I see two things done a lot that really bother me, because people get very into their arguments, not realizing that they’re entirely wrong. Both happen to concern the First Amendment and freedom of speech. It might be best to begin by quoting it (emphasis mine):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first thing I see happen is somewhat difficult to concisely define, but essentially, some public figure will make some sort of idiotic statement that ends up causing great offense to one group or another. Some people get upset and request an apology and a retraction of the statement. The person who made the remark, though, refuses to apologize because of his right to freedom of speech.
I suppose they’re right: they do have the right to say offensive things. But it’s utterly irrelevant to criticism? Actually, quite the opposite is true! Freedom of speech is what gives others the right to criticize your freedom of speech! It always struck me as a non-sensical argument, to vehemently “invoke” your Constitutional right when no one was trying to encroach on it in the first place.
I see my second pet peeve even more often! Freedom of speech refers to government actions. If you start yelling profanities in school and the teacher tells you to stop, it’s not violating your Constitutional rights. When you vandalize Wikipedia and I undo your edit, I’m not violating your Constitutional rights. When the (private) school newspaper realizes that your article was plagiarized and bans you from submitting articles for the rest of the year, they’re not violating the First Amendment. If the government’s not doing it, it’s not a First Amendment violation!
It boggles my mind how many people miss these points!
But what if the teacher is employed by a public school? 😉
There was some ruling, which frankly sounded strange, that essentially said that kids in school don’t have any rights. 😛
Interesting, then, that praying in schools is banned, and supposedly due to the 1st amendment? Unless I’m missing something…
Er, not all praying, but… you know what I mean.
That’s subject to so many confusing misinterpretations. We studied this in school. (Err, for clarity: a private, secular school, in a course focusing on constitutional law.)
A lot of people seem to phrase it like you did in your first post: that all prayer is banned, which isn’t the case at all, and would, in fact, be egregiously unconstitutional. I know it’s not what you meant, but some people out there would thinks that’s how it is.
There are two main bits regarding, well, church and state:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
Thus we get the “Establishment Clause” and “Free Exercise Clause.” There’s a lot of background on each (per past court precedents), but essentially, the Establishment Clause keeps the government from establishing or promoting a religion. The second half is Free Exercise, which would be if the government interferes with your ability to “exercise” your religious beliefs. (And both are subject to all sorts of insanity… What if your religion involves peyote, an illegal drug, for example? There’s also a whole thing on what constitutes a religion: you can’t just make a “Church of Cocaine,” for example.)
But what the court ruled was that prayer led by the school was an Establishment Clause violation: in effect, the school, as a public entity, was promoting ‘its religion’ and forcing participation. Students can still pray (indeed, it’s the next couple words in the First Amendment that guarantee this right), the school just can’t lead it or force people to do it.
But if, as you said above, there was a ruling that kids in school “(essentially) don’t have any rights”, why does an establishment violation (or technically, not one) in a school matter?
My claim that no rights exist in schools was being overly dramatic. I’m not familiar with the exact ruling, so I couldn’t comment authoritatively on the nuances of how it might apply.
You’re no fun. 🙁
Although if I were to go a little beyond what I know for sure… I’d argue that the fact that the kids have no rights shouldn’t matter here. It’s kind of like the people who perch out by the US-Mexico border and shoot Mexicans as they try to cross, arguing that, because they’re not American citizens, they have no rights, and it’s thus OK to kill them.
Alright, that’s a bad analogy: your question doesn’t involve murdering anyone. But even if someone doesn’t officially have rights, I see nothing wrong with a court ruling that the government can’t violate them anyway, if that makes any sense.
Perhaps a more relevant example: one’s sexuality isn’t a “protected class,” something the (national) law officially protects. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s okay to discriminate against them, it just means that they don’t have any extra protection.
Of course, I should disclaim that this isn’t the court’s position, just how I feel.
Pingback: Matt’s Blog » Blog Archive » Freedom of Speech