from expressing herself in a blog on the internet, even if she is questioning authority. If we weren’t allowed to question authority, then what would the New York Times have written about for the past eight years?
The restriction and resulting consequence of communicating unfavorable feelings are what communist and certain Middle Eastern nations do to control their citizens. Isn’t the United States supposed to be above that?