First Amendment No Big Deal, Students Say

[kpih]

First Amendment No Big Deal, Students Say

1 hour, 5 minutes ago

By BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer

WASHINGTON - The way many high school students see it, government censorship of newspapers may not be a bad thing, and flag burning is hardly protected free speech.


It turns out the First Amendment is a second-rate issue to many of those nearing their own adult independence, according to a study of high school attitudes released Monday.


The original amendment to the Constitution is the cornerstone of the way of life in the United States, promising citizens the freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly.


Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.


"These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous," said Hodding Carter III, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which sponsored the $1 million study. "Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation's future."


The students are even more restrictive in their views than their elders, the study says.


When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes. Only 83 percent of students did.


The results reflected indifference, with almost three in four students saying they took the First Amendment for granted or didn't know how they felt about it. It was also clear that many students do not understand what is protected by the bedrock of the Bill of Rights.


Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It's not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't.


"Schools don't do enough to teach the First Amendment. Students often don't know the rights it protects," Linda Puntney, executive director of the Journalism Education Association, said in the report. "This all comes at a time when there is decreasing passion for much of anything. And, you have to be passionate about the First Amendment."


The partners in the project, including organizations of newspaper editors and radio and television news directors, share a clear advocacy for First Amendment issues.


Federal and state officials, meanwhile, have bemoaned a lack of knowledge of U.S. civics and history among young people. Sen. Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., has even pushed through a mandate that schools must teach about the Constitution on Sept. 17, the date it was signed in 1787.


The survey, conducted by researchers at the University of Connecticut, is billed as the largest of its kind. More than 100,000 students, nearly 8,000 teachers and more than 500 administrators at 544 public and private high schools took part in early 2004.


The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority.


Students who take part in school media activities, such as a student newspapers or TV production, are much more likely to support expression of unpopular views, for example.


About nine in 10 principals said it is important for all students to learn some journalism skills, but most administrators say a lack of money limits their media offerings.


More than one in five schools offer no student media opportunities; of the high schools that do not offer student newspapers, 40 percent have eliminated them in the last five years.


"The last 15 years have not been a golden era for student media," said Warren Watson, director of the J-Ideas project at Ball State University in Indiana. "Programs are under siege or dying from neglect. Many students do not get the opportunity to practice our basic freedoms."

[SunWuKong]

that's because nowadays the free speech part of the First Amendment has been hijacked to mean that people can say whatever the hell they please. but the original intent was to protect the people's right to protest and complain about the government.

[ism]

I don't know how exactly the survey was worded, but 13% of students believing in arbitrary standards for absolute authoritarian control of speech isn't too surprising -- just think of the kids being raised by Parents Television Council members. Children are generally raised under authoritarian means and how well the education system imparts the importance of the Bill of Rights can easily generate that response. I'd be more alarmed by a historical trend if this survey had been carried out yearly, or if there was a proven link to the current actions of government.

The flag burning question also teeters close to trivia -- even if a student knows about Freedom of Speech they may be confused by laws regarding respecting the flag, and they would have to know that existing case law says that flag burning is considered protected political speech. When half the country thinks criticizing a war means you're a terrorist, the distinction of an action being speech is a finery beyond the comprehension of at least half this nation's kids.

that's because nowadays the free speech part of the First Amendment has been hijacked to mean that people can say whatever the hell they please. but the original intent was to protect the people's right to protest and complain about the government.Hijacked? The original intent to protect the people's right to complain about the government is covered in the part about "redress of grievances" but the Freedom of Speech is clearly more encompassing than that. Many of the FF were writers, publishers, and freethinkers, and the ability to speak or write whatever they wanted, whether or not it was a complaint against the government or something "indecent," was something they definitely wanted to protect. The First Amendment was written to give free license to speak, and has only been refined to restrict speech since then (inciting violence, etc.).

[VV o n g B a]

i wonder if their views will change once they get to college and start downloading stuff. they'll learn about dmca the hard way.

i've seen another report on youth that said they don't consider privacy issues very important either. they seem to mind it less when personal info is shared w/ other parties. i hope this doesn't mean the next generation is gonna want authoritarians in power.

[truMp]

I swear, the students which schools are producing today are extremely ignorant. Or the students may have just misinterpreted the question which was presented to them in the survery; all in all though, the new generation scares me in some ways. The indoctrination of schools? MTV?

[SunWuKong]

Hijacked? The original intent to protect the people's right to complain about the government is covered in the part about "redress of grievances" but the Freedom of Speech is clearly more encompassing than that. Many of the FF were writers, publishers, and freethinkers, and the ability to speak or write whatever they wanted, whether or not it was a complaint against the government or something "indecent," was something they definitely wanted to protect. The First Amendment was written to give free license to speak, and has only been refined to restrict speech since then (inciting violence, etc.).

well, the "redress of grievances" was in the context of people gathering together in petition to the government. i'm no consitutional scholar or anything, so i agree that it's entirely possible they wanted to encompass anything beyond the domain of complaints against the government, but when you've got strip joints trying to use the First Amendment to stay open after local laws were passed to ban them, i think it's taking it a bit too far. not that i don't want more social freedoms, but i'm not so certain that's how the founding fathers wanted the First Amendment to be applied.

[TB4000]

Post 9/11 has just made everyone antsy, plain and simple. Free speech no longer is deemed a good thing, as it usually means going against the government, which has become a taboo.

[Faithless]

Post 9/11 has just made everyone antsy, plain and simple. Free speech no longer is deemed a good thing, as it usually means going against the government, which has become a taboo.
You have it right there.

A link to the in-depth story?

http://firstamendment.jideas.org/

Questions 1-10:
http://firstamendment.jideas.org/students/studentsurvey1.php
Questions 11-23:
http://firstamendment.jideas.org/students/studentsurvey2.php
Questions 24-43:
http://firstamendment.jideas.org/students/studentsurvey3.php
Questions 44-53:
http://firstamendment.jideas.org/students/studentsurvey4.php
Questions 54-63:
http://firstamendment.jideas.org/students/studentsurvey5.php

I love questions about parent/guardian news source:
66% say its from TV.

With all this talk about the liberal media, you'd think the liberal media would be indoctrinating these kids with the idea that the First Amendment is a god fearing right.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

I doubt the survey results would be much different if we had a time series of them going back for decades. It's not the influence of any one political era; the problem is that compulsory education tends to put uneducable people in school. Then they get to be considered "students", and the press gets to scream about their idiocy by saying "Students don't care about xyz!" I've seen estimates that 1/5 to 1/4 of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. Why would they care about freedom of a press whose output they don't read?

[Faithless]

You can definitely look at it that way.

It's all in how it is tought. Ask the same question about importance to next level of generations and your bound to get better answers.

The question is how do you make it all relevant to high school kids?

Take away their fucking loud-uncouth-assed tunes and they sing a different song. :rolleyes:

It's interesting too, since the Knight Foundation also funded the effort to increase the quality of high school journalism.

http://www.highschooljournalism.org/

[kpih]

I think this particular question is important at this point in history. Popular media and entertainment is one issue. Considering the current political discourse and the direction it takes, legitimate inquries and questioning authority is necessary. Without First Amendment protection it would be extremely difficult and dangerous to achieve.

[nola]

Oh yeah, I agree. FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS are VERY IMPORTANT.

[Faithless]

I think this particular question is important at this point in history. Popular media and entertainment is one issue. Considering the current political discourse and the direction it takes, legitimate inquries and questioning authority is necessary. Without First Amendment protection it would be extremely difficult and dangerous to achieve.
Well, then, maybe it's a good thing that they don't vote when reaching that magical age. :rolleyes:

One thing that I don't get -- so what is the expectation then by those in the educational system of these kids?

[SunWuKong]

I think this particular question is important at this point in history. Popular media and entertainment is one issue. Considering the current political discourse and the direction it takes, legitimate inquries and questioning authority is necessary. Without First Amendment protection it would be extremely difficult and dangerous to achieve.

in the title you mentioned that "Hitler Youth is Next". actually if you think about it, a disregard for the First Amendment would probably be the first thing that stops, for example, Nazi publications from freely spreading their messages. First Amendment would actually protect Nazi publications.

[nola]

That's true. Free speech would include Aryan voices.

Curtailing free speech is dangerous.

[thaite]

those kids are stupid and need to be gagged.

Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to talk.

[kpih]

in the title you mentioned that "Hitler Youth is Next". actually if you think about it, a disregard for the First Amendment would probably be the first thing that stops, for example, Nazi publications from freely spreading their messages. First Amendment would actually protect Nazi publications.

I don't disagree and it was just a pun on my part. However...

Considering the right wing inclination of the overall political climate, the patriot act, and the self-censorship of the press and the media, thus far the First Amendment is a far more effective and frequently used weapon to attack the left and the opposition than the extreme right. See Pat Buchanan.

[nola]

Yes the left is censored in the press and media. Left voices are found mainly in alternative or independent media.

[ism]

i'm no consitutional scholar or anything, so i agree that it's entirely possible they wanted to encompass anything beyond the domain of complaints against the government, but when you've got strip joints trying to use the First Amendment to stay open after local laws were passed to ban them, i think it's taking it a bit too far. not that i don't want more social freedoms, but i'm not so certain that's how the founding fathers wanted the First Amendment to be applied.I see what you mean. Yeah, I don't think there's any way to conclusively say the FF would go along with that. The concept of "freedom" and "liberty" as deriving from Natural Rights or civil liberties as applied in the Bill of Rights isn't even clear. The Alien and Sedition Act, a clear violation of the First Amendment, wasn't touched by the SCOTUS, although criticized by the Anti-Federalists. They did put a lot of faith into the judiciary to adapt to the times, though.

Not to say that flag burning is a clear-cut thing; Congress keeps trying to pass Amendments to stop it, and the SCOTUS narrowly allows it.

[Yeahman]

Yes the left is censored in the press and media. Left voices are found mainly in alternative or independent media.
Like NPR and PBS?
Those small indie films like Fahrenheit 9/11? And those hard-to-find books like Lies and the Lying Liars?

[nola]

Those are liberal outlets.

Al Franken is a liberal not a radical.

The left means leftist or radical. Fahrenheit 9-11 was one of the only times something radical appeared in the mainstream media. After it came out we're been hearing every kind of backlash and rebuttal against it. The right can dish it out but they can't just take it. They had to come out with all these right-wing versions of Fahrenheit 9-11. Pussies.

Back off, ye110man.

I've had enough of you for a lifetime. I'm ignoring you from now on.

[A.R.A.M.]

Like NPR and PBS?
Those small indie films like Fahrenheit 9/11? And those hard-to-find books like Lies and the Lying Liars?

I think that you may be overlooking the fact that the mainstream media, in this case some studios and theaters, did not want anything to do with Fahrenheit 9/11.

[hooligan]

Like NPR and PBS?
Those small indie films like Fahrenheit 9/11? And those hard-to-find books like Lies and the Lying Liars?

Hey, let's be fair and balanced here, next to those most far-left voices are silenced for things either moderate or right-leaning. Take corporate consilidation of media, it really cuts down on the diversity of views.

[SunWuKong]

Like NPR and PBS?
Those small indie films like Fahrenheit 9/11? And those hard-to-find books like Lies and the Lying Liars?

well let's be real here. who has a bigger audience, Fox News, or those that you mentioned?

[Yeahman]

Al Franken is a liberal not a radical.

The left means leftist or radical. Fahrenheit 9-11 was one of the only times something radical appeared in the mainstream media.
What makes Fahrenheit 9/11 more leftist than Lies and the Lying Liars?

After it came out we're been hearing every kind of backlash and rebuttal against it. The right can dish it out but they can't just take it. They had to come out with all these right-wing versions of Fahrenheit 9-11. Pussies.
For fighting back?
Would you then also like to admonish Franken for doing the O'Franken Factor and the Daily Show for doing the Cobert Report? Why can't they just take the ass whipping without complaining? :rolleyes:

well let's be real here. who has a bigger audience, Fox News, or those that you mentioned?
Fox News. I was just making the point that leftist voices are hard to find. People just don't like listening to them. Just look at Air America. I honestly wanted Air America to succeed. I tuned in from the very first day until the end of the week when the constant attacks against religion just forced me to turn it off.

[WestSide_SkHd69]

It's sad.Even I have a better understanding of the Bill of Rights than these idiot kids & I didn't graduate.I had to get a GED.But then it has to do with me being a semi-conservative patriotic SkinHead too.Heck I even have a copy of the Oregon state constitution(haven't read it all yet though). I do admit there is a lot of stuff being claimed to being protected by the 1st Amendment that is garbage.Like Nude dacing in a Strip club,sorry getting nude on stage for pay to titilate men isn't speech.Then there is the rubbish of so-called "seperation of church and state".Not part of the 1st Amendment let alone the constitution.If I should want to wear a cross,a shirt w/ Jesus saves and read a bible and say a prayer at school or a government building it's my right whether I'm a student,a teacher or politiction.L8r
WestSide

[Shuriken]

KIDS SAY THE DARNDEST, MOST STALINIST THINGS

by Bill Maher


A new survey found that a majority of high schoolers think newspapers should not be allowed to publish without government approval. And almost one in five said that Americans should be prohibited from expressing unpopular opinions.

Lemme tell you little darlings something: This is my livelihood you're messing with, so either learn the Bill of Rights or you don't deserve Social Security.

Now, to those of you who think I'm overreacting: Yes, I understand that when you're in high school you're still very young and that no one really cares what kids say anyway — it's not like priests are dating them for their brains.

But the younger generation is supposed to rage against the machine, not for it; they're supposed to question authority, not question those who question authority.

And what's so frightening is that we're seeing the beginnings of the first post-9/11 generation — the kids who first became aware of the news under an "Americans need to watch what they say" administration, the kids who've been told that dissent is un-American and therefore justifiably punished by a fine, imprisonment — or the loss of your show on ABC.

President Bush once asked, "Is our children learning?" No — they isn't. A more appropriate question might be, "Is our teachers teaching?" In four years, you can teach a gorilla sign language. Is it too much to ask that in the same amount of time a kid be taught what those crazy hippies who founded this country had in mind?

I know the Morals & Values folks want us to take time out of the school day for prayer and the Ten Commandments and abstinence training and at least two theories of evolution — the one agreed upon by every scientist in the world and the one that involves naked ladies and snakes — but, lest we forget, last month the people of Iraq risked death and danger to send a simple, inspiring message: America, get out of our country. But also, we want the freedoms you take for granted.

Now, I didn't mind being on the losing side of the last election. But as a loser, I guess I have some "unpopular" opinions — and I'd like to keep them. I'd even like to continue to say them right out loud on TV, because if I just get up there every Friday night and spout the Bush administration's approved talking points, that's not freedom or entertainment.

It's Fox News.

***

Bill Maher is the host of HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher."