Clearly Not Protected

The Supreme Court will be taking on a First Amendment case this Monday, December 1st. The case concerns Anthony Elonis, a man who posted very violent, graphic rap lyrics on Facebook in which he  reportedly spoke of, "killing his estranged wife, shooting up a kindergarten class and attacking an FBI agent." Elonis was convicted of violating a federal crime that makes it illegal to threaten others. He claims it was all a joke but because his words would make any reasonable person feel threatened it is still considered illegal.

Elonis continued to mock the court after being convicted.
He posted on his Facebook page, "Did you know that it's illegal for
me to say I want to kill my wife?"

I think this is a very far-fetched case that does not really have a place in the Supreme Court in this day and age. It is clear that his words are not protected by the First Amendment because he threatened several people. I certainly hope that this man is put in his place for his disturbing actions.

View Full News Story Here

Homeless=Crime?

I recently came across an article in the Huffington Post titled "Colorado Communities Are Making It a Crime to Be Homeless." The author, Nathan Woodliff-Stanley, explained that communities across the nation have recently passed a wave of statutes that ban people from sleeping in a car, sitting or lying down in public areas, using a blanket or other shelter in a public area, or peacefully asking for donations. These restrictions are borderline cruel and do absolutely nothing to solve the problem at hand. They simply forces the issues onto a neighboring community which then does the same, causing a chain reaction.

Many restrictions will make this a crime.

The article went on to explain that these laws are practically unconstitutional under the First Amendment, something I never would have thought. Looking at them in this new perspective, however, I would have to agree that they are. Just because these people are homeless does not mean that they do not have rights and we therefore cannot treat them like this. Rather than temporarily solving the problem in such a harsh way, we should work to end homelessness forever.

Read Full Story Here

Texting is Acceptable but Religious Conversation Isn't?

While home for the holiday, I was shocked to hear about a recent lawsuit in my home state, Colorado.  The case originated because the principal of Pine Creek High School, James Lucas, told a senior, Chase Windebank, that he could not pray or converse about religious matters during home room time.  This time, however, can be used to text, eat, or talk about any other nonreligious topic.

Chase Windebank, Senior at Pine Creek High School

Although I would not consider myself a religious person whatsoever, I am slightly shocked and disappointed to hear this. The First Amendment clearly states that schools must, "permit speech as long as it is not materially and substantially disruptive." Considering that students are allowed to do almost anything else during this time, I cannot fathom why the principle thought it was acceptable to end Windebank's religious group. I am very interested in how this case turns out.

Click Here to View Full Story

When Pigs Fly...

A recent event on a US Airways flight has proven that pigs really will never fly. A women boarded a plane traveling to Connecticut with a 70 pound pig on a leash that she proceeded to tie to her armrest. It was reportedly very smelly and wandering around. The lady was permitted to do this because of a 2012 guideline that the Department of Transportation passed allowing certain animals, including pigs, to fly if they were an "emotional support animal." Despite this, because the animal was disruptive, the women was asked to leave the plane. 

This comes off as a slightly discriminatory practice, considering that smelly or noisy dogs are frequently on flights. Not to mention that many people can be allergic to them. I think the Department of Transportation should re-see their current procedures for these kinds of things before they are accused of animal discrimination, as silly as that sounds.

See Video for Full Story:

Brown v. The Board Recap

Last week in class, two teams battled the opposing sides of the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education. This is a consolidation case, meaning it was actually five separate cases that were all argued in supreme court together. The cases were Brown itself, which was filed in Topeka, Kansas, Briggs v. Elliott, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Gebhart v. Belton, and Boiling v. Sharpe.  

The case mainly concerned the question: can schools be separate but equal? One side argued that this segregation is acceptable because the education the students are receiving is equal and not separating races would harm both the blacks and whites.The opposing side argued that the segregation creates inferiority, violates the 14th amendment, and does effect the students. The judge (Professor Smith) finally declared a tie.

Newspaper Headline from May 17, 1954

In the real case, however, the court determined that segregation was, in fact, unconstitutional. This overturned the infamous 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson, clearly making it a very important case in America's history. It is truly incredible that this racism was still accepted only half of a century ago. 

For a great overview of the case, Click Here

Ebola Craze Going Too Far?

Ever since Ebola got to America back in the middle of September, people have been going crazy. However, this past week, it reached an all new high. A Texas school, Navarro College, denied Kamorudeen Abidogun (a Nigerian man who lives in Texas) admission because of Ebola. The rejection letter bluntly states, "Unfortunately, Navarro College is not accepting international students from countries with confirmed Ebola cases."

Rejection letter Abidogun received. Tweeted by Idris Bello.

I cannot even begin to understand why staff from this school would think this is acceptable. It is blatant discrimination. Firstly, there have been no new Ebola cases in Nigeria since September 8th. Meanwhile, America has had two new cases within the past week and the school is within an hour of Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital where Thomas Eric Duncan died at the beginning of the month. The college is simply perpetuating racism based on Ebola.  

Furthermore, the school has only come out with one poorly written statement that did not correct the situation since the incident.

To Read The Statement, Click Here.  

Does Amendment 67 Go Too Far?

With elections coming up, there has been a lot of controversy over Amendment 67 in Colorado. The official ballot question will read: "Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution protecting pregnant women and unborn children by defining "person" and "child" in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado wrongful death act to include unborn human beings?" The original initiative for this amendment began when a women who was eight months pregnant was hit by a drunk driver, ultimately killing her unborn child. Due to the fact that the term "person" does not include an unborn fetus, the person was not charged with murder.

When I heard this tragic story, of course I would immediately think to vote yes on this amendment. After doing some further research, however, I realize how much this amendment undermines women's rights. Firstly, it will make all abortion illegal in the state of Colorado, even in the case of incest and rape. It will also ban certain forms of birth control and restrict in vitro fertilization options.  Furthermore, and miscarriages or still births will be deemed suspicious and could be put under investigation.

In my opinion, all of these things go entirely against the privacy standard that was set in supreme court case Roe v. Wade. If this amendment gets passed, we are not moving forward in anyway whatsoever.

Read More Here