Anonymity And Racial Profiling

Our rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, has been hollowed out. Student press in schools can have reports censored by the school and equipment confiscated by the administration because the First Amendment, supporting the freedom of the press does not apply student reports who fall under the supervision of the education system’s administrative branch, who have total power over the student newspaper. Our freedom of speech and privacy are not even close to what they promise. For reasons such as national security, the government can censor, retain, deny, or even manipulate selected pieces of information. Saying keywords on the phone or in emails that monitoring agencies are looking for can give them clearance to investigate your intentions. Privacy, once thought to be a guaranteed right, is actually only able to be enforced by those who choose to.

In the Justice System there are a lot of flaws that affect many people of color, and from past history, it has shown how these practices can lead to very unfortunate events, one of these practices is racial profiling. Racial profiling is when law enforcement uses race and ethnicity as grounds to determine if someone, typically of color, is guilty of doing something illegal. Racial profiling is a major problem in this country, this as well affects many citizens that are mainly of color because law enforcement usually sees them as targets, and it is important to improve and fixed this issue because there are many tragic incidents that have been caused of racial profiling.

Racial profiling remains a dormant issue in the United States. It is the act of the authority, mostly, police officers linking minority status to criminal behaviour (Glover, 2007). Several police officers in the United States target specific groups because they don’t display characteristics of typical Caucasian individuals (Glover, 2007). To put history into context, before 9/11, not many police officers profiled individuals based on their ethnic backgrounds but after the attack, there was an increase in racial profiling (Harris, 2006). A racial profiling method that became prevalent in the 1980s in the United States was administered by the U.S Drug Enforcement Administration. Operation Pipeline was a program that they launched to help police officers catch drug traffickers (Harris, 2006). In a video, they taught police officers to look for clues that would help them recognize criminals. It was noticed that police officers made a majority of stops to people with Hispanic last names (Harris, 2006). Marshall Frank, a former police officer was asked what police officers should do if they saw an African man driving around a white community. Frank responded by stating that the police officers should stop the vehicle and investigate the reason to why he was there even if there was no occurrence of a crime (Harris, 2006).

America’s first president George Washington once argued at the [whenever he said this] that “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” It is an essential component to the daily life of any constitutional republic, such as that of the United States even though it is a right granted to all American citizens, in the past, freedom of speech has been abridged to accommodate political correctness, to prevent disruptive behavior that could negatively affect others, and to protect confidential military information.

Free speech is by far the most commonly recognized freedom in our everyday lives. The freedom of speech allows us to voice our own opinions without the severe repercussions of some countries. It allows us to say what we really feel and helps us learn how to communicate in true and meaningful ways. Along with this freedom, we must remember that there are limits to this freedom. While being arrested “you have the right to remain silent” and anything you say can be used against you in court. This freedom is not one to be taken for

One of the most imminent threats looming within American society is race relations. America is a melting pot of different races, cultures, and religions, yet the matter of racial profiling still remains prominent today. By definition it is considered “an activity carried out by enforcers of the law wherein they investigate or stop any individual in traffic or round up people of the same race or ethnicity for crime suspicion” (NYLN.org ). This profiling has become a significant catalyst in the tension that has been ensuing between minorities and the government. Hostility has grown due to the apparent and intentional targeting of “brown people”, and

What makes America? Is it the freedoms granted to any American citizen? Is it the way the founding fathers fought for their own freedom against Britain? Is it instead the racial history behind this nation? America, since its origins has been a country of immigrants and for immigrants, yet since its origins, there has been discriminatory laws against blacks, Latinos, Asians, and every other race that is not considered white or Caucasian. Has this country that has been based upon racial profiling, that has fought wars as one nation (and even against themselves at one point), and has triumphed through the Civil Rights movement finally succumbed to justice or is racial profiling just as prominent today? Racial profiling still exists in America because ____________________, ___________________, and _____________________. (3 reasons stated in thesis)

The practice of targeting individuals for police investigation based on their race alone in the last few years has been an increasingly prominent issue in American society. Numerous magazines, newspapers, and journals have explored the issue of race-motivated police actions. Recently, the ABA Journal did a study of New Jersey and Pennsylvania traffic stops from 1998 to 2001, concluding that black drivers were more likely to be pulled over and arrested than whites. The study also delves into the legal ramifications of the 1996 United States Supreme Court ruling in the Whren v. United States case, which held that police officers subjective motivation for stopping a motorist on the

“In 2005, a study analyzing data accumulated statewide in Texas reveals disproportionate traffic ceases and searches of African Americans and Hispanics, even though law enforcement authorities were more liable to find contraband on Whites.” (The Reality of Racial Profiling) The utilization of personal characteristics or comportment patterns to make generalizations about a person is called racial profiling. Throughout time, the utilization of race by law enforcement agencies in their policing activities has received considerable attention across the nation. The 4th amendment right that one has as an American, which is protecting against unreasonable search and seizure, is becoming contravened; one reason for the way one looks. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that racial profiling violates the constitutional requirement that all persons be accorded equal protection of the law, but it is still occurring in our society. Racial Profiling has caused the violation of our rights whether it maybe from a terry stop that was originated for the case Terry vs. Ohio, stop and frisk, racial vehicle stops, and the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act also known as Arizona SB 1070.

In today’s world we deal with multiple cases of racial profiling seemingly on a daily basis. Turn on the television, check the internet, or simply have a discussion with someone and you’ll hear about it. "Racial Profiling" describes discriminatory practices by law enforcement officials who target people for suspicion of crime based on their ethnicity, race, origin, or religion. The term first came about during the War on Drugs in the 1970’s and 1980’s when law enforcement were accused of pulling over motorists simply because of their race, then unlawfully searching their vehicles for illegal substances. There are varying opinions about this topic and as the year’s progress, it seems acts of racism, labeling, and profiling increase. Many of the instances of racial profiling that occur today involve criminal justice.

Recently, there has been an epidemic in which minorities are being racially profiled on a daily basis. Individuals are being arrested, pulled over, and gunned down, simply because of the color of their skin. People cannot even walk down the street without someone thinking that they look suspicious. Whether the person is African American, Hispanic, Indian, or Muslim, racial profiling is wrong. With all of the recent controversy surrounding the problem, one would think that it would occur much less but that is not the case. Racial profiling has caused a recent uproar in America, and it has become the reason why many people have turned their backs on law enforcement for good.

Throughout history, a separation has always existed between races, and as our nation progresses, a form of racism has grown called the racial profiling. Often used as a technique to prevent crime, racial profiling only serves to unreasonably accuse individuals of color of heinous crimes, perpetuating societies longstanding fears. Many arguments exist that racial profiling doesn’t exist, and people of color perpetuate the idea of constant victimization, but based on past and current events, anyone can see that racial profiling does not come down to just that. By comparing the treatment of those of color, to any other race, anyone can see with certainty that racial profiling exists.

Free speech is the backbone that holds democracy together.  Without a free speech, ideas would not be challenged, governments would not be kept in check, and citizens would not be free.  John Stuart Mill said once that, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person then he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”( Roleff, 21). The right to free speech is essential to “egalitarian democracy,”(Tsesis) however, this right is not absolute and must be limited in certain situations.

Why say freedom of speech when you really have to watch what you say to officers of the law, court officials, judges etc, I understand it may cause chaos if we all could say what we really want to those certain people, but it would feel good.

Relying on the anonymous sources for giving the information is not something new; thirty one years ago, the Washington Post did not seem to hesitate to use information from the anonymous source nicknamed Deep Throat when covering the Watergate Break in. (Deep Throat was later revealed to be Deputy Director of the FBI William Mark Felt), at that time and according to Greg Laden “perhaps consumers of news assume that traditional news outlets have sufficient internal quality control that anonymously supplied information is trusted “