The First Amendment doesn't protect Violence

Image Link

 In an article by NBC News, Elisha Fieldstadt highlights the arrest of Kelly Jackson who was sentenced to 40 months in prison for using Molotov cocktails in order to set police cars on fire during a protest for the death of George Floyd. The problem is, actions, especially violent ones such as damaging property, are not protected by the First Amendment and it is rather a crime. 

The First Amendment is extremely important to the foundation of our country, and while it does cover and protect a lot, it can be limited when it comes to assembly, speech, and petition. The only time an action can be protected is when it is a peaceful expressive action. Expressive actions are messages without words therefore it can be protected. However, most other actions are not a right and neither is speech that is threatening especially if towards someone important like the president. 

There are also limitations depending on where and in what circumstances it happens. The government is the only one who can violate your rights. What I mean by this is, if you went to a private school, they are allowed to forbid you from saying or doing whatever they please. 

These tie into the Bedrock Principles which state things like the First Amendment isn't a shield against laws that apply to everyone.  Crime applies to everyone and you aren't exempt because of any circumstance such as religion. The bedrock principal also says that freedom of the press is a personal right not institutional. This means everyone can print what they want as long as it is protected, not only big industries like news outlets. 

It is important to remember when going to a protest, you must still abide by laws and make sure what you are doing is covered by your rights, otherwise like Kelly Jackson, you will have to deal with the consequences. 

Reflection of Supreme Court

 I learned a lot from the videos on the Supreme Court history. I honestly did not know much at all about the Supreme court except that they went over cases and made bigger decisions here in the U.S. I was surprised by the beginning of their history, they had a much smaller presence inside of another building and many people did not respect them at first. It started with John Marshall who began to shape the way it is today. However, 20 years later with the Dred Scott case in 1857, many people were upset by the decision and it hurt the power of the courts. I also didn't realize how demanding of a job it was.  

Many of the judges in the video talked about how they received thousands of cases a day, and had a lot of pressure to research and use the correct process in order to go into court with a decision. Some even joked it takes 3-7 years to adjust to the job.  Because there are so many cases and it's a demanding job, they are on a very crunched timeline. The lawyers have 30 minutes to present, and the judges have 4 weeks to write the opinion, which they often draft and redraft many times before release. I thought this all was interesting and I didn't realize how much work it really was. 

I kind of knew but also didn't know the extent was, how open and public the courts are. Once decisions are made, the press then race to condense the very long opinion statements into something more manageable they can release to the public so they understand the decision and the reasons. Overall I was amazed at all the work they have to do in such a rushed time period, it has definitely increased my personal respect for them.

Something from the video that I found had an interesting relation to current day was how the judges said it was like a tradition for them to all shake hands before starting their cases. In today's world with Covid, handshaking has been stopped in many environments and I can't help but wonder how that has affected the way they do their tradition and if they adapted it or not.

How speech theories have impacted us today

     After reading over the eight speech theories, there were three that stood out the most to me, two of them being similar. The two theories that stood out to me as being important and similar are Individual Self-Fulfillment and Promote Innovation. Both of these theories talk about using freedom of speech in order to create identity, creativity, fulfill themselves and have dignity. I would say this theory is greatly supported by today’s social media. As of 2021, we have what I would argue is the greatest amount of diversity yet in history. Taking Tik Tok for example, there is content for everyone, made by everyone. People using this social media platform seem to be really free and open with who they are no matter gender, race, sexuality, and other identity factors. They are able to use this platform that allows them to create content in order to be creative and express themselves as who they are. Although I think people would express themselves and have identity without social media, It definitely exemplifies how much someone goes out of their way to broadcast their identity, in this case to the world. This is only made possible because of the two speech theories and that we have the freedom to do so in our country. 

Tik Tok isn’t the only example of this however, this is universal to many other social media platforms like Instagram but also in real life as well. In previous years in a High School, if you wanted to be “cool” you’d probably wear the same thing as everyone else. However, nowadays, this is changing and standing out and being your own original individual is the new “cool”. 

Image link

Now, turning the tables, the third theory that stood out to be in a different way was to Promote tolerance. Instead of this theory becoming more relevant today like the other two, It seems as though it is actually the opposite. A topic that has been building up over the years but seems especially pressing as of 2020 and 2021 is lack of tolerance and what seems as though everyone is offended by everything. However, there is still truth to this theory. Part of this theory states that by promoting tolerance you will shape society to be able to condemn hate speech on their own. However it has blown way past that today. No matter what you say, or what the intentions are, there is a group in society that will tear you apart for it. It has made a very blurry line on what is “acceptable behavior” and what everyone should see as condemned. With this comes a very controversial issue on the internet, cancel culture. In this article by Aja Romano at Vox, it outlines why “cancel culture” is a problem and how it is actually interfering with history and our freedom of speech. One recent example of this was the cancelling of the Mr. Potato Head toy. Although there was confusion with what happened with this, the brand decided to drop the “Mr.” out of the name and include a line of all gender inclusive potatoes as well as the original Mr. and Mrs. Unfortunately it's not only childhood toys, its real people as well. 

5 Sources of News

Although I know news is important, local and world wide, I do not often read into it as much as I should. However, when I do, these are 5 sources I may use to look into a topic.

1. Google news 

https://news.google.com/topstories?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

I use google news for a few reasons, It can be reliable if you check who has published the article, it is easy to access, and it searches the majority of the internet giving you a lot of results. Cons would be that because it pulls up a lot of different sources, some of them are not reliable and sometimes it is a lot to look through. 

2. My local town newspaper

I will not be linking this one for privacy reasons, but, local newspapers are easy to look through, they have to be pretty reliable because they are being published in the town, and it helps narrow down information to local stuff going on. Cons would be you may not get more global information.

3.  TV News station

TV news is good for a couple of reasons, again it has to be somewhat reliable because is broadcasted country wide,  it is also easy to follow because you can listen or watch instead of read. It is also usually up to date daily on the current information. Cons are, sometimes depending on the channel it can be biased on certain topics, and you also need the right platform to be able to watch it. 

4. Instagram

https://www.instagram.com/

This platform I can admit is not the best for getting information, but it is convenient. I am on the app regardless if I am looking for news or not so I am forced to see what people are posting about topics. What I can do and sometimes will do, is if I see a topic that is interesting or seems important or instagram, I will then go and research it on one of the other news platforms to see if that person posting is reliable and getting the correct information. Cons are it is not very reliable because it is a lot of opinion and not verified info. 

5.  Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/ 

Lastly, another one that isn't the greatest but is again convenient. Youtube has its own news tab which because youtube is owned by google, is often similar topics you could find on google news but in video form if that is easier for one to follow. However, I usually use youtube for more personal drama news such as what scandal different people are in. Cons are again, being reliable unless it is verified.