Argument Against ACLU

This document supports limiting online student speech because the court ruled that even though it happened out of school, the school’s reason was strong enough to justify their actions toward K.K.

v. Berkeley County Schools (Document C). K.K., who formed a discussion group online that accused a classmate of being sexually promiscuous and was joined by more than 20 other classmates, was suspended from school for 10 days and issued a 90-day “social suspension.” On July 27, 2011, the US Court of Appeals ruled that the punishment was just, stating that the “[connection] of K.K’s speech to [the high school’s teaching] interests was sufficiently strong,” and that school officials are “trustees of the student body’s well-being.” When a speech disrupts the interests of the school – that is, teaching and protecting its students, it is then not protected by the First Amendment, and schools should punish its speaker. Even though the speech was off-campus, the sufficient connection of the speech to the interests of the school means that the school has the right to punish the

The University decide who can write what where does negatively impact the first amendment right of students. However, I also believe that the way they showed their support for Trump can be found as offensive to some. In this case, more political correctness may have limited the negative light shined on this situation.

First off, limiting students’ online speech is unconstitutional. The first amendment clearly states, “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech…” Which says that, for the most part, we can say whatever we want. In Gitlow v. New York the Supreme Court decided that first amendment applies to other levels of government, including public schools. What all this amounts too is that public schools are required by the constitution to protect their students’ freedom of speech. So, if a school was to limit any student’s online speech, the school is entirely abridging his/her rights.

"Racial profiling” can hold a variety of meanings. As defined by the American Civil Liberties Union, however, racial profiling is "the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual 's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin" (“Racial Profiling”). Every day, blacks are stopped much more frequently for aimless searches and minor infractions than their white counterparts. Several African Americans share experiences like these, such as Roscoe Van Pelt, who was violently snatched off the street and crammed into a squad car after the ludicrous crime of jaywalking (Walsh). A more extreme example would be the case of Sandra Bland, who was brutally beaten following failure to signal a lane change (Schuppe). Incidents like these occur far too frequently in black communities, all for the color of their skin.

Citizens in America are born with a various amount of rights. One of these rights include the freedom of speech and expression. However, school administrators have the ability to restrict a student’s expression. The Supreme Court Cases ‘Bethel School District v. Fraser’ and ‘Frederick V. Morse’ gave schools the right for the administrators to discipline children when they see fit. Students should be able to express themselves in any way without fearing that their school administrators will discipline

He could say whatever he wanted and that would be protected. But the school could also punish him how they saw fit. They also ruled that his due process rights had not been violated because he had no way of knowing whether or not he would be getting in trouble for his actions due to the school's code of conduct not needing to be as detailed as a criminal code of conduct. I believe that in this instance they made the right decision due to the fact that their reasoning makes sense. The first amendment gives citizens the right to say what they wish and have any opinion that they wish. It does not say that it will protect us from the punishments we may receive by voicing these opinions in an inappropriate way. As for his due process rights, he really had no way of knowing what course the school would take in punishing him, therefore no due process rights could be applied because the code of conduct at the school was not detailed enough for it to work in that

The right to freedom of expression of ones religion is at stake in this case. Mrs. Williams has a right to express her religion freely. However, based upon the Establishment Clause which prohibits any law “respecting the establishment of religion”, she does not have the right to force others to conform to her way of thinking. At the same time, students and community members have a right to express their religion, too. They also have a right not to have another person’s religion forced on them. So there is only one individual right at stake here, but it is not possible to respect this right of behalf of all the claimants. While the majority of the community, the school board, and some students will feel that it is Mrs. Williams’ right to keep the bulletin board posted, some community members, students, and ACLU feel it is their right not to keep it posted.

A troubling issue for schools now is how to deal with the issue of homosexuality. The struggle for gay rights often causes heated opposition, particularly on moral grounds from members of religious groups. (Essex, 2005, p. 43) Schools have an obligation to maintain a peaceful environment free of significant disruption, while supporting students' rights of free speech. Schools should ". . . create an environment that is characterized by respect for individual views and divergent forms of expression within reasonable limits. The challenge seems to involve achieving a reasonable balance between an orderly educational environment and respect for the free speech rights of students. Precisely, where do they draw the line?" (Essex, 2005, p. 44)

The decision in this case seems to have left public school students’ free speech rights in an ambiguous state. The Justices in support of the majority opinion—Justices Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia—were thus

Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is undemocratic.

This week’s first article, “Popular Constitutionalism’s Hard When You’re Not Very Popular: Why the ACLU Turned to Courts” by Emily Zacklin analyzes theories by Kramer and Tushnet on restricting the court’s power in interpreting the Constitution using the ACLU to illustrate the weaknesses of both theories. The ACLU’s initial intention was to go against Marx’s capitalist law and focus their laws on people, instead of capitalism, motivated by Durkheim’s idea of cultural forces. The ACLU lacked a collective conscious of ideas within the group, eliminating the possibility of Tushnet’s congressional deliberation. The ACLU eventually turned to fighting within the courts, even though they did not have a high likelihood of winning, mirroring Galanter’s

My group is doing the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). They are concerned with every issue that deals with our liberties. Some of these examples include, Capital Punishment, Human Rights, Racial Issues, LGBT Rights, Technology and Privacy, Free Speech, National Security, and many more. The ACLU does many things to defend our rights. They have taken cases to courts, including the supreme court, in order to ensure we are being given our rights. The ACLU is definitely involved in Litigation. They are involved in the legislative and judicial branch, they will take legal action to protect and guarantee our rights. While the ACLU does not receive much funding, they have many members which gives them a lot of influence in today's society. Since they don’t have much funding, campaign donations are not an option for them. Instead, they get their ideas and views in the spotlight through litigation and rallies. Since they are focused on so many issues, they have lots of projects going on at once. Currently, they are trying to end the HYDE act, this restricts abortion costs from being covered by insurance. They have a petition on the website and

The subject of student rights has caused a lot of confusion and anger for decades now. There are two different sides that everyone seems to fall into. Some people want the constitutional rights of students to be fully protected within the school. The other side believes that, as a public institution, schools should regulate what is said or done by students to protect everyone involved. This is where it gets confusing, because it is hard to draw the line between what is allowed or not. The three most interesting topics that I chose to cover are a student’s right to free speech, religion within the school and student privacy.

However, as a school librarian, I also need to create policies that do not restrict students’ right to access information from a variety of perspectives. Safeguarding and promoting students’ right to access information on diverse and controversial subjects is also another component of my future policy for students’ use of the Internet. Accordingly, I will need to verify that the blocking software that the school uses is not blocking information specifically due to its controversial nature such as LGBTQ issues, or contentious political viewpoints. The American Library Association asserts (2012), “Anything that restricts access to information based on viewpoint or content violates the First Amendment” (p. 23). Consequently, a critical component of my future role as a school librarian will be verifying that the filtering software and the acceptable use policy of my school are not infringing upon the students’ right to access information from a variety of viewpoints.