First Amendment no big deal, students say

[dr. what]

Mission Accomplished!

First Amendment no big deal, students say
Study shows American teenagers indifferent to freedoms
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The way many high school students see it, government censorship of newspapers may not be a bad thing, and flag burning is hardly protected free speech.

It turns out the First Amendment is a second-rate issue to many of those nearing their own adult independence, according to a study of high school attitudes released Monday.

The original amendment to the Constitution is the cornerstone of the way of life in the United States, promising citizens the freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly.

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes “too far” in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

“These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous,” said Hodding Carter III, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which sponsored the $1 million study. “Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation’s future.”

The students are even more restrictive in their views than their elders, the study says.

When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes. Only 83 percent of students did.

Indifference, misunderstanding

The results reflected indifference, with almost three in four students saying they took the First Amendment for granted or didn’t know how they felt about it. It was also clear that many students do not understand what is protected by the bedrock of the Bill of Rights.

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.

“Schools don’t do enough to teach the First Amendment. Students often don’t know the rights it protects,” Linda Puntney, executive director of the Journalism Education Association, said in the report. “This all comes at a time when there is decreasing passion for much of anything. And, you have to be passionate about the First Amendment.”

The partners in the project, including organizations of newspaper editors and radio and television news directors, share a clear advocacy for First Amendment issues.

Federal and state officials, meanwhile, have bemoaned a lack of knowledge of U.S. civics and history among young people. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., has even pushed through a mandate that schools must teach about the Constitution on Sept. 17, the date it was signed in 1787.

The survey, conducted by researchers at the University of Connecticut, is billed as the largest of its kind. More than 100,000 students, nearly 8,000 teachers and more than 500 administrators at 544 public and private high schools took part in early 2004.

Lack of education

The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don’t make the matter a priority.

Students who take part in school media activities, such as a student newspapers or TV production, are much more likely to support expression of unpopular views, for example.

About nine in 10 principals said it is important for all students to learn some journalism skills, but most administrators say a lack of money limits their media offerings.

More than one in five schools offer no student media opportunities; of the high schools that do not offer student newspapers, 40 percent have eliminated them in the last five years.

“The last 15 years have not been a golden era for student media,” said Warren Watson, director of the J-Ideas project at Ball State University in Indiana. “Programs are under siege or dying from neglect. Many students do not get the opportunity to practice our basic freedoms.”

[Darth Wong]

This is not surprising, after years of being indoctrinated to think that certain political views are "unAmerican" and even traitorous, hence actually constituting a material threat to society which should be suppressed.

[RedImperator]

I tend to blame a sharp deline in the quality of social studies education. They don't know why the First Amendment matters, they have no idea what it would mean not to have it, and being kids, they're too short-sighted to realize any restrictions placed on "wrong" speech could be turned around on them. So why wouldn't they be in favor of restrictions? It's a perfectly logical position to hold, so long as there are sufficiently large gaps in your historical and political knowledge.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This makes me sad... Still, there arent enough of them to really hurt us legally...

[Darth Wong]

I have to also suspect that the political demonization of the ACLU has not helped in this regard. Mention the ACLU to your average person nowadays and he'll roll his eyes in disgust.

[Stofsk]

This makes me sad... Still, there arent enough of them to really hurt us legally...

It may very well be a trend that grows as time goes on, which can lead to problems. Best to tackle it early than late, but what to do? Education seems the best bet.

[frigidmagi]

This makes me sad... Still, there arent enough of them to really hurt us legally...

Yet. But kittens grow to cats, this is trend that should be stomped on hard now. Before it becomes a problem.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This makes me sad... Still, there arent enough of them to really hurt us legally...

Yet. But kittens grow to cats, this is trend that should be stomped on hard now. Before it becomes a problem.

I heartily agree.

I have to also suspect that the political demonization of the ACLU has not helped in this regard. Mention the ACLU to your average person nowadays and he'll roll his eyes in disgust.

Because it is "anti christian" oh, I see... so... you stop fundies from opressing someone... and in doing so you oppress the fundies..

[Master of Ossus]

I have to also suspect that the political demonization of the ACLU has not helped in this regard. Mention the ACLU to your average person nowadays and he'll roll his eyes in disgust.

Granted, although I suspect that the ACLU's declining image is largely due to their own willingness to pick up seriously un-popular cases. While you can argue that their cases lack public support only because of a shift in the views of the country, that would suggest that the ACLU's decline in the public eye is some sort of cyclical or even proximate cause as opposed to the ultimate cause of the underappreciation of rights.

[Elfdart]

This is nothing new. One of the colleges in the Midwest used to give the text of the Bill of Rights (without telling them what it was) to new students and asked what they thought of it. Most didn't like it. What's more, most didn't even recognize what it was.

A few years ago Rep. Melvin Watt added the exact wording of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments into a "crime" bill and the majority of House members voted against it.

[Darth Wong]

A few years ago Rep. Melvin Watt added the exact wording of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments into a "crime" bill and the majority of House members voted against it.

Forgive me for laughing at your misfortune, but that's the funniest fucking thing I've heard all day.

[Chmee]

"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so."
- Bertrand Russell

[Questor]

Forgive me for laughing at your misfortune, but that's the funniest fucking thing I've heard all day.

I agree that it is funny, but I would like to see the reasoning behind the votes against it. If they recognized that the protections already existed in the constitution and did not want to create redundancy they should be applauded not mocked.

I'd also like to know what the rest of the bill was. If I recall correctly, the entrire house does not vote on ammendments to bills. This means that if the house voted against it, they might not have been voting against those provisions.

[Phil Skayhan]

A few years ago Rep. Melvin Watt added the exact wording of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments into a "crime" bill and the majority of House members voted against it.

Just as a reference for the curious, it was February 7, 1995 as a proposed amendment to H.R. 666 ( ). It was rejected by a vote of 303-121.

However, I have been unable to find minutes of any debate on the floor of the House. I wonder if many rejected it simply because it was redundant via the Constitution. Of course, considering the layers of redundancy that occurs in lawmaking, I'm not going to place any money on that bet.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

The apathy is kinda disturbing. Why does this affect some people but not others? What stops some people from buying into it?

I mean, people can go to the same educational facilities, watch the same news, live in the same areas, yet they have totally different perspectives.

For example, on another forum i go to, half the people live in the same area and have the above opinion, the other half didn't. What causes this?


The above is bad, but someon once told me that it's wonderful to live in a country where you don't have to justify your beliefs--it's good to have the right to be irrational. Does that say much? It's ok not to care?

[Darth Wong]

The apathy is kinda disturbing. Why does this affect some people but not others? What stops some people from buying into it?

I mean, people can go to the same educational facilities, watch the same news, live in the same areas, yet they have totally different perspectives.

For example, on another forum i go to, half the people live in the same area and have the above opinion, the other half didn't. What causes this?


The above is bad, but someon once told me that it's wonderful to live in a country where you don't have to justify your beliefs--it's good to have the right to be irrational. Does that say much? It's ok not to care?

Do you want to know what's so fucking ironic about this? It's a side-effect of liberal attitudes toward disadvantaged people. Specifically, politically correct treatment of people who don't do well at school, don't know their history, can't do math, etc. In short, society is not permitted to openly scorn ignorance any more. This facilitiates ignorant people who want to be happy and content, even proud in their state of ignorance.

[Prozac the Robert]

On the other hand there is a case for the media having too much power over politics; limiting what they are allowed to say to make it stay close to the truth wouldn't nescesarily be a bad thing.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Do you want to know what's so fucking ironic about this? It's a side-effect of liberal attitudes toward disadvantaged people. Specifically, politically correct treatment of people who don't do well at school, don't know their history, can't do math, etc. In short, society is not permitted to openly scorn ignorance any more. This facilitiates ignorant people who want to be happy and content, even proud in their state of ignorance.

It's a vicious cycle, though. I wouldn't delude myself into thinking we'd find the perfect middle ground, because we likely won't as ever. If it's not being so tolerant that idiots are above being called on their ignorance, then it's to the point that elitism spreads like wildfire and tolerance takes a dip. Extremes only ever come of this it would seem, a sad case.

[Mange]

The apathy is kinda disturbing. Why does this affect some people but not others? What stops some people from buying into it?

I mean, people can go to the same educational facilities, watch the same news, live in the same areas, yet they have totally different perspectives.

For example, on another forum i go to, half the people live in the same area and have the above opinion, the other half didn't. What causes this?


The above is bad, but someon once told me that it's wonderful to live in a country where you don't have to justify your beliefs--it's good to have the right to be irrational. Does that say much? It's ok not to care?

Do you want to know what's so fucking ironic about this? It's a side-effect of liberal attitudes toward disadvantaged people. Specifically, politically correct treatment of people who don't do well at school, don't know their history, can't do math, etc. In short, society is not permitted to openly scorn ignorance any more. This facilitiates ignorant people who want to be happy and content, even proud in their state of ignorance.

Yes, I agree. As long as you're blissfully ignorant, you don't have to question things around you.

[Stormbringer]

A few years ago Rep. Melvin Watt added the exact wording of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments into a "crime" bill and the majority of House members voted against it.

Just as a reference for the curious, it was February 7, 1995 as a proposed amendment to H.R. 666 ( ). It was rejected by a vote of 303-121.

However, I have been unable to find minutes of any debate on the floor of the House. I wonder if many rejected it simply because it was redundant via the Constitution. Of course, considering the layers of redundancy that occurs in lawmaking, I'm not going to place any money on that bet.

Of course one has to wonder what sort of bill it was that this was attached to. If the crime bill was for say The Immediate Internment and Execution of all fluffy kitties, wide eyed puppies, and other adorable animals" then it might not pass, irregardless of the amendmants being inserted. There have been other similarly insane stunts pulled with such trickery.

[Crown]

This is not surprising, after years of being indoctrinated to think that certain political views are "unAmerican" and even traitorous, hence actually constituting a material threat to society which should be suppressed.

I also think apathy plays a big part, today's generation has been indoctrined just as much (I would imagine, after all the next part is beyond my time) as the hippy generation was about what was 'proper' and 'American', and yet those students were out there burning flags and all the other stuff.

[Shinova]

On the other hand there is a case for the media having too much power over politics; limiting what they are allowed to say to make it stay close to the truth wouldn't nescesarily be a bad thing.

Of course, then you could have the people at the top slowly redefining "truth" toward their own personal whims, so it's not the best of solutions.

[Shinova]

All of this, and every other piece of news I read where people somehow do just the darnest of things or think the darnest of things, or just refuse to think at all, almost leads me to think that there's a genetic factor in humans that compels at least a small fraction of them to think or act differently from every other human being. Like as if there's some unwritten rule coded into the human race that there MUST be at least some people who are racist, indifferent, plain stupid, etc.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

On the other hand there is a case for the media having too much power over politics; limiting what they are allowed to say to make it stay close to the truth wouldn't nescesarily be a bad thing.

That is dangerous thinking, as it immediately begs the question: "Who gets to define what is truthful?"

For example, take the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. One can make several statements about the invasion that would be, objectively, thought to posess a grain of truth:

A) The American invasion of Iraq was politically motivated, to draw attention away from the foundering search for Osama bin-Laden, and to provide lucrative post-war contracts to American companies. It was based on a flaky interpretation of flaky intelligence that was really just a smoke-screen for the previously mentioned reasons.

B) The American invasion of Iraq was based on intelligence that indicated that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Hussein's also been a serious pain in the ass since we thumped him the first time in 1991. Removing him would increase stability in the region.

C) The American invasion of Iraq is less of an invasion, and more of a liberation. We're freeing the Iraqi people from a corrupt, tyrannical, and power-mad regime with a marked tendency towards ethnic genocide and making enemies of the state disappear from their homes at night. Removing him and instating a democratic republic which values human rights was the only right thing to do.

Neocons would promote C to be the absolute truth. Hard-bitten, cynical left-wing liberals would promote A to be the absolute truth. A basic, though naive analysis would say the truth lies in B. Getting only one of the three, while maintaining the spirit of truthfulness, only tells a story with a certain spin. Tightly regulating the press to ensure "truthful" content is, again, risky business.

[DPDarkPrimus]

This is why I consider myself a good American citizen. I actually know what this country is founded on, and I want to have those ideals kept.