The First Amendment in our Bill of Rights, see Chapter 10 in our textbook or any government website, states that "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" (Cornell University Law School). People of the United States essentially receive the right to freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition. Although a countless number of things can be considered unconstitutional in the Michael Brown case, limiting the media is a definite violation of our First Amendment.
Police officials have asked several citizens and the media not to record events with cameras and phones. Is this not a direct violation to our freedom of press? A tear-gas canister was fired at an Al Jazeera America TV crew and the camera recorded officers tilting it towards the ground. Another violation is the case of Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post. Lowery, using a nearby McDonald's to charge equipment and work, was detained by police. His account reads:
The following day, Lowery was released with no explanation as to why he was arrested. Why is this a violation? Citizens have the right to document events. The Bill of Rights was written by James Madison to justify what our inalienable rights are. It is crucial that we understand the full extent of our rights to prevent any limitation of our rights in the future. Knowing these valuable amendments helps check the power of our government.
Sources: Washington Post, Cornell University Law School, USA Today, First Amendment Center
Hey Rebecca! I really enjoyed reading your post about how you tied in what we are learning with a current event. It definitely helps ties things together nicely,
ReplyDeleteI completely loved the way you quoted not only the constitution, but also the victim's point of view. I definitely agree with your statement that many people's rights are being violated in terms of freedom of speech and press. While I do agree, I do find it hard to look from the police department's perspective as well. What would they do to try to control the people? While I do think what they are doing with the gassing in extremely wrong and extreme, I also think they do need to do something to try to restore order in the city. It even got to the point where they had to bring in the National Guard because the riots were exploding.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/18/private-autopsy-on-michael-brown-reveals-that-was-shot-six-times-report-says/
While the protesting was peaceful at first, I think that things started getting extreme on both ends. Though the police were infringing on the First Amendment rights, the police are also there to protect the general people. Many hackers were starting to go onto the police department records and databases which could also be argued was violating people's rights to privacy. It is really a difficult call because it is such a tragic incident.
I personally believe that the police are also in a really tough position right now, but I also really empathize with the protestors and Brown's family with the loss of their son at such a young age. Thanks for the post Rebecca! It was very insightful. :)
Hi Rebecca. Thanks so much for writing this post. Though I had heard about it, I don't really read the news enough to understand what was going on, so the way you began the post with background information was really helpful. And like Christina mentioned, the way you linked the event to what we learned in class was helpful. It gave a real example of the application of the first amendment.
ReplyDeleteTo respond to what you were saying, Christina, I think that is a really good point. Though the police cannot blatantly deny a person their freedom of speech and press, it is important to note that the police are trying to control the "mob" as Mr. Stewart would call it. Modern psychology proves that when groups of people get together with a cause, they tend to become more extreme in their thoughts as well as in their actions. The so-called "mob mentality" takes over and people are less likely to think rationally.
Finally, what you said about hackers is really important, raising the question, which is more important: press or privacy? The internet allows people access to more information than ever before, and that, coupled with radical ideas of an angry people, can be dangerous for others -- especially when hackers are accessing police records. A paper electronically published by Yale Law School explains it well, that the right to privacy was made to "support the individual ... in the relations between the individual [and] collective society." Additionally, it is to protect the individual's will from that of the collective people. The most important part, though, is that "it thus differs from time to time ... depending on where the line is drawn between individual autonomy and collective obligation."
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3789&context=fss_papers
Thanks for the feedback!
ReplyDeleteThose are some really good points I can emphasize. If I were to write this article again, I would definitely analyze the perspective of the cops. That component of sharing different sides of the story is something I need to work on. I also really like the point about the hackers. The question of "press or privacy?" is controversial yet gives us valuable insight on how much freedom the first amendment really gives.
Thank you guys for the commentary! This is really helpful!