Republican V. Democrat?

Are the political parties really as simple as Republican and Democrat?

The answer is No.

Like we have talked about in class the political spectrum is not as simple as just Republican and Democrat. There are so many variations of these two sides and some in the middle as well. However, one main problem with this is that when the political spectrum is so polarized, many people get sucked into ideals that they don't believe in. For example, if someone has more liberal ideals for one topic, they immediately put themselves as being a Democrat. Then if there is another issue that they maybe have more conservative feelings towards, they will either not voice their conservative beliefs or they will still side with the other Democrats. This is because they have been influenced by the polarization that if they have to choose one or the other.

Also, being in the middle ground has recently been more and more discouraged. For presidents, they are being encouraged to pick either a strong left or a strong left viewpoint and stick with it. With the voters and the presidents being so polarized, this also creates strong discontent for the opposing parties. They have resorted to attacking each other to get their own results. Then after they attack each other, they refuse to work with each other. This causes many backups in the government and they can't seem to compromise on anything really.

I'm not sure how we can depolarize our politics, or even if it is the best thing to do. All I do know is that this is happening, and it does have effects on our voters.

Source: https://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/
https://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/section-1-growing-ideological-consistency/pp-2014-06-12-polarization-1-01/

Student Rights

For the law and society project, my group looked at a search and seizure Supreme Court case relating to student rights (Safford Unified School District v. Redding). Aside from Tinker v. Des Moines, this was pretty much the only case that I've seen this year in which the Supreme Court sides with the student over the school. I've come to the conclusion that in most cases, the Supreme Court will side against the student. This is due to the fact that the school's primary job is to keep the students and the school safe, and it's difficult to prove that the measures taken to keep the school safe are too extreme. In Safford v. Redding, the court sided with Redding because it was such a blatant violation of her civil rights to strip-search a 13-year-old girl without any real reasonable suspicion that they would find anything additional in her clothes that they didn't already find in her backpack. In Tinker v. Des Moines, they sided with the students because the students were not doing anything except wearing armbands protesting the war, which was not posing a danger to the school. However, it's rare in cases with a student against the school that the courts will side with the student. This has led to students having very few rights on campus. While I do agree that it's important that a school's first priority is to keep the school safe, it's also disheartening to know that past cases have set a precedent that if anything were to happen, the chances that the courts would side with us are low.

Affirmative Action in College.

As we enter our final year of high school, we have to consider where we'll spend the next 4 years of our lives. Increasingly, the debate surrounding affirmative action has become relevant again, the most recent case of this being the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University.

While many may see this newest case against Affirmative Action as a new development because it is arguing that Harvard is discriminating against Asians, a historically discriminated against race in the United States, there are several more motives behind it that need to be considered.

The Students for Fair Admissions organization is led by Edward Blum, a conservative political strategist most notably led for other cases he brought against Affirmative Action and minorities' rights such as Abigail Fisher v. Texas (a case against affirmative action brought by a white woman) and Shelby County v. Holder (a case where districts were drawn sometimes to give discriminated against minorities an extra boost).

So while Harvard University may or may not be discriminating against Asians, rating them lower on a personality scale and calling them less likable, courageous, and kind, it is imperative to realize that the ulterior motives of this lawsuit are a move by white conservative politicians to further limit the rights of minorities. The new case against Harvard is just another vehicle for Blum's ulterior motives of striking down affirmative action, following the failure of Fisher v. Texas.

So yes, while Harvard might hold bias against Asian Americans or admit them at a significantly lower rate than their other minority counterparts with similar profiles, it's important not to fall for Blum's ploy of plotting minority v. minority, to ultimately strike down the rights of minorities across the board.

What do Political Spectrums even mean?

All of us have seen a Venn diagram. They were created by John Venn in 1880, and that's pretty much all of the history behind them. Sorry. We've also all probably dealt with a three way Venn diagram. Scandalous! But within the four-way diagram, controversy! It's possible you've seen the kind pictured on the right, but this is actually not a four way Venn diagram. There's sections missing, like AC and BD. The true four-way Venn diagram looks like the one below it. Beautiful.

Now a rather forced transition into my point, political spectrums. The standard political spectrum is a horizontal line punctuated with various groups which fall on a certain point  between communism and fascism. Rather like the incorrect diagram, this doesn't really comprise individuals who fall between parties for some reason or another, forcing them to chose a side or be forgotten.

Political spectrums, at their core, are just ways to simplify an extremely complex political system. The problem with these over simplifications is that the real-life landscape of politics becomes shaped by them. The U.S. is very divided these days, and I can't help but think that some of that is due to the way these models are presented. As I mentioned earlier, I worry that overly simplified models can inspire an attitude of competition, one party against the other, rather than the air of compromise our country was built on.

Factions are important in our country, but representing them incorrectly as football teams rather than negotiators is incredibly harmful.

The Role of the Establishment Clause

Recently in class, my partner and I gave a presentation about Supreme Court cases in which the 1st amendment, and specifically the Establishment Clause, was violated. The main correlation between our cases(Edwards v. Aguillard, Epperson v. Arkansas) is the separation of Church and State. Everybody has varying opinions when it comes to how involved religion should be within our society, and inevitably that leads to it being entangled within our government. The Establishment Clause states that the government cannot force religion upon American citizens, yet that seems to be a constant political fight.
In the past, the Establishment Clause appeared countless times in court and many due to the debate between beliefs in evolution versus creationism. Creationism, a fundamentalist Christian theory on human existence, was believed by the majority of the population in the past, which is why it was originally taught in public schools. This theory taught that people were purposely made by divine creation, on a biblical level. When the Supreme court ruled that Darwin’s opposing theory of evolution would be taught in replacement of creationism, the country reacted negatively. Many parents wanted their children to learn what they had always believed in, and not this relatively new theory that was most likely shocking to many.
Of Pandas and People, a science textbook published in 1989, quickly became a controversial piece of work. The author’s perspective was rooted in pseudoscience, which are beliefs that are mistaken to be based upon real scientific evidence. The lessons in the book teach that humans did not evolve by chance, and rather, were created by a higher existence. However, that existence wasn’t necessarily God. Sound familiar? The textbook taught the pseudoscientific theory of how humans came to exist, which was quite similar to the basics of creationism. Like Mr. Stewart talked about in class after our presentation, the discussion proposed in Of Pandas and People is often argued to be a loophole around the 1st amendment, involving church and state without directly stating that intelligent design is based on a religious foundation.
So, how far can these strategies and loopholes go? The Establishment Clause is not one, clear line that can be drawn between church and state. Rather, it is a vague constitutional right that guides the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases like Epperson v. Arkansas. There are still many tactics that currently bring religion into the government, even if they’re not in plain sight. In conclusion, is it really possible to have a fully enforced Establishment Clause and a completely religion-free governing system?

Why Joe Biden Can't Beat Trump

Background - Today we talked about how candidates need to reach 3 (preferably 4) of 5 demographics of voters in order to win the presidential election.

One of the most common reasons I see people support Joe Biden is because they believe he can beat Trump. He's popular with black and establishment voters plus he has a lot of experience. In my opinion though, giving him the democratic nomination could lead to an easy win for Trump.

First, we have to consider why Trump won the election in the first place. He wasn't the most qualified by a long shot, he didn't seem to appeal to 4 or even 3 of the Republican demographic voting groups, and he had no previous experience in politics. So why did voters like him? What the establishment perceived as unprofessional and obscene, many Americans saw as honesty. They saw someone who didn't care what anyone else thought, someone who spoke his mind and riled up the Hollywood elites, someone who could be understood by the everyman.

And perhaps even more important, Trump was one of the most entertaining people to ever enter politics. He had his voters howling at his rallies, his jokes about his opponents were memorable and scathing (Ex - Lyin' Ted, Heartless Hillary, Sleepy Joe, Dumbo, etc). Many find politics boring but he made Americans watch presidential debates, he made them care.

Then there's Joe Biden. He's been around a long time, long enough to be on the wrong side of history for the very beginning from the Me Too Movement, have numerous women accuse him of uncomfortable touching, oppose gay rights, and vote against the Hyde amendment (funds for abortion). I watched the democratic debates and every time he spoke I disliked him more. He wasn't interesting to listen to, the only things I remember from him are his mistakes, and most of what he said can be summarized by, remember Obama???, and, Trump bad!!!

My theory about why he's doing so well in the polls is that most Americans don't watch the debates. They're long and tedious and the democrats have no equivalent to Trump to make it interesting. The people who like him haven't seen him bumble his way through almost every question he's asked or any of his recent embarrassing moments, they just remember/like him from the Obama era.

So when Biden ends up on stage against Trump, that will be the first time they really see him. And for all his faults, the one thing Trump is truly great at is decimating his opponents. Biden's record will be easy for Trump to attack, and his slow, rambling talking style will make it easy for Trump to once again take the spotlight. Progressives and millennials won't be energized by Biden, and when swing voters see them sparring on stage, Trump will be the name they remember.

Race as a Factor in College Admissions

           This past week we covered some cases involving affirmative action in schools, including Fisher v. University of Texas and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. The ruling for the latter was that racial quotas are unconstitutional, but race can be used as "one of many factors" for college admissions. But if we take a look at how the college admissions process has evolved, a recent debate has spurred over the use of affirmative action and whether even race should be considered. Public and private universities are allowed to try and have a certain number of minority students, but this doesn't mean that they can reject other qualified applicants. However, private schools have a bit more leeway when it comes to choosing applicants based on race because the student body is generally smaller than that of public schools. Public schools can resort to other methods such as recruitment or outreach programs to attract minority students. Also, admissions directors tend to look at factors other than GPA and test scores because not all schools have the same resources (i.e. Advanced Placement classes.) Yet, some people feel that affirmative action was effective initially but now it should be banned. In fact, some states, such as California and Michigan, have already eliminated it. Opponents believe that each individual should have an equal chance of being admitted, and affirmative action can promote "reverse discrimination" and eliminate meritocracy. I personally believe that race should remain as a factor because it is an important way to create a diverse student body. I also think that affirmative action is important because it encourages education and helps those who are disadvantaged.

sources:
https://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/college-planning/admissions/race-college-admissions2.htm
https://greengarageblog.org/20-principal-pros-and-cons-of-affirmative-action

Primary Elections

Primary elections are elections were voters select the candidates to run for public office. Primaries are either direct or indirect and may be either open or closed.

In a direct primary, voters choose candidates via a direct vote, while in an indirect primary, voters elect delegates who then choose the party’s candidates at a nominating convention.

In open primaries, voters of any affiliation may vote in the primary of any party. However, they cannot vote in more than one party’s primary. In many states with open primaries, voters do not indicate partisan affiliation when they register to vote. One argument against open primaries is crossover voting. Voters affiliated with one political party may vote in the primary of another political party to influence that party’s nomination.

In closed primaries, only voters registered with a given political party can vote in that party’s primary. States with closed primaries include party affiliation in voter registration. Closed primaries guarantee that only genuine members of a political party influence who that party nominates. However, one argument against closed primaries is that it does not allow voters to choose and that it exacerbates radicalization. Furthermore, it prevents independents who are unwilling to declare a party affiliation to vote and intimidates those who wish to keep their affiliation private. Party organizations believe that closed primaries promote party unity.

The debate on which type of primary election is best is ongoing. Several states have adopted hybrid variations of the types above. For example, California adopted a nonpartisan blanket primary in 2012 after Proposition 14.

Sources:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/primary-election
https://www.fairvote.org/open_and_closed_primaries

Party Dynamics and Supreme Court Nominations

Party dynamics play a very important role in Supreme Court nominations. Since Supreme Court Justices have life tenure, nominations can affect policy for decades to come. The bipartisan structure of the United States government promotes fierce competition between Democrats and Republicans for spots on the 9-justice court.

One exemplar of this is Robert Bork. When Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell announced his retirement in 1987, President Reagan nominated Bork, who at the time was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to take his place. However, Bork was a Republican, and if Bork was appointed, the Supreme Court would have become much more conservative, shifting away from its liberal-majority composition. Thus, Democrats did everything in their power to stop him. The liberal media attacked Bork, and Democrats in the Senate bombarded him with questions.

On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court in a roll call vote of 42-58. President Reagan subsequently nominated Anthony Kennedy, a moderate, and he was unanimously confirmed in February 1988.

Bork’s name has since become a word. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term “bork” means to “obstruct (someone, especially a candidate for public office) through systematic defamation or vilification.”

Sources:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-H-Bork
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination

Drug Testing in Schools

Drug testing in schools is something that has been fairly controversial over the years and is a complicated issue. As of right now, drug testing is currently legal for students that participate in extracurricular activities like athletics or clubs. In 2008, about 16% of public high schools United States had drug testing programs in place . This was largely due to President Bush making federal funding available for these programs. In 2019, more than 1 in 3 high schools nationwide utilize drug testing with even middle schools having programs. With these statistics in mind, we can look at the two sides of the debate. Those in favor of the tests say that a positive result can allow the school to intervene early and help the student kick the habit which then increases the chances of a student having a successful future. The other side argues that the tests are expensive and the same money could spent in other areas. Students who are aware of the test might turn to other drugs that would not show up on a drug test like synthetic marijuana or alcohol. But I think the most important part of this argument is that if a student is heavily involved in school sports is kicked off the team as a result of the test, they will have no reason to stop using and likely will even increase their drug habit because the one thing that took up their after school time is now gone. In my personal opinion as someone that participates in school athletics, mandatory drug testing is something that should not be in schools and does more harm that it does good.

Sources:
https://www.centeronaddiction.org/the-buzz-blog/should-students-be-drug-tested-school

https://khn.org/news/school-districts-double-down-on-drug-testing-targeting-even-middle-schoolers/

Equity V Equality in College Applications

Like we talked about in class, there is a big grey area when it comes to equity and equality in college applications. For reference, equity is giving everyone what they need to be successful and equality is treating everyone the same. Equality is giving everyone the same thing. The example that was given in class was there is a fence that is 6 feet tall and there are two people, one who is 6'2" and one who is 5'8". Equality would be giving both a two inch block. Equity would be giving the shorter person both of the two inch blocks so they could see over the fence too. In the college application process, equity is in the form of affirmative action.

The question is, should we have this equity over equality? It's easy to find many pros for affirmative action, mainly because it promotes diversity. However, there are some people who disagree with this method and think that colleges shouldn't use race as a factor for college admissions. People like Fisher in the Fisher V University of Texas case. The problem with this is, if they don't use race, what can they use? Many people think income should be used instead but income doesn't necessarily cover all the struggles some minorities go through in their academic journey. According to the Washington Post, black students are much more likely to be suspended or expelled and even arrested than other students. Also, according to Sage Journals, students of color are also less likely to be accepted into gifted programs even with the same grades and test scores. 

Overall, I think that we should keep affirmative action because it increases diversity and gives people who wouldn't normally have as good of a chance a better opportunity for success. One thing that would help with the controversy would be to give students of color and of all incomes equal education from the start so that way everyone would have an equal chance of getting into college without the factors of race and income and we wouldn't need affirmative action in the college admissions process. However, that is not very probable and hard to enact.

Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/racial-disparities-in-school-discipline-are-growing-federal-data-shows/2018/04/24/67b5d2b8-47e4-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2332858415622175

How the Freedom of Religion is perceived by our government

Over the past week or so, we've covered some cases that involve the Freedom of religion and have learned that the Supreme Court will generally look at each case independently; the rulings can differ and are not so straightforward. One case that we learned about was Engel v. Vitale, which set the precedent that religious ideals or beliefs cannot be imposed on students attending public schools since public schools are funded by the government. This gave us a sense of when the Supreme Court will protect the freedom of religion when it is a matter of public v. private schools. However, in the landmark religion case Mitchell v. Helms (2000), the court ruled otherwise. This case involved the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981, which basically allowed public and private schools to receive funding for "educational materials and equipment" from the government. These materials were intended to be "secular, neutral, and nonideological." However, because about 30% of this funding went to private schools, public school parents felt that the program violated the freedom of religion (most of the private schools were religiously affiliated, and the parents sued because they felt that the government was allocating a significant amount of funding to support the schools' religious ideals). The final ruling of the Supreme Court was that the program does not violate the freedom of religion because funding went to both private and public schools; any "personal" interests of the government are not being advanced because of the Act. This made me compare the ruling to that of Engel v Vitale. Since private schools are privately funded and do not receive funding from the government, they are allowed to uphold/support a religion. But under the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act, private schools directly receive governmental aid, and the supreme court deemed this constitutional. This seems to be contradictory. What do you guys think?

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/98-1648

Health Issues in Gun Laws

A lot of people are talking about Gun Laws and what we should do about them. Some main issues that are used as evidence for those arguing for stricter gun regulations and bans are mass shootings, school shootings, and suicides. However, when we see this we instantly think take away the guns but a lot of the time it runs deeper. Instead of fixing the problem on a surface level, I think we should dig deeper and go for the roots of the problem.

On the other hand, it isn't just as easy as monitoring those who do have mental health issues for many reasons. One is that the government can't simply monitor their every movements or tap their phones or anything that invades their privacy. Another is that we cannot assume that everyone with some issue is going to turn violent. While "nearly two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides" by people with mental health issues (1), only 1% of mass shootings and 3-5% of violent crimes are committed by them (2). Clearly, all these mass shootings and school shootings aren't all being caused by those with mental health issues. So what now?

One thing that not many people look into are the regular statistics of these shooters that don't have to do with mental health issues. For example, "Ninety-seven percent of mass shooters are male. The overwhelming majority are white. Beyond that, mass shooters share weaker links. They have beliefs ranging from misogyny to white supremacy. Some are seeking revenge. Many have a history of domestic violence" (2). Again, this is not saying that we should or even have the right to monitor every white man who believes in white supremacy or has experienced domestic violence. We can't.

Very obviously, I have no idea how we can stop these mass shootings and gun violence. One thing I do know however is that the problems of these violent actions run much deeper than that they had easy access to guns. If everyone had a gun but no reason to shoot, then no one would shoot. We need to go into the reasons people have to shoot if we want to remedy this problem. Again, no idea how. Please comment your ideas.

Source 1: like Ricky Lopez mentioned in his post @ https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/)
Source 2 : https://www.aafp.org/news/blogs/freshperspectives/entry/20190918fp-massshootings.html

Beto O'Rourke, Gun Control, and the Constitution

Beto's now famous (or infamous depending on your side of the aisle) quote "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47" has brought up questions about the legality of his claim.

Gun control has been a staple of Beto's campaign, he even sells shirts with that quote on them. His most talked about proposal is for a mandatory buyback of all assault weapons, which lead him to confrontation with President Trump, the NRA, and even members of his own party who worried he would alienate moderate democrats. The buyback money would come from increasing taxes on gun manufacturers and people who refused to sell their weapons back would be fined (possibly worse) (source).

The most popular and successful tactic of gun activists is pushing the narrative that if the democrats get even an inch in the gun control debate they'll take away everyone's guns. This fear-mongering lead to an increase in gun purchases immediately after Obama won both times, and was a key point used against Hillary Clinton. This is why passing things that most Americans support like background checks has been so difficult (source).

And now Beto is promising to do the very thing Republicans warned voters that Democrats wanted to do all along. He's coming for your guns.

Personally, I do believe that assault rifles should be banned, and I agree with Beto's sentiments of "keep that shit on the battlefield." That said, Beto is now defending police going door to door to take something that is arguably a citizens right to own. The second amendment does clearly state people have the right to "keep and bear arms," and that right "shall not be infringed." It is arguable that we need laws and regulations but what Beto is proposing violates the second amendment.

I think you can regulate who gets guns and how many are produced, but I don't think Beto's policy can ever be passed. It will be very easy for the NRA to argue that once he bans assault rifles there's nothing to stop him from trying to ban all guns. After all, if police can take one weapon, why can't they take them all? They'll have an easy time fear mongering about his policy, and this might even lead to minor measures like background checks also failing to pass.

Should Corporations Be Responsible for Privacy on Their Platforms?

Last year, Mark Zuckerberg testified in front of the Senate's Commerce and Judiciary Committees. This was a very unique hearing, as nearly half the Senate was present. The hearing was specifically prompted by a massive data leak which allowed Cambridge Analytica access to 87 million people's private information.

Among other questions, Zuckerberg was asked how targeted ads on Facebook appear, and where the data which informs them comes from. The long-running conspiracy that Facebook listens to you through your phone's microphone was shot down by the CEO, but he wasn't able to dissuade the senators from their belief that Facebook improperly harvests and uses user data.

This may be true, but why does it matter? People willingly use Facebook, and a right to privacy isn't in the constitution, it's only inferred from a handful of other rights. I think the real problem here isn't that user data is being sold, rather that the users aren't aware of it.

Facebook's terms of service is long, and 91% of Americans don't read terms of service agreements at all. In fact, the section about Facebook's data policy actually took me longer to find, it's separate from the main agreements. Regardless of whether someone read the document in the first place, it's constantly changing, meaning no one really knows whats on it. If Facebook and companies like it are actually committed to privacy and protecting their users data, they need to make sure these users know about it, and prove it.

I shouldn't have to worry that Mark Zuckerberg is stealing the pictures of me that my grandparents share on Facebook and neither should you.

Guns in Walmart

Something that is often brought up in the debate about the 2nd Amendment is the fact that Walmart and other similar stores sell firearms. The Walmart brand does not give the average person the confidence that they take selling guns seriously, but do they? Before September 2019 and the shootings inside of a Walmart in El Paso, Walmart sold guns in about half of their stores. In the late 2000's, Walmart started to expand on the normal hunting firearms that their stores carried, they started to sell automatic weapons. According to Hayley Peterson, a writer for Business Insider, tried to purchase a gun from Walmart. She found it very difficult to purchase a weapon. Walmart has to wait for the "green light" from the federal government in order to sell a gun while the federal law only requires a "red light", or extreme warning sign, to be present within three days. So Walmart is more cautious than the average firearms dealer when it comes to letting someone purchase a gun. It's also important to note that it took Peterson multiple hours talking to different Walmart locations in order to find that sold firearms. I think it is fairly obvious that Walmart should have never sold AR-15 and other automatic weapons, but nowadays the notion that anyone can just roll over to their local Walmart and buy a deadly weapon is largely inaccurate. After the El Paso shooting, Walmart decided to stop selling guns and ammunition for good.

The Effect of Legal Abortion on Society

While Roe v. Wade may have lead to the nation-wide legalization of abortion, the debate over the issue is far from over. Many Americans disagree with the ruling and states like Alabama have passed laws making abortion nearly impossible with the intent of eventually undoing Roe v. Wade.

I think before decisions are made, it's important to look back on the effects of Roe v. Wade.

Firstly, in AP Micro we learned that legalizing abortion actually reduces crime. The National Bureau of Economic Research found that Roe v. Wade lead to a 45% decrease in crime over the past few decades. This was shown particularly in violent crime and property crime rates which fell dramatically in the period after the legalization of abortion.

Personally I think this is because many women who have abortions are often desperate or lack the tools required to raise a child (teenage pregnancy, poverty, rape, unable to provide a stable home, left by the father, etc), and children raised in that type of environment have a higher chance of falling into crime. 

Secondly, Roe v. Wade greatly decreased deaths by (illegal) abortion. Before the ruling, 17% of deaths related to pregnancy and childbirth were due to abortion. Now the likelihood of a woman sustaining serious complications due to abortion have dropped to 0.05%. Currently risk due to childbirth is 14x as high as it is for getting an abortion.

Thirdly, Roe v Wade lead to a shift in the role of women in society. Women are marrying later now than they did before the ruling (average age went from 22 to 27) and many will never marry (estimated 25% of todays female youth). Women now have an active and important role in the workforce, and that has only increased in the decades after Roe v. Wade. Without access to abortion, low-income women and their children are much more likely to stay low-income for generations.

It is probable there will be attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade in the near future, and I think it is important to consider the above before anything is done.

The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban: why it hasn't been renewed

 In class, we have learned about the history of guns in this country and how gun control has become a controversial issue, especially in this current political climate. Several aspects of the gun debate were analyzed in the documentary we watched, including gun use in the past vs. now, sales made from gun sales, and hunting. One point that stood out to me was regarding the use of assault weapons. As we have learned from recent mass shootings, assault weapons such as AR-15s are used quite often. Yet, a survey done by Morning Consult and Politico this year showed that '"7 in 10 voters, including 54% of Republicans, supported 'a ban on assault-style weapons.' Even higher percentages supported a ban on high-capacity magazines and a purchase age of at least 21 for any gun."' So why haven't assault weapons been banned? As a matter of fact, there was a nationwide ban passed in 1994, otherwise known as the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. Joe Biden and other Democrats stood behind the ban and claimed that assault weapons "are a threat to the national security of this country." But the ban was set to expire a decade later, unless Congress voted to renew it. This obviously didn't happen, as at the time it was supposed to be renewed, Republicans held a majority in both the House and the Senate. One of the reasons for letting the ban expire was because of the mass incarceration that it caused, which involved African-Americans being disproportionately incarcerated and an increase in prison populations. Republicans brought up this issue when criticizing Democrats who supported the ban, which made it hard for Democrats to restore it (Obama made it a goal to renew the ban when he was elected in 2008 and after the Sandy Hook shooting but failed to do so). But after recent mass shootings such as Parkland and Las Vegas, talk about the renewal of the ban has returned, and Democrats have shown their support. One idea that needs to be considered is whether the ban was beneficial or not. Critics say that it was highly ineffective, and Democrats feel that it has significantly reduced the "number of people killed in mass shootings." Another aspect to consider is that people will always have a way to obtain weapons illegally, regardless of whether the ban is in place. There is also the issue of appeasing hunters, since they strongly feel that they should be allowed to use assault weapons for their activities and they shouldn't be grouped with people who use them for harmful purposes. In my opinion, I think that there should be a ban because while it may not prevent every mass shooting or people from illegally purchasing assault weapons, it will reduce the number of mass shootings to a large extent. As for hunters, I think that the safety of the public outweighs their desire to use high-caliber weapons; they still will be able to use other effective weapons for hunting, just not ones that can kill several people at a time. 

source: https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750656174/the-u-s-once-had-a-ban-on-assault-weapons-why-did-it-expire

The Increase Of Death Rates By Weapons

Ever since guns were created the rate of deaths has increased significantly. I believe that guns shouldn't be allowed. Every day, "100 Americans are killed with guns and hundreds more are injured". As the years pass the guns get more advanced, it makes it easier to kill people. In the article Everytown For Gun Safety, they have gathered data from accidents, they have collected the average death per year which in total is 36,383. It's broken down into sections which are suicide( there was 22,274 death), homicide (there were 12,830 deaths), unintentional (death 487), shooting by law enforcement(496) and some were underdetermined (295). The percentage of suicides is 70% and the rest goes to 30%. With the average of Injuries per year is different, it's broken down to Assualt (76,258 injuries), unintentional (18,362), self-Harm(4,149) and Shooting by law-enforcement( 1,350). The number of injuries is more than deaths.

Gun suicide is a very big issue in the United States, "Nearly two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. The U.S gun suicide rate is 10 times that of other high-income countries". There are more injuries than death but the number of deaths is increasing throughout the years. In class, we watched a document showing the evolution of the guns(making them more portable). For example, when the rifle was only able to shot one bullet at a time and then you have to reload v. the revolver it was able to shot 6 shots without reloading. Once the Tommy gun was created in 1919, gangs started to use them, and they were one of the guns caused that increased the death rates.

https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/

Social club

Today we learned about about social club the negative effects of it. A guy who goes by the rapper name Berner has about 1.2 million subscribers on instagram and wanted to promote his weed company, but due to instagram restrictions he wasn't able to. Instead he decided to create his own social media where he announced that there would have a "zero-censorship community". Although this might have had some good intentions for there it be a community not afraid to talk about what they want, this served as a platform for the most disgusting things that would emerge from the dark web like child pornography, racist comments/manifestos, and even murder and/or disturbing pictures. Berner didn't account for this at all because he just wanted a platform to promote weed, but he did say that there would be no restrictions and censorship so it can be inferred that there will be things that are really disturbing. I think that instances like these show that censorship of some form is required in order to keep things like that off the net. The dark net is something that many people are not uncomfortable with, but many people use social media platforms and are comfortable with it. This also speaks about the importance of social media in free speech. Media provides a way to share ones opinions which may or may not want to hear. Thats why Berner decided to work with his developers and implement a way to regulate some of the things that people post. This is why the first amendment is such a serious issue because if you allow people to have complete free speech, things can run amok, however, have too much restriction and people will feel like their rights are being violated.

How Necessary are Guns in America?

This week, we learned about the role guns play in America and heard the perspectives from the different sides of the gun debate. Those who believe that the government should not put any gun control laws into place have several reasons supporting this opinion. The first is that they believe that this is our second amendment right, and any sort of restriction on guns is a violation of that right. The next is that putting restrictions on guns won't stop the amount of gun violence in the U.S as most of the gun crimes are a result of illegally obtained guns. Another reason they don't want gun control is because, for a lot of people, guns are a vital part of their culture. Many people consider hunting a large part of their lifestyle, and putting restrictions on guns seems like an infringement on their rights especially because they've personally never done anything wrong.

On the completely other end of the spectrum, there are also several reasons supporting the side of pro-gun control. The first reason is that there have been too many mass shootings and gun crimes, and they believe that the government needs to step in and put restrictions on guns to reduce the amount of gun violence in the country. The next reason is that the second amendment was put into place in order to protect civilians from tyranny, and that is no longer a fear that people in the U.S have. Another reason is that people believe that the guns that are accessible to the general public are of a much higher caliber than the government ever considered when putting the second amendment into place. Right now, most of the guns that are responsible for mass shootings are military-grade semi-automatic guns that are able to kill and wound several in just a few minutes.

These are just a few of the reasons supporting two sides of the gun debate. The gun control controversy runs extremely deep and is very complicated. Personally, I agree that yes, it is our second amendment right to bear arms. However, I don't think it is necessary for us to have access to military-grade weapons of such high caliber.  In this case, I truly believe that there is no good reason for civilians to have access to such strong weapons and that these weapons are causing more harm than good. For those that feel that hunting is part of their lifestyle, they should just be able to hunt with handguns that aren't so strong. In addition, I also believe that there needs to be some restrictions put on guns. People shouldn't be able to carry them in public places like airports or schools., or anywhere where they could pose a serious danger to public safety. Everyone who wants a gun needs to have their gun licensed, and they need to have a permit or a license in order to legally carry a gun. Right now, guns are way too accessible to the public, and the guns that we have access to are way too extreme. What do you think?

Comparison: Gun Laws in Germany

On Wednesday morning, a gunman opened fire on a synagogue in Germany. That synagogue, along with all others in Germany, had police guards for Yom Kippur (a Jewish holiday on Wednesday). This raised the question: was their an expectation of violence? How does Germany control guns? As it turns out, antisemitic feelings have increased in recent years, leading to government action to secure the safety of those going to synagogue for Yom Kippur. And yet, this seems not to be representative of the larger issue of guns in Germany: in fact, it is considered a country with one of the lowest gun-related death rates in the world.
So what causes this low rate of gun violence? It has nothing to do with gun ownership: in fact, it has one of the highest gun ownership rates (yet still far below the US rate). Instead of stopping people from owning guns, Germany requires a lot of checks before issuing a gun license, and a different license must be issued for each type of gun owned. Other rules include needing to be 18 to purchase a gun, needing a separate license to carry a gun, background checks (for criminal records, for drug addictions, mental illnesses, or anything else suspicious), and "specialized knowledge tests" on guns before a license can be issued. Anyone under 25 must undergo additional psychiatric evaluations. Yet the harshest policy is that, to be issued a gun, a person must have a specific and approved use for the weapon. This includes hunters, security workers, and competitive marksmen, but does not include the need for protection. These policies collectively allow guns in Germany to exist only in households with well-trained users with specific needs for guns
When we look at America, we see a lot of senseless violence by those people who have guns for "protection", and we see many hunters in urban areas fighting gun laws because they are (typically) not part of the problem. Perhaps, if we adopted more policies like Germany's, we would be able to limit guns in rural areas such as Chicago without upsetting the South. However, the second amendment is often interpreted as a right for self-protection, so this may be ruled an unconstitutional law.
Yet perhaps the most important German law is that of "specialized knowledge tests". Much as new drivers need to pass a driving test, this requires new gun users to pass a test on gun usage, including safe storage and accurate shooting. While this seems like a simple law, it helps make sure that everyone who bears arms is qualified and able.
And if nothing else, America needs to get rid of its background check loophole: gun shows. It is important to check a person's background, whether it includes violent crimes, patches of drug addictions, or psychiatric episodes. Any of these would put others' lives in danger if they were to relapse and use the gun for harm. While this does not need to bar anyone who has made mistakes in the past, there should be laws in place to make sure that these types of episodes are in the past and the person has moved on.
When we look at other countries, it does not seem so hard to work on making gun law compromises. It is unlikely that guns will every be fully unregulated or fully banned, so we as a country need to instead focus on creating a safe culture around gun ownership.
Sources:
https://www.thelocal.de/20160616/five-things-to-know-about-guns-in-germany-us-gun-control-laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/gun-ownership-by-country/

What Limit Should be Place on the Anti-Vax Movement

Anti-vax rhetoric is not harmless. It has caused preventable outbreaks that have harmed and killed many. These people are simply trying to help their children, but are falling prey to fake news and hysteria.  ( https://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-anti-vaccination-movement-leads-to-disease-outbreaks-120312#1 ) Because of this, should what they are doing be considered a "clear and present danger"? The problem is that the vast majority of the people who are spreading this truely believe that what they are saying is true. These are also often individuals, not organizations that are spreading the news so there is less accountability. Additionally, this false information is being spread on social media, which the first amendment does not cover, so why is it not being censored? Because of the lack of censorship, it has gone from a fringe movement to a mainstream one. ( https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/health/anti-vaccination-movement-us.html ) Do you think that sites such as facebook need to be doing more to stop the spread of the anti-vax movement? If so to what point? Would absolute censorship only strengthen the movement, as it may seem to them that the government is trying to stop the truth from getting out and cause more outrage?

Freedom of Religion in Schools

Recently, we looked at multiple court cases that helped will the freedom of religion in schools. While some of these (such as a legal exemption from school due to Amish beliefs) don't affect many of us in a day-to-day way, but these cases have lead to many changes that we often overlook. For example, when we graduate in less than a year, there will be no official prayer at our graduation. While this may seem like an inherent guarantee under the First Amendment, this occurred in schools until 1992. Then, the Supreme Court decided in Lee vs. Weismann that graduation prayers were unconstitutional because it excluded students of different or no faith.
Another thing we often take for granted is religious clubs in the school. In Los Altos High School, we have a club for Christian athletes, a Jew Crew, and other religiously affiliated clubs. This may seem like it violates the First Amendment, but these are in fact Constitutional. However, these clubs must be student-led and inclusive - meaning that anyone from any religious background can come to and chose to participate in the meetings. Additionally, while clubs can request to have guests (such as priests or clergymen) join their meeting, the school retains complete right to reject these requests.
These both may seem like basic rights, but they only recently became a requirement to enforce. Today, we take a lot of the small religious freedoms that First Amendment has granted us for granted, as the generations before us had to fight to be able to use their freedom of religion.

Free Speech Vs. Chinese Economic Power

Recently, the general manager (Daryl Morey) of the NBA team the Houston Rockets tweeted his support for Hong Kong amidst protestors fighting for human rights. This greatly angered many Chinese fans and the Chinese government, and what happened next made me reconsider the power of the first amendment.

Both the NBA and Morey tried to do damage control to appease China, but their efforts failed to stop China from cutting ties with the Houston Rockets. The team's Chinese sponsors also cut their ties, including major Chinese streaming sites and the Chinese Basketball Association (CBA). China has also implied they will not show NBA preseason games.

Around the same time, a popular esports player appeared on a Taiwanese Hearthstone stream wearing a gas mask and voiced his support for Hong Kong. The clip was later removed from the channel and Blizzard, the company that owns many esports and esport games, cut their ties with him. They also revoked his ability to play for a year and withheld the prize money he'd earned.

Some other examples of China's economic might cowing American businesses include (but are probably not limited to):

- Marriott hotels apologizing to China after listing Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet and Macau as separate countries (Beijing had shut down their website)

- American Airlines, United Airlines, and Delta Airlines removing references to Taiwan being it's own country

- The situations described above with Blizzard and the NBA

- BEST ONE - South Park's episode on censorship in China, called 'Banned in China,' lead to the series being banned in China

These examples (besides South Park) show that though free speech is protected in America, businesses are quick to drop any pretenses of caring when their economic interests are threatened. Though these are private companies and are not held to the same standard as the government, their efforts to preserve their relationship with China directly undermine free speech. As long as they continue to choose their wallets over freedom, China will have a say in our entertainment.

"Like the NBA, we welcome the Chinese censors into our homes and into our hearts. We too love money more than freedom and democracy... Xi doesn't look like Winnie the Pooh at all."
- 'Apology' from the creators of South Park

Shutting Down Fake News One Person at a Time

Everyone has been posting about hate groups and how much more dangerous they have become with technology within reach. It's true. They are no longer as obvious as they once were with the KKK and the Nazis. Instead of outright speaking their controversial truths, they now know how to hide their true motivations with flowery words and positive tones. I think something that can help with their development into technology is better educating people with what is and what isn't fake news. For a lot of people, they don't even know news can be faked so realistically. For anyone who reads this post's sake, I have researched ways you can tell if a news piece or statistic is fake. First, check the author. As simple as this sounds, many of us forget. For example, Wikipedia...not so credible. Tragic, I know. The second is also pretty obvious. If the writing uses all caps, extreme language, 12 exclamation points, or even spelling errors, it's probably not the most credible. Third, please please please check the sources they use. Let's say you aren't on Wikipedia (good choice) and you find this great source that goes over everything you want to talk about. But then you check their works cited and their sources are like Wikipedia, my mom, and my dream, again probably not the best source. Finally, since many fake news articles aren't going to be as obvious as I just made them sound, you can always check in with professionals to see what they think. Some websites for this from my source are "FactCheck.org, International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), PolitiFact.com, or Snopes.com" Additionally, if you are insanely lazy and can't click one of these links and/or are in AP Gov right now you can also ask Mr. Stewart himself and maybe he can help see if it is fake news or not. (Note: I have actually no idea if Mr. Stewart will/can help I'm just assuming.)

Source: https://www.summer.harvard.edu/inside-summer/4-tips-spotting-fake-news-story

PS. Yes I did check the author (Harvard), credibility, sources, etc. for this source. And once again comment and subscribe down below.

Whistle blowers

Yesterday we learned about whistle blowers and the importance that they have on society. Although many people would not willingly put themselves in danger in fear of losing their jobs or other dangers, whistle-bowers would do exactly that to initiate justice. An example of this is Daniel Ellsberg who was a whistleblower during the Vietnam war. He worked for the Department of Defence  and took a 7000 page report of classified information that the United States had done and the effects of it during the war. He previously asked some congressman to photocopy the information to let the public know what the situation in Vietnam was with the American troops, but they said that classified info should stay classified. Ellsberg took the report to the New York Times and they published the fist couple pages of the report. The government was furious with Ellsberg because he released top secret information that the public wasn't supposed to know about, but it was hard for them to stop the new York times from publishing. In addition, the American people came to know that in reality the American troops in Vietnam were losing the battle, and fast. Although Ellsberg was fired and prevented from working for the government again, his actions ultimately helped inform the people about some important information that the government was with holding from them. Similarly a more recent whistle blower called Edward Snowden who worked for the government and exposed the fact that many of the people were under mass surveillance by the United States government and its allies. This meant that the government could essentially tap into everything at anytime, which is a major infringement on the right to privacy. This forced him to exile in Russia where he grew to like the life that he had built up there. While some people had argued that he was a hero for the American people, others argued that he had exposed something that the government had a right to not tell anyone about. Even 6 something years later, the debate still continues, although the harshness of accusations has lessened. In addition, whistle-blowers can also expose something that may be considered a threat to the safety of the united states as a whole, no matter how pure his or her intentions are. It's important to remember that there is a fine line between being someone that is advocating for justice and someone unintentionally putting the united states as risk, and that the line is very easily crossable.

Pornography and the First Amendment: A Slippery Slope

In class yesterday, we were shown a documentary regarding some First Amendment cases, and when the freedom of speech or press should be protected. As we have learned, the first amendment is highly regarded by the government, and the Supreme Court has often protected these freedoms when it is the least expected. In particular, the question of whether pornography is considered speech and should be protected by the first amendment was considered. As we have learned, there is no clear, definitive answer to this. While the court has protected the amendment in some child pornography cases, they have also claimed that the material must have socially redeemable and artistic qualities, as in "Miller v California." The government has also added some "tests" to assess whether the freedom of speech should be maintained, such as when there is "a clear and present danger," "imminent lawless action," and "bad tendency." But this doesn't eliminate the complexity of the situation, as the way these tests are done seems ambiguous. There are also questions of how artistic value is determined, and whether pornography should even be categorized as "speech". Opposers to pornography, generally conservatives, feel that the first amendment should be interpreted the way that the Framers had stated it originally in the Constitution. They feel that pornography is not a form of speech or "artistic expression" but rather obscene, addictive material that is harmful to the citizenry. Others feel that it is a form of sexual expression that merits protection. The issue here is that if pornography is not protected, does the government have the right to censor it? If they do have this right, then they would have to censor other forms of sexually explicit material, such as songs with derogatory and misogynistic messages. In any case, we can see that the issue is not so straightforward, and it explains why the court has to analyze each case independently. There isn't one blanket ruling that can resolve the issue and answer all of these questions.
Sources:
https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/pornography-and-the-first-amendment/

Trump's Impeachment?

As many of us have heard, the current House of Representatives has announced that they are looking for articles of Impeachment for our President Trump. But does this mean he will get kicked out of office? Not necessarily. One thing that many people misunderstand about this process is that there are three main steps. One within congress altogether, one within the house, and one within the senate. The first step can be initiated by anyone in congress although is usually brought on by the House Judiciary Committee. This is the investigation (the stage we are at currently with Trump). Next, when there are enough articles of Impeachment, the House will choose to have a vote. If they get majority, the case will get sent to the senate where they will make the final decision. Right here, this is called Impeachment. However, the president will not get kicked out of office until the Senate votes him/her out. For this, though, they will need a 2/3 majority, or a super-majority. In Trump's case Republicans control the Senate so it would be hard to get the 2/3 vote. Also, according to a Monmouth University poll, only "35% of Americans feel that Trump should be impeached and compelled to
leave the presidency while a clear majority (59%) disagree with this course of action." Seems to me like it is not too likely to happen. Sources : https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_us_082219.pdf/ and https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39945744

In the past, only two presidents have ever been impeached: Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson. Nixon retired before he could be impeached ;). Will Trump be the next? Let me know what you think and comment and subscribe down below!

If you want updates on this, CNN has a website that is continuously adding new information about what is going on. The link is here: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-inquiry-10-03-2019/index.html.

How far does Free Speech Cover?

During the past few classes, we have examined cases where the freedom of speech has been upheld even though violent hate speech because it lacks intent. But what is considered speech? Are actions covered? To examine this question, I did some research into the NFL's new policy about the national anthem. For those who have not heard, many NFL players had been kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality. But recently, the NFL made a new policy, that players must "stand and show respect for the flag" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/05/24/what-the-nfls-new-rules-for-anthem-protests-really-mean-for-the-first-amendment-according-to-experts/).

However, the reason that this seeming censorship may be thought to violate the First Amendment, it is actually within the NFL's rights. As a private employer, the NFL can enact whichever (legal) rules it desires. However, there are still some protections even in private companies. Employees are protected if they make complaints against their boss and other rights such as these. In the end, the NFL has not completely forced all protests to stop, as it has allowed athletes to stay in the locker room during the national anthem instead of standing for it outside.

While it may seem that this gives the NFL unconstitutional power to limit what its players have to say, there are some protections afforded in the drafts and contracts that the player's sign. Additionally, the NFL Players Association works to allow similar protects. So while this may seem like an unfair violation of rights in the NFL (and similar things can be subsequently seen in other private companies), in the end, the laws seem to make sense. There are protections in place for important issues, such as if an employee wishes to bring up a work-related issue to their boss, and this stops a lot of potential civil unrest. The NFL specifically is a tricky case because it advocates for a good cause, but in general, the idea that private companies can limit some types of speech from their employees is not as large an issue as it seems.

Prussian Blue and Racism

A couple days ago in class, we watched the documentary about the music duo known as "Prussian Blue". The duo consists of two fourteen year girls whose lyrics are extremely racist and support the ideas of white nationalists. But perhaps the most controversial thing about Prussian Blue is the twins mother, who raised them to be supporters of white supremacy and Neo-Nazism. According to the documentary, the girl's mother would use textbooks issued by racist groups in order to teach her daughters about the racist causes she believed in. I think this is where Prussian Blue gets interesting. Is it the girl's fault for being racist when they raised by a mother who essentially burned the ideas into their minds? Once the girls grew up they eventually renounced the ideas of their mother which proves that it truly was the upbringing to blame. But the girl's mother was raised by a father who was so ingrained in his ideas that he had the swastika branded into his cattle. He also had a swastika sticker on the side of his truck. This was clearly a man who was brutally racist and didn't care who knew it. With this is mind, we can come to conclusion that the twin's mother was likely raised in an environment that was very similar to the one she raised her own children in. This is obliviously a large and complicated problem, so how do we stop these ideas from being spread if parents are raising their children to be racist? While I obliviously do not have a solution I think it is important for people to question everything around them, including the influence of their parents.

Does Congress Need Term Limits?

          Every two years the majority of the House of Representatives has to run for re-election. The idea is that because of the constantly changing court of public opinion, legislators need to be constantly checked to ensure that they are actually serving the wants and needs of the people. So do they?
          In my last blog post I wrote about how Filibustering slows down legislature. This has caused 73% of bills which passed in the House to stop dead in the senate. I won't rehash my previous argument; I'd instead like to offer what I see as a possible solution, congressional term limits.
         As Congress functions currently, the same legislators in the senate can serve as many six year terms as they want. Until, as Mr. Stewart puts it, they expire, of course. The same goes for the House's two year terms. This means senators like Sen. McConnell of Kentucky have been in the legislature since 1984.
         While one could argue that term limits would limit voters choices, I think it's important to note that long running senators (like McConnell) have, I think, an unfair ability to halt any bills which enter discussion. Yes, his constituents continue to vote him in, but should the Kentucky caucus have had total control over the discussion of bills in the Senate for nearly half a decade?
         I think that having term limits in Congress could decrease the control special interest groups have over senators and representatives. The executive branch is subject to complete change every 8 years to combat corruption and tyranny, so why isn't the branch meant to represent the people's wishes held to the same standards?

White Supremacy

Today we learned about how the media can ultimately help these extremist groups recruit more people. Stormfront is a nationalist website that manipulated Google in order to be at the top of the search engine for the phrase "black on white crimes." The sad thing is that with just a click of a button, even 12 year olds came come in contact with this website. This platform caused Dylan Roof, a teenager, to go shoot up a Charleston church. When interviewed, he didn't feel any remorse and felt that it was just. Another example was Prussian Blue, which was a band that preached about white supremacy under a facade of two twin girls and music that was posted on the web.  The girls themselves were raised under their mom's racists beliefs which ultimately made them become bigoted as well. Their music was talking about how Hitler's right hand man was right and downplayed the holocaust. During the Hurricane Katrina disaster, the girls and their mother sent care packages to white people only and sent white supremacist books in the packages, to which people rejected. Also there were certain websites that where linked to white supremacy like alt right and the daily stormer, that I wasn't even aware of.  I think that if more people were to know about what belongs to a hate group, then they would not be sucked in, but hate groups have gotten significantly smarter. They have learned not to spew hate at people directly and just mask it in their wording choices, which just makes the problem trickier. 

The Second Red Scare and McCarthyism

Since we discussed the Red Scare and McCarthyism a little this past week (While talking about Hugo Black and his dissents on behalf of communists and their first amendment rights) , I did some more research on the movement and McCarthyism, and found out about another one that occurred around the same time: the Lavender Scare. Not many people have heard of this, myself included. But it arguably "harmed far more people" than the Red Scare. Why haven't we heard of it? Why is this "second red scare" ignored and left out of most lessons? I'm sure you can guess.

The Lavender scare was described by many as a "witch-hunt" against homosexuals because they were considered a threat to government safety. Because many homosexuals around this time were closeted, it was thought that there were a number of them working in the U.S. government and that they could pose a security risk to the US. They were even considered as much of a threat as communists.  McCarthy assumed that communist spies could be coercing them into revealing confidential information by using their sexuality as blackmail. This resulted in the perpetuation of stereotypes and homophobic views of the LGBT+ community, as well as more than 5,000 people being fired from federal employment. With support from J.E.Hoover, FBI director, McCarthy and Cohn (Who was actually later accused of being homosexual too) were responsible for pushing this movement, with McCarthy often using homosexuality as a smear tactic to take down his political enemies. He often stated that if you weren't with McCarthy, then you were a homosexual or a communist. Both were viewed as a threat to the "American way of life", and were attacked in almost equal force. The Lavender Scare also resulted in Executive order 10450 by Dwight D. Eisenhower, which banned homosexuals from working in the federal government, causing the forced outing of many federal staff members to their co-workers, family, friends, and community. This prevented them from easily receiving another job, and prevented them from joining the military. Order 10450 stayed in place until 1995 when "don't ask don't tell" replaced it.  There was even evidence based on some government experiments that homosexuality was not a disease contrary to the popular belief at the time, and did not make people more susceptible to blackmail. These reports were hidden and ignored until the Navy was forced to reveal them in 1981, but they still refused to reveal the full report and its supporting documentation (This was called the Crittenden report).

This attack on homosexuality perpetuated negative stereotypes about the LGBT community for decades. It forced the major communities underground, and forcibly outed many people. Along with this, homosexuality was still considered a disease or a mental disorder by the psychiatric community (And actually was only fully removed from lists of mental disorders on the DSM in 1987), and people could risk being subject to conversion or aversion therapy (Some states still today allow it for minors, meaning parents could send their kid, against the kid's will, to conversion therapy Conversion therapy is a really present and dangerous thing even today). These consequences are unable to be ignored, but some good has come out of this injustice too. Frank Kameny, an astronomer for the U.S. Army, was fired as a result of the Lavender scare and executive order 10450, leading to him becoming a dedicated advocate for LGBT rights, picketing the white house, and earning his place as a key LGBT rights figure and one of the main players in the LGBT rights movement. If not for the anger created by these unjust firings, we may not have had the Stonewall Riots (which are a story long enough for a whole different post) when we did, and who knows when the strong movement for LGBT rights would have been sparked?

Keeping LGBT history out of public knowledge is a trend that has continued, and will continue for a long time. (Chief organizer for the march on Washington and MLK's helper Bayard Rustin? Gay, and we don't learn about him. The gay men that were not liberated from concentration camps, not acknowledged as victims of Nazi persecution, and still considered criminals after the war? Don't hear about them either. ) This doesn't mean things can't be done to acknowledge the harm that has come to the LGBT community and still teach about historical events that targeted these people. Acknowleging that these things happened, for example that the lavender scare was just as powerful and harmful as the Red scare, and allowing the LGBT community to have history and to have a place in history is of the utmost importance. Minorities will almost always be written out of history to some extent. But I want to remind you all that there is always a history, if you look hard enough for it, no matter how buried it might be. I had to look for a while and found out about it on accident, but the lavender scare was a real thing that happened, under the reign of McCarthyism.

The purpose of this post is to educate. To teach myself and others about the history that is missing from what we learn in school (I know we only talked about McCarthyism a little in Gov. so far, but what about APUSH last year? Spent a long time on McCarthyism then). And to remind everyone that "History is a lot gayer than you think".

Why Calling Something a Protest Does Not Mean It Is Protected Under Freedom of Speech

This week in class, we discussed the sticky issues that come up when discussing freedom of speech, such as the avenue it opens up to white nationalism and other hate groups and the ability it allows for people to inundate other people with racist and hateful propaganda.  In class while watching the CNN report "The Dark Side of the Internet," Mr. Stewart mentioned that the protests of the white nationalists were allowed under freedom of speech; however, people can stop them through counterprotests of their own.  I agree with this sentiment, but I wanted to add that counterprotests can create tension between the protestors and the counterprotestors, which could lead to violence.  It should be stated that actions done out of a belief are not protected under freedom of speech; only the belief itself is protected under this civil liberty.  When people become passionate about a certain subject or belief, they tend to forget that violence is not protected under free speech, such as in the Charlottesville protests that caused someone to drive his car into a crowd and in the Berkeley protests a few years ago against the right-wing social commentator Milo Yiannopoulos, which killed one woman and injured twenty-eight other people.  As these types of violent protests potentially become more common (possibly due to the recent rise of alt-right groups throughout the country), people dangerously forget that while sharing in far right-wing beliefs like white nationalism and racism or disagreeing with Milo Yiannopoulos are both beliefs that are protected under freedom of speech, the violence and riots that may come as a result of these beliefs are not protected and should have consequences.

Freedom of Speech in Public Schools

Although freedom of speech is a staple of American society, there are definitely some limits to how far freedom of speech can reach.  An example of this is freedom of speech in public schools.  Both in universities and in K-12 schools, freedom of speech is restricted, whether it be preventing people from wearing certain provocative clothing, preventing people from using offensive language, or preventing hate speech.  However, I think that schools have gone too far in trying to prevent freedom of speech.  The case Tinker v. Des Moines (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21), which occurred in the 1960s, was a case involving freedom of speech in public schools.  A group of students at the high school in Des Moines, Iowa, decided to wear black armbands to school in order to show their stance that was against the Vietnam War.  The school threatened to suspend the students if they did not take off their armbands, and the students sued the school.  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students, stating that a restriction of speech only holds when it "materially and substantially interferes" with how the school operates.  Thus, today, when schools restrict free speech, they must do so only when the speech could harm how the school operates and the learning environment the school is trying to create.  I believe that clothing and symbols rarely disrupt the learning environment because they are not as open and noticeable as speech can be, except in the cases where they are so outlandish or astray from social norms.  However, many schools ban clothes that have any references to alcohol or other drugs, which does not seem like it would "materially and substantially interfere" with how a school operates.  I do think that schools can prevent excessive offensive language (although suspending someone for a few instances of offensive language can be too much) and hate speech because I see the arguments for why this speech can get out of hand and disrupt the learning environment.  However, speech as inconspicuous as clothing or symbols should rarely be restricted in public schools.

The Importance of Intent

In class the past few days, we have focused primarily on the freedom of expression case studies, discussing if and when one’s freedom of expression can be violated. It seems to me that the consensus for the issues discussed throughout the three cases – “Fox v. Franken,” “Prussian Blue,” and “Dark Side of the Internet” – pointed to the same conclusion that the outcome and intent of the expression determines its protection under the 1st Amendment. In the case of Prussian Blue, the girls’ music was intended to spread and express a belief about race and was not created with the direct intent of violence, despite its dangerous rhetoric. The girls are protected under the 1st Amendment because their music did not cause “clear or present danger.” In other words, the outcome of their expression did not directly infringe on the rights of others. However, the outcome of expression’s influence can’t be the sole determinant because of misinterpretation. If someone makes a joke online that uses satirical violent rhetoric and someone interprets it as sincere, takes it to heart, and carries it out, that joke becomes an unexpected danger. While sometimes it may be obvious that intent is satirical or malicious, there are still significant issues that arise with proving the intent of expression. In the case of the “Dark Side of the Internet” it’s arguable that the website stormfront.org did not intend to murder 9 innocents by influencing Dylan Ruth, however such severe, aggressive rhetoric increases the likelihood of inciting violence. So where should the line be drawn? I think that ultimately, the intent of expression coupled with its outcome is the true determiner behind a form of expression being Constitutionally valid. According to the Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, any speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and likely to incite or produce such action” is not protected under the 1st Amendment(Source). So it seems that “direction” or intent of unlawful or dangerous action is the primary component for determining if a form of expression is protected by law. Overall, I think that these limitations on the 1st Amendment are not only valid but essential for ensuring the liberties of the people, and while there may still be pressing issues of expression creating violence, I don’t feel there can be any additional limitation on the freedom of expression without infringing upon Constitutional rights.

The First Amendment and Media

They say music can alter moods and talk to you
Well, can it load a gun up for you and cock it too?
Well, if it can, then next time you assault a dude
Just tell the judge it was my fault and I'll get sued

- Sing for the Moment, Eminem

In modern times, free speech is one of the most debated and talked about issues on the internet. With the rise in gun violence, some have turned to blaming media such as video games and music for creating a more violent population. Attempts to censor art are becoming more and more frequent, which has created a whole new conflict about the first amendment.

Firstly, there have been many studies showing that violent video games and media (like movies) do not cause violence. The idea that they do has been flipped from the left to the right many times in the past, and it's currently being used as a way to avoid talking about gun control. That said, it is understandable that some have concerns.

In some video games, you can rape female entities and kill anyone. Popular rappers like Eminem have many lyrics about raping and beating women, and TV and movie violence has never been more glorified or gorier.

The reason all of these are protected under the first amendment is because the intent of the creators is not to do harm. It would be hard to argue Eminem wants his audience to act violently towards women because most of his songs are clearly fantasies, parodies, or obviously non-serious. The Boys and Game of Thrones directors are certainly trying to shock the audience with their use of violence, but they're not trying to encourage their audience to murder people. GTA may allow you to act questionably, but it doesn't give you more freedom than anyone has in the real world. (Just because the game lets you act like a terrible person does not mean the creators want you to be one in real life.)

I think it is concerning that so many people are willing to censor media they consider dangerous, even if it's protected under the first amendment. Artists, in my opinion, are not responsible for how their audience behaves. Violent people may like art that they think reflects their values, but that doesn't mean it's the art that corrupted them. For every one school shooter that played GTA there are literally millions of other players who are just normal people. Blaming art that portrays controversial issues for the controversial issue itself is only going to prevent us from addressing and solving the real problem.

Consequences of the Media

This week in class, we’ve been discussing various studies of amendment rights, and the study of “The Dark Side of the Internet” was particularly interesting to me. In the documentary we’re currently watching, they explain the growth of white supremacy groups via the internet. Specifically, on a website called “stormfront.org.” This site has become one of the top sites for white supremacists to confer, communicate worldwide, and share ideas.

As a result of encouragement and inspiration from this internet site, some of the deadliest hate crimes have been committed in various parts of the country. An example that the video gives is the murder of 9 innocent people by Dylan Ruth, who committed these murders after only weeks of speaking with other white supremacists on “stormfront.org.” In addition to being the inspiration to many racist ideologies and hate crimes, the internet has also been a popular place to spread false statistics, even to people protesting racism. The web can be seen as a vast, black hole of information to many, and it is often difficult to distinguish what is accurate versus made-up. Through many different techniques, it can be quite easy to get a certain website to the top of the list when one searches for specific phrases. One of the most popular examples of this concept is the search for “black on white crime.” Around when President Trump was elected in 2016, he used Twitter and his own media platforms to spread false statistics about the amount of “black on white” crime in the country. This information was not accurate in the slightest, however, Twitter users often believe the information they see because they don’t realize or try to see if it’s really trustworthy. White supremacists have also spread false statistics of this ratio by advertising their website to be the first link that shows up when this search is often made. As Mr. Stewart mentioned in class, an individual looking for this statistic may be misled to “stormfront.org” instead of an official FBI website with accurate information. Once again, harmless people trying to get information on crime ratios could see this false statistic and believe that it is accurate.

Overall, although the internet has brought many advancements to society and has made all of our lives significantly easier, it needs to be used carefully because it also has a negative reputation for fostering hate and spreading false information.

The FBI and J.E.Hoover

Talk about someone with tons of power! J. Edgar Hoover was the first and one of the longest-serving directors of the FBI and is one of the reasons for how the FBI is structured the way it is. Hoover served as the Director of the FBI for 37 years until his death at 77 and was instrumental in getting the FBI set up. However, he really abused the power that he had, to the point that multiple presidents in the past have said that they would have let him go, except they were afraid of what kind of information he had on them. His term was even extended (He was supposed to retire once he reached 70, this limit was removed by LBJ, allowing Hoover to remain directory "for an indefinite amount of time").

Hoover was a republican, very anti-communist and very anti-civil-rights-groups. Many of his actions against these groups are now seen as overextensions of his power, with Hoover even spreading rumors to cover up crimes that he didn't want to prosecute, because they supported causes he supported. (Source). He was a supporter of the Klan, and even had well known FBI informants in the Klan, leading to other various cover-ups and non-prosecutions. He pereserved immense stores of blackmail of various celebrities and other dominant figures, constantly opening up files on those who caused him to become suspicious, just like how he opened files on Hugo Black once he began to defend the rights of communists. He illegally wiretapped people, withheld information from espionage from multiple presidents, and even was accused of not effectively investigating the assassination of J.F.K, as well as withholding information about this from other departments.  These oversteps in power ended with the director position being restricted to a ten-year term, only able to be extended by the U.S. Senate.

There is a lot more interesting stuff about him, but in general, its really interesting how much Hoover was able to do as director of the FBI. I know last week I wrote a post about how the person behind the power is the one who actually has it, and I neglected to mention the director of the FBI. Although they are technically the one in charge of the FBI, they are still not as in the light as the president but exert a significant amount of power and control over what happens in government. It is a good thing that this term length has now since been restricted.

(Source)