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 Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
Constitutional Rights Practiced in the Home
I take our Constitutional rights seriously. You may have noticed that I have written about the 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms, the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause and the 5th Amendment Right to Remain Silent previously. In our household, we exercise each of the freedoms bestowed upon us by the 1st Amendment on a daily basis. And I bet you do too. Here are some examples:
Example 1: In long line at Target check-out; it's 6 pm; the Darlings Boys are with me; we haven't eaten dinner yet; it's been a long day; need I say more; I pray for patience.
Example 2: Darling 1 has lost Little Teddy along Nicollet Ave in downtown Minneapolis in the dark; next day in the car; it's snowing; Darling 1 prays that Little Teddy is safe and out of the snow.
We don't do it in a loud, demonstrative way. We are respectful of those around us who may or may not pray to the same God.
Example 1: Darling 2 is playing with a Lego vehicle that Darling 1 built the day before; Darling 1 comes over and takes the Lego vehicle from Darling 2; Darling 2 yells "NOOOOOOOOOOO!" before hurdling towards Darling 1; I step between Darling 1 and the hurdling object that is Darling 2 to prevent a violation of such rights; Darling 1 must return said vehicle to Darling 2; Darling 1 must then exercise his right of freedom of speech by asking for the use of said vehicle.
Example 2: DH complains about my inability to function well in AM after repeatedly trying to wake me in AM; I remind DH that he has known this about me upwards of 15 years now; DH maintains his argument; I maintain mine….for years upon years.
-
The Darling Boys are working on the peaceable part, but they do assemble to petition me on a daily basis; and I petition them, as well. Generally, there is a bit of freedom of expression thrown into this one for good measure.
Example 1: The Darlings have just been told no more DVD time today; Darlings first try the "Puleeeese!" with sugary sweet undertones tactic; when told "No!" they proceed to the "Just 1 more, PLEEEEEAAAASSSE!" with borderline panic undertones; when told "No!" again, the Darlings now pull out all stops with "Oh No, We'll Never Get to Watch {Insert Pixar/Disney/HIT Entertainment Character Here} AGAIN!" while writhing, whining, crying, and perhaps laying on the floor or hugging the portable DVD player with frantic, desperate, dramatic tones; and then we move on to something else; again, they're working on the peaceable part.
Example 2: I make a new dish for dinner full well knowing the Darlings are probably going to stage a protest, ah, another 1st Amendment right; yet I still serve the new dish containing {insert any number of foods or foods prepared a certain way or foods they ate last week, but have decided they don't like this week}; the protest is full on; I peaceable petition the Darlings to try just a smidge; just a lick of the spoon; protest continues; I continue my peaceable, patient petition for them to just GIVE IT TASTE, DANG IT. I SLAVED AWAY IN THE KITCHEN MAKING THIS DELICIOUS AND NUTRITIOUS MEAL FOR US; this show of emotion has no impact on the protesters; meanwhile, their attention shifts to something else; they forget about their protest; they forget they weren't going to eat the new dish on their plates in front of them; they eat it; I win!
Example 1: We are going to the Mall of America; Darling 1 insists on wearing his orange, realistic-looking astronaut jumpsuit from NASA; I ask him to wear a pair of pants and shirt instead, pointing out that he might get his suit dirty; he insists and adds his NASA ball cap to his ensemble; I retreat; he has spoken his intentions and it won't harm anyone if he wears it; of course, he wore his firefighter rain boots with it too; if Darling 1 feels the need to express himself through his apparel who I am to stop him?
Example 2: See Protest involved in meal debate in Ex. 2 above.
You get the point. I bet you can think of many similar examples of your family members exercising each of his or her Constitutional rights.
Of course, there are limitations to these rights. In exercising your own rights you can't harm another person or infringe on his or her rights. This is something that takes time to teach when dealing with youngsters, but adults should know how this works.
Freedom of Expression & Students
Freedom of expression includes ideas, dialogues, poetry, photographs, art and anything else contained in a book. Not only does a person have the right to express his or her views as an author, anthologist, photography, editor, artist, etc., but a person also has the right to read, view and/or listen to his or her choice of books, art, photography, etc. so long as none of this is harmful to another, incites violence or is libelous.
The question here, looking at book banning in schools, is what about students? How much freedom is afforded to students in school? This is a question that has been answered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), the Court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The U.S. Supreme Court has often times sided with the students in regards to Constitutional rights.
This is not to say that school administrators cannot reject certain newspaper article topics in the school newspaper (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier) or enforce the school's dress code or restrict vulgar language on the school's premises or regulate the students' behavior in hallways, etc.; the school administration still has authority over the students, but the students also retain their Constitutional rights while in school.
Case Analysis of Pico
In Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982), the school board "ordered the removal of the books from school libraries and proscribed their use in the curriculum because particular passages in the books offended their social, political and moral tastes and not because the books, taken as a whole, were lacking in educational value." Id. at 859. The school board responded "the board acted not on religious principles but on its conservative educational philosophy, and on its belief that the nine books removed from the school library and curriculum were irrelevant, vulgar, immoral, and in bad taste, making them educationally unsuitable for the district's junior and senior high school students." Id. at 392.
The questions before the Court, "First, does the First Amendment impose any limitations upon the discretion of petitioners to remove library books from the Island Trees High School and Junior High School? Second, if so, do the affidavits and other evidentiary materials before the District Court, construed most favorably to respondents, raise a genuine issue of fact whether petitioners might have exceeded those limitations?"
The Court held, "Local school boards have broad discretion in the management of school affairs, but such discretion must be exercised in a manner that comports with the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment… such rights may be directly and sharply implicated by the removal of books from the shelves of a school library. Id. at 863-869. "Whether petitioners' removal of books from the libraries denied respondents their First Amendment rights depends upon the motivation behind petitioners' actions. Local school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to "prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion." West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 . If such an intention was the decisive factor in petitioners' decision, then petitioners have exercised their discretion in violation of the Constitution." Id. at 869-872.
In this instance, the Court found that the evidence before the Court failed "to exclude the possibility that petitioners' removal procedures were highly irregular and ad hoc." Id. at 875.
Source: www.findlaw.com
The Scoop
For other interesting 1st Amendment Cases involving Freedom of Expression, go to http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases.cfm. I plan to have a link-up post on Wednesday involving books {if I can figure out how to do a link-up post}. On Thursday, I will post tips for finding great books to read with your kids, making reading a habit for your family and online book resources. Over and out…
Anna
You might also like:
Definitionof Family: Constitutionality of FL Adoption Law Banning Gays
CelebratingChristmas: The Plastic Reindeer Rule; Analysis of Lynch v.Donnelly
AccidentsHappen…or Maybe Not: A Child’s Duty of Care; Menagh v. Breitman