U.S. Kids Don't Understand First Amendment 2124
l4m3z0r writes "This rather alarming article discusses a study of high-school students in which they were asked about censorship, protected speech, and other aspects of the first amendment. The results are extremely worrisome: "Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories." and this "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.".."
Accuracy (Score:5, Interesting)
And does the First Amendment still feel the same after newly introduced Bills like PATRIOT ACT?
For instance, some countries have this Internal Security Act which allows government to imprison anyone for a couple of years without trial, and with that shadowing above your head, does it still matter if you're protected by another ancient right?
It's like a F1 driver still feels safe driving on slicks after it starts raining.
Re:Accuracy (Score:4, Insightful)
The government wants people to give up their rights, either voluntarily or through attrition. "Terrorism" is today what "Communism" was in the 50's. Smarten up, kids. You'll be living in a corporate controlled country when you grow up.
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. Propaganda works wonders. After all, how else do you explain that half of Americans believe Iraq was involved in 9/11 [commondreams.org]. It certainly doesn't suprise me that students don't understand what the government can and can't do when they don't learn it in schools and the media doesn't cover it because it isn't sex, violence, or an entertaining show.
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Pity.
Moll.
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Accuracy (Score:4, Informative)
Let's try to inject some accuracy into your comments...
Certainly many elected officials, and their appointees, have hidden agendas. Their public agenda is, presumably, why people voted for them. But to dismiss public schools because of this belies a deep misunderstanding of the advantages of a public school system. A public school system is, by necessity, open to scrutiny by the entire community. Private schools are not.
The only case I've read about this is about a techer who was using the consitution in a Cupertino, CA public school to argue that the "Founding Fathers" intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation. Some conservative press misrepresented this as a case of "banning the constitution" in the school.
I attribute the decline in the U.S. primary education system to the following ills:
Re:Accuracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the real truth: I trust a government run by a mix of liberals and conservatives with a heavier lean towards liberals more than I trust any conservative corporation. I don't trust a government overrun with "middle-of-the-road" politicians where the real balance leans towards the conservatives. Right now the government can't be trusted at all. It wasn't so bad during Clinton, but it could have been better. Probably the best president this country ever had was F.D.R. and he was shaped by the time he lived in. Sadly, the history books of this once decent nation will be twisted to paint G Dumbya with the same brush that F.D.R. EARNED by his great works. Personally, I've given up and I hope to make a plan to be out of this hell and in the E.U. within the next decade.
You're wrong...read your own article. (Score:5, Insightful)
From your own article:, "The Saudi-born fundamentalist's response is unknown. He is thought to have rejected earlier Iraqi advances, disapproving of the Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist regime."
Bin Laden doesn't like Saddam because it directly opposes what he wants: a new Middle East governed by an Islamic fundamentalists theocracy. Saddam represented a direct contradiction to that - Saddam hated Islamic fundamentalistm because he was afraid it undermined his authority with the people. Look, if you were in total control of a country, would you WANT your subjects to believe that there is a HIGHER power, with moral laws above YOUR laws? Think about it.
Sorry for this off topic post, but anyone who thinks Saddam had ANY part in 9/11 or that Osama and Saddam were allies has been watching too much Fox News or is too gullible to filter out the neo-con propoganda.
Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi (Score:4, Interesting)
Or rather a message was sent that the United States will attack whom ever it wants, when ever it wants. So, you (the foreign power) had better not cross us (The United States), or we will find your links to terrorism and hit you with a preemptive strike.
Don't let anyone kid you, Iran is next on the chopping block. I'm not against invading Iran, so much as I'm against the inevitable lies the Bush administration will use to justify such an action. He would probably have a lot more support if he was just more straight forward about the motivations for his actions.
Re:No one said Iraq was involved in 9/11 (off-topi (Score:4, Insightful)
Ohh, there was almost certainly the usual Arab-Isreali nonsense going on, but where did you get the idea that Saddam was trying to do anything against the US? If you had actually been following the story, not only did Saddam destroy his WMD's in the hopes of getting the sanctions lifted (yeah yeah, stupid petty politics made him resist the inspectors and look like he was hiding stuff), but the final US intelligence conclsion was that Saddam actually had hopes of eventually restoring good relations with the US! Remember, the US had formerly been Saddam's benefactor. And why had the US been Saddam's benefactor? Because of the dangerous fundamentalist Iran next door. And that dangerous fundamentalist Iran was still next door, still a threat to Iraq, and still at the top of the US's list of undesired governments. Iran still provided a very same motivation for Iraq and the US to play buddy-buddy. And Saddam really did hope to get the sanctions lifted and get back his cozy position as one of the US's allies-of-convenience.
Saddam was a bastard, but the US has a long track record of being quite generous to politically convient bastards.
-
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
even moral support all count as "involvement"
Yeah. Communism is the same way. If you support welfare or subsidized housing for the elderly then you are supporting the communist regime. The Reds are trying to kill every one of us, because they are jealous of, and hate our freedom. If your parents or spouse or friends support communism, then you are guilty of supporting the evil empire by not informing the house un-American activities committee. If you aren't one of us, then you are part of the cancer that is infecting our nation. Those damn, evil, godless commies are trying to kill us all. The Russians would love to stomp on the heads of every free American baby and squish their brains....what? Oh we're against the Muslims now? Sorry, I have not been keeping up. I'll start over.
If you support anti-globalism or free speech and rights for "suspected" terrorists then you are supporting the terrorist regime. The Muslim fanatics are trying to kill every one of us, because they are jealous of, and hate our freedom. If your parents or spouse or friends support Islam, then you are guilty of supporting the evil empire by not informing the republican party and department of Homeland Defense. If you aren't one of us, then you are part of the cancer that is infecting our nation. Those damn, evil, godless terrorists are trying to kill us all....
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Funny)
With money I got from free market economy, I bought sneakers. These are from Slovakia. They are called "Adidums." They are like "Adidas," but with four stripes instead of three. So for less money, I get extra stripe! It's very good deal.
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Accuracy (Score:4, Interesting)
But anyway, it mentions what you talk about it.
Re:Accuracy (Score:4, Interesting)
I often wonder whether or not a country with a communist economy would survive better if it were lead be a democratically elected body.
Re:Accuracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, I know. We (in the U.S. especially) have made sure of that. The message we've effectively sent is: vote in the communists, and we'll send in the death squads. Try reading up about Nicaragua, for one.
Not Flamebait - Mod Up! (Score:4, Informative)
Such criticism is legit, nowhere does parent say 'America is teh Devil'. The fact is we intervened in South and Central America in order to stop socialists/communists from coming to power by democratic means. Whether or not that this was a good thing is debatable, but either way it_happened.
Re: stupid mods (Score:5, Insightful)
Moreover, mentioning the sordid affair in Nicaragua isn't flamebait; even if you happen to disagree with the BorgCopyeditor's POV, it's a real expression of a valid point whose merits one can argue, not some totally ungrounded attack on America. Modding that as "Flamebait" is uncalled-for.
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Informative)
In the 1980s literacy across India was hovering at around 30%, in Kerela it was closer to 90%.
Numbers for child mortality and life expectency have been similarly impressive.
Re:Accuracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Currently, the US government has been masterful in dividing words from the deeds they describe, and according to this study, it's paying off. When the government talks of spreading freedom and liberty and then begins censoring speech within its country, a very dangerous form of propaganda is created. It's sad that this conditioning seems to be infiltrating the US school system.
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait he wasn't.
Please note that people pointing out your mistake and demanding you correct it is not censorship. When you do a protest by doing something illegal. It is not censorship when you are arrested for that activity, or shouted down for outright lies and inaccuracies.
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he was just fired, his staff canned, the entire news organization replaced with more Bush-friendly types. His rep was smeared with an unproven charge of forged evidence that his provider was unable to refute for fear of ruining his source's life.
The story of Bush's golden slide from the Guard was permanently stamped as "false", even though Palast broke - and proved true - that story four years ago. NO ONE will take on on Bush's people, else they get the Wilson/Rather treatment. Hell, Rove was willing to nuke an entire CIA front company to get the WIFE of Wilson! That's showing anyone who's thinking og growing a pair that their life is worth exactly one tub of used kitty litter. Who needs government censorship when corporate censorship works so much better?
Linux Torvalds did it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Right-wing Americans claim that Reagan did it.
Conservative Brits contend that Thatcher did it.
Liberal Americans name Jimmy Carter and his focus on human rights issues as the reason for the fall.
Catholics believe the Pope made it happen.
Islamists attribute the collapse to Osama Bin Laden and militant muslims and call Americans arrogant for not acknowledging this
Most Slashdotters see nobody else but Cowboy Neal behind all of this
But I ask you. Can it be a coincidence that the dissolution of the USSR took place in the very year Linus Torvalds posted version 0.0.1 of the Linux kernel on Usenet? I think not. Isn't it obvious? Soviet communism was supposed to be just an immediate form until a new and truly communist society would start to exist. With true communism in the form of Linux out(*), there was no need for the USSR anymore.
(*) MS' Ballmer: Linux is communism [theregister.co.uk]
and don't forget (Score:4, Insightful)
Khruschev (Score:5, Interesting)
Khruschev, unlike Stalin and Lenin, was a patriot for the system and cared about the survival of the USSR and the Soviet system of government beyond his own time of service. He hoped to decrease military spending and increase spending on domestic issues such as agriculture, education, housing, etc.
As long as the leadership (central committe, politburo) was convinced that the USSR maintained military superiority over the US, Khruschev was allowed to be a little more liberal with his spending. During the 1960 US presidential election in particular, there was a lot of talk about the "missile gap" and how the US had languished under Eisenhower/Nixon and needed its military might strengthened. Then, of course, Kennedy was elected and reassured everybody that there was no gap and that the US was indeed strong enough to take on the Ruskies. Add the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis in the mix and the Soviet leadership's grip on the economy closed again.
Khruschev was all but over after the Cuban Missile Crisis, and so was the Soviet economy. As the parent stated Brezhnev's uninspired leadership never challenged the military spending habits. The irony is that by not spending enough domestically, the USSR assured that their economy would dwindle and falter. Gorbachev understood the issues and was working toward solving them as much as he could with increased trade, glasnost, etc. but that put him at odds with the leadership and the military who were more worried about spending to match Reagan's SDI boondoggle. When the coup was attempted it sparked the endgame. The system had reached the tipping point and collapsed in on itself. Gorbachev had liberalized the country enough that it wouldn't stand for the military's coup.
Certainly, Reagan's spending sped up the endgame; but the fall of the USSR really began in earnest when the Soviet leadership ousted Khruschev. While certainly no altruist, Khruschev did indeed believe in his country and wanted it to thrive. Anyone who doubts this should read his speech to the Communist Party Congress in which he denounces Stalin and his policies. It was a move that was daring and shocking in its bravery.
Having said all of that, I'm glad we don't still have a Soviet Union to deal with. I like not worrying about nuclear war every morning, though I wish they'd keep tighter control of their stockpiles.
This terrorism thing doesn't even come close to the anxiety I felt about the Soviets. THAT was a scary time.
Re:Khruschev (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember when the big difference between Us and Them (the reds) was that we had the freedom to travel, without having to "show your papers?"
There's also the asymmetric threat of al-qaeda. They spent $500,000 on 9/11. Our response is to spend somewhere around $200,000,000,000. Oh and then there's the fact that so long as we keep using oil, we'll keep funding Al Qaeda.
The threat is very different, but I don't think it's any lesser. To be honest I never felt that threatened by the USSR but we'll skip that for now. I'm worried that there won't be a "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" in twenty years because some guy in a cave who got one lucky shot tricked us into oustpending him at a ratio of four-hundred-thousand to one.
Simply put, Al Qaeda is not much of a threat to Western democracy, unless of course we allow ourselves to have our pants so scared off our asses that we lose all perspective. It's happened before.
Exactly my point. We have met the enemy, and he is us. What would FDR say to a color-coded Fear level?
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorism is a real threat now. I think the poster was likening the two, because they're both exaggerated for political purposes. The neo-conservative philosophy revolves around the idea of a nation striving against some sort of 'evil' entity. This can be real or fake, but it works best when it's a little of both. Once people have seen a terrorist attack, it doesn't take much to convince them that there's some worldwide organization that was behind it.
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are Republicans so willing to sacrifice everything that is great about this country for the illusion of security? The war on terror is a joke, and so is Mr. Bush.
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
I would argue, though, that the "communism" 50s paranoid politicians thought they were fighting against was similarly non-existing bogeyman: the supposedly powerful american communist organization(s), bent on getting revolution in the US, and forming an imminent internal threat. That is; although Soviet Union was a (real) powerful adversary, it was NOT the enemy, supposedly, but these pesky "american traitors". And that was the strawman.
I agree in that terrorists are in the same sense strawmen; created by the hyper-active imagination of people who are lacking enough real-world threats (would a good old famine caused by cricket swarms fix this?). Just like it's suspected that human immunosystem manages to create itself new problems (allergies, other auto-immune diseases) if it gets bored with the lack of external threats, politicians seem prone to similar mental diseases. It feels unnatural NOT to be scared shitless by "someone somewhere"; and there's alway s the need to paint the face of your enemy, real or imaginary.
In the end, "communist" and "terrorist" threats (from US perspective) are very similar: in the first case it's the problem that the military machine lots its enemies after WWII (Germany and Japan), in the second case it was once again the military machine losing good ol' Soviet Union.
Re:Accuracy (Score:4, Insightful)
I more or less agree with you, but do you really think that inaction will lead to our destruction? These radicals you speak of could never rival the military or economic might of the Western world. Furthermore, "their turf" isn't their turf alone. There are plenty of innocents in the Middle East who do not deserve to live in a war zone.
I could see how this all might be justified if the radicals could be wiped out in this manner. The problem is that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that our aggressive actions do more to fuel extremism than to destroy it. What is our end goal? The end of Islam?
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Peace may require the end of Islam, because it is based on the Qur'an and the Hadiths. These works are based on an Arabic flavor of theocratic fascism and there is no room for competing ideologies.
Hey, as long as we're throwing out religions with sacred texts that promote hatred and intolerantly condemn those of all other religions, why stop at Islam? Might as well get rid of Judaism and Christianity too.
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
The extremity of their threats is not related to the probability of their success. If a mad old tramp declares that he'll kill everyone who wears brown shoes on a Thursday, how many billions should we spend on monitoring and fighting him? How many freedoms should we give up to make sure he can't possibly kill a single innocent person?
The threat from extremists must be weighed against the threat from reactionaries, and the numbers are pretty clear: terrorists have killed thousands of people, but repressive governments have killed millions.
in Sweden (IIRC), where in some cities, police have admitted that they no longer have control due to hordes of Islamic immigrants causing chaos.
Thank you for making the real (racial) motivation for your argument completely clear. Please name a single Swedish city where the police "no longer have control". I would have thought that widespread anarchy, riots and looting in Scandinavia would have made the news. Or perhaps you're just talking about ordinary inner-city crime, which you'd never mention in the same breath as terrorism if the criminals weren't Muslims?
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
We in britain have had the "spectre of terrorism" for longer than you whiny yanks care to mention.
Hell it was you fuckers that were financing it.
Terrorism is only an issue if you let it be one.
Carry on with your life and you are still more likely to be killed by a lightening strike than an act of terrorism
paranoid little fuck
What creates terrorism? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the extreme opposite of the military-religious "war on/of terror" approach, but it is almost as far from solving the issues that cause all that hatred that leads to terrorism.
Bunch of Irish guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create the IRA. They had their reasons for fighting the British establishment.
Bunch of Basque guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create the ETA. They had their reasons for fighting the Spanish establishment.
Bunch of Arab guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create the Al-Qaeda. They had their reasons for fighting the American establishment.
Bunch of Chechen guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to create their liberation army. They had their reasons for fighting the Russian establishment.
Bunch of Tibetan guys didn't just wake up deranged one morning and decide to... oh wait, they're freaking non-violent freedom-fighters so they can be conveniently ignored in favour of doing business with their occupiers...
Anyway, there is a certain pattern that would suggest that nations (often large and with imperialist tendencies) which insist on controlling people and territories outside their natural domain tend to be more affected by terrorism ("one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter") than smaller, democratic states which do not project their power outside their natural borders.
Perhaps recognizing and supporting all peoples' right of self-determination would help remove one of the major root causes of "terrorism"? If you lived under foreign occupation, what would you do?
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
You wonder why Americans are so fat, when most of them think carbs are something are bad for you, when hardly any of them can explain what "callories from fat" means.
Meanwhile, insurance rates in this countly are through the roof for buisness getting sued into the ground becasue someone stupid hurt themselves with their product, because the warning label did not state something that should have been common sense.[/rant]
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, Mr Know-it-all it's closer to 365.242.
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
A person with such lack of culture might not know why touching the stove burned them. An idiot would touch it again.
Of course, being non-intelligent usually goes hand in hand with lack of basic knowledge.
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
The real source of the problem is multidimensional. First, the fact is that teachers are totally unsupervised through their entire workday. Nobody watches the teacher do their daily thing. Even if you have class testing to check for results, that's only one performance review per year. Find me other jobs like that. Besides that, pop-culture of today has moved away from that brief burst in the tech-boom when technical knowledge was considered worthwhile. We've gone back to the '80s - the breakdown seems to be as follows:
- left-wing hippy kids who go into liberal arts to do nothing
- amoral right-wing assholes whose highest aspirations are to be coke-snorting business aristocrats
- mentally fucked-up kids who might be geniuses, but will drop out anyways due to nihilism
- girls who think a blowjob is the highest gesture of love, and anorexia is cool, and therefore have better things to do than school
- keeners who care about nothing but good grades, which are increasingly disconnected from actual learning and intelligence.
- jocks, rappers, and every other subcategory where they only have their eye on one goal, one they've a 1-in-10000 chance of acheiving.
None of those kids will succeed (except the asshole - and he'll only be successful on a personal level, but destructive to everyone around him).
Besides, standardised testing doesnt work - numerous studies have shown this. It dumbs down the kids, it gives kids with particular skills an unfair advantage, has bad biases in poor neighborhoods where kids weren't reared as well as in wealthy neighborhoods, and is generally unhealthy for a school system. There is no clear solution.
I find it funny how people always talk about hiring "coaches" in the States. You'll never hear those words together here in Canada. Coaches are volunteers, or teachers.
The fact is that the only subjects that are really quantifiable are math and science classes, and those aren't the ones that I see the biggest problems in. The only time that I see bad math/science teachers is cases where the Principal doesn't give a hoot about math and science and has simply retasked unqualified teachers into those departments - and in that case, they don't really seem to care about poor performance.
The problem seems to lie in ambiguous arts classes, which are really too unquantifiable for standardised testing. I see many people who breezed through school, through teachers college, and now through work teaching those classes. Nobody notices.
Here is the study (Score:5, Informative)
Future of First Amendment Report (456K) PDF [jideas.org]
Country of origin was not taken into account with their research. That variable might be worth examining if student misconceptions were relatively low. Yet, considering the popularity of misconceptions far outweighs the possible number of students born abroad, it's not really worth examining.
Moreover, there are already sociological studies with that data... you can probably find some full-text research on Ebsco.
Re:Accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Politically incoherent (Score:5, Insightful)
That in itself is arrogant but tolerable. But when schools and other institutions started forcing this political belief upon the general population, principally through the threat of denial of education and other opportunities, that it became "fascism through other means".
You may not like Fox News, but people at least have the choice to follow them or not. That hasn't always been the case with PC.
Re:Accuracy (Score:4, Insightful)
The US Supreme Court has determined that the freedom to read is strongly associated with freedom of speech; the patriot act has a chilling effect on the freedom to read by state enquiry into reading, for such an enquiry immediately suggests that some topics are off limits.
As a ISP, there is one aspect that is of particular concern, the enforcement of silence about investigations, which is a dangerous loss of executive accountability and itself an infringement on free speech; granted, a gag order could be issued by a judge in the past with much the same results, but a gag order was hard to get by law enforcement in the past because it was a clear violation of the 1st amendment.
Of course they don't know, we don't allow them to! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now this is NOT an insignificant study. 100k students and only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories? Excuse me? This misinformation must be coming from somewhere... Are these kids skipping American History/Civics and moving into Psychology and Sociology courses instead?
About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't.
Well, unfortunately it HAS been restricting indecent material. Forcing various institutions to enable filters on content. Yeah, it can't stop ALL the content out there but it is getting closer and closer to that. With the scare tactics and every parent believing that every sensationalist news "story" on the TV is GOING TO AFFECT THEIR CHILDREN they are pushing this crap through without thinking about the consequences.
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.
Of course they don't. Going through high-school English classes I was told repeatedly how I was to respond when it came time for essay exams. If you did not give the teacher what they wanted you were given a poor grade. It wasn't until college (and I remember our second semester English professor being appalled) that I was able to write how I felt about a topic and back it up with real information. The professor would grade you on your research and your proof and not how he/she particularly felt the topic should be supported.
How can we expect high-school aged kids to think that they should be given a chance to practice their First Amendment rights when they are under the constant force feeding of information?
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.
That's because the government and consolidated media doesn't want free thinkers. They want people who follow the status quo. Why stir the pot when you can just report the silly rumors, scare tactics and sensationalism, and car chases above California?
Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them (Score:5, Interesting)
The principal vetoed the whole deal.
Something similar recently came up at another, and the students just left an entire page blank as a protest.
How can we teach kids about 1st amendment freedoms when principals have 100% editorial control over school papers?
Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them (Score:5, Insightful)
If a policeman, acting as an agent of the government, had come in and insisted you not publish an article on sex, that would be a free press issue.
Sounds like you had a learning opportunity and you failed the lesson.
Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, at my high school we were censored as well and our paper was 100% advertising supported. I think you fail to understand that the principal IS the government. He can't censor the news unless it falls into that category that would disrupt the school environment. Of course, conveniently, the principal is the one who decides this which means it is at his whim.
The fact is that if the government were supporting a regular newspaper in such a tangental way there is NO way they could censor the content. The only reason they can in this case is that the SCOTUS seems to think that all bets are off when it comes to constitutional rights in schools. And it is then no surprise the the kids don't really care about or want to protect their rights, since they didn't have them for the first 18 fucking years!!!
Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them (Score:5, Informative)
You've got it all wrong. The principal was constitutionally off-base in restricting the speech, as it is the taxpayer who is funding the paper. He was acting as a representative of the government, and the government cannot selectively restrict speech in this way.
Anyone interested in learning more ought to google "NEA first amendment" or something to that effect. The National Endowment of the Arts is the traditional lightning rod for speech restriction by government, since there are so many artists funded by the program who try to be deliberately provocative, and so many hicks responsible for legislating funding for the program. Traditionally the supreme court has found restrictions imposed on the speech of funded artists to be unconstitutional for a few different reasons, although I haven't followed supreme court cases much in the last couple of years, and the federal courts (like the rest of the country) are getting dumber and more conservative...
Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them (Score:5, Informative)
A principal does have a competing duty to maintain discipline. The guideline in Hazelwood is that censorship may occur only to prevent "material and substantial disruption".
Instead of sponsored speech, you may be thinking of commercial speech, which is its own legal world. High school newspapers are, AFAIK, supposed to encourage journalism, not public relations.
Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them (Score:5, Insightful)
the thing that everyone is forgetting is this: high school is not now nor has it ever been anything like "real life".
witness: in school, teachers routinely punish the entire class until the party guilty of a particular offense comes forward. in real life, we would call this sort of activity by authorities "terrorism". in school, the mantra of maintaining order is "i don't care who started it." in the real world, we spend billions of dollars on a justice system to figure out "who started it."
since the dawn of the formal state educational system we have been creatinga purly artificial environment for our children with values, mores and codes of conduct that bear no resemblence to the real world whatsoever.
so... why should these results be a surprise?
Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them (Score:5, Insightful)
>
>witness: in school, teachers routinely punish the entire class until the party guilty of a particular offense comes forward. in real life, we would call this sort of activity by authorities "terrorism". in school, the mantra of maintaining order is "i don't care who started it." in the real world, we spend billions of dollars on a justice system to figure out "who started it."
Actually, in real life, governments routinely apply laws to the entire population (banning firearms, banning marijuana) due to the irresponsibility of the few. And just as in school -- when it comes down to a sense of fairness or maintaining order, our leaders also don't care who started it.
Rather than trying to make high school more like real life, we discovered it was more efficient to make real life more like high school.
Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them (Score:5, Insightful)
Parents are responsible for their child's education, not the government, not their church, not anyone else in the world, them. We've been screwing things up for years by letting the government run education, and at some point, it's going to have to stop.
Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them (Score:5, Informative)
http://splc.org/legalresearch.asp?id=3 [splc.org]
Q: Do high school students have First Amendment rights?
A: Yes. As the United States Supreme Court said in 1969, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." But the First Amendment only prohibits government officials from suppressing speech; it does not prevent school censorship at private schools. A state constitution, statute or school policy could provide private school students with free speech protections.
Q: What about the Hazelwood decision?
A: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision, gave public high school officials greater authority to censor some school-sponsored student publications if they chose to do so. But the ruling doesn't apply to publications that have been opened as "public forums for student expression." It also requires school officials to demonstrate some reasonable educational justification before they can censor anything. In addition, some states (currently Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas and Massachusetts) have passed laws that give students much stronger free expression protection than Hazelwood. Other states are considering such laws.
Q: What is a "public forum for student expression?"
A: A student publication is a public forum for student expression when school officials have given student editors the authority to make their own content decisions. A school can do that either through an official policy or by allowing a publication to operate with editorial independence.
Q: So if policy or practice indicates the content of my publication is determined by students, the Hazelwood decision doesn't apply to me?
A: That's right. If a student publication is a public forum for student expression, then students are entitled to stronger First Amendment protection. School officials are only allowed to censor forum publications when they can show the publication will cause a "material and substantial disruption" of school activities.
Q: What about underground or independent student publications? Are they protected from censorship?
A: Absolutely. Although public schools can establish reasonable restrictions as to the time, place and manner of distribution of underground publications, they cannot absolutely forbid their distribution on school grounds. Like school-sponsored publications that are forums, a school must show substantial disruption before they can censor an independent publication.
Q: Can a student publication be sued for libel, invasion of privacy or copyright infringement?
A: Yes, and occasionally they are. In such cases the individual reporter and the editor could be held legally responsible. Court decisions indicate that a school which does not control the content of a student publication may be protected from liability. Students need to be aware that with press freedom does come legal responsibility.
Q: Can student reporters protect confidential news sources or information?
A: Some states have "shield laws" and others have court-created privileges that protect journalists from having to reveal this kind of information. However, most states have never explicitly applied these laws to student journalists. You should check your state law before making a promise of confidentiality because once you make such a promise, the law requires you to keep it.
Q: Can I use freedom of information laws?
A: Yes. Freedom of information, or "sunshine" laws, require government agencies such as public schools to open many of their official records and
Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them (Score:5, Interesting)
The role of public schools isn't to produce free thinkers and speakers. It is to get the masses to submit to the government.
Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're correct about that - or at least that's how the schools see their role these days. They're really more of a venue for people to push whatever political agenda they personally have than for any real education to take place.
This is the problem with public education in the first place. The government will seek to interfere if given control and the ability to do so. IMHO, the only reason we avoided that kind of crap for a long time in this country was because public education was largely decentralized - funded, run, and controlled by local and state government. But notice that these days the federal government is seeking to interfere more and more all the time? As soon as a central government (or at least ours) takes over total control of education, then it's over for our country. They will produce generations of students who don't know how to question authority in its many forms or be creative, and everything (economy, civil society, etc) will eventually implode. This is why the $50 billion+ budget for the Department of Education really scares me. The reason that money has been appropriated has little to do with improving education and a lot to do with gaining federal leverage over school funding - and by extension, school curriculum.
Alternatively, you could view this as a business opportunity, since you're one of the "smart ones" who realizes what's happening. Just find some sort of useless shit to sell that all the idiots being turned out by public education will just snap up, and you could become rich! Personally, I'm leaning towards trying to figure out a way to exploit the overly religious (since so many people will just buy anything if they think it comes from a "Christian company", etc).
Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them (Score:5, Insightful)
American History is still taught, but it's basically as a timeline of events. Civics used to cover everything from your responsibilities as a US citizen to the goals and purpose of the amendments, Bill of Rights, etc.
Basically, everything being taught now comes from a point of view of no judgement calls. If there is something open to interpretation, either it's not taught, or it's taught from a historical context as opposed to the 'meaning' or 'message' of said lesson.
It's how you can teach a religious studies class in a HS. You can learn the history, you just can't preach the subject matter. The same rules now apply to 'preaching US citizenship'.
Just FYI.
Re:Of course they don't know, we don't allow them (Score:4, Insightful)
I, personally, view this as the principle problem in public edutainment. Schools are viewed by the general population as having the first priority of "meeting the needs of the students", or something along those lines. They're always talking about building "high self-esteem" or providing a ground for enlightenment. Though I don't think this is "bad", it's the wrong focus and the wrong approach.
First things first. Public schools first priority should be to teach children how to be "good citizens"-- and no, I don't mean in any fascist sense of "good citizen". Upon completion of twelfth grade, kids should know, at least, the laws they're expected to follow, and the ideals behind these laws. They should be taught about the system of self-government into which they'll be entering, and how to navigate it. The other subjects, such as math, reading, writing, and science, students should know well enough to take care of their own finances, read street signs, write a letter, and not do stupid things like cut into a car battery with a chain-saw.
I'm certainly not saying education should *stop* there, but the priority of public schools should be to make sure that everyone graduating is a functional citizen capable of fulfilling the responsibilities of the citizenry. Meet that level of education first. Otherwise, we're doing children a disservice, by expecting them to be good citizens without providing them the means.
put yourself in thier shoes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:put yourself in thier shoes (Score:4, Interesting)
But it all goes back to bad education. The American History/Governement teachers aren't doing their jobs. In high-school we did a month of Supreme Court cases... one of the most important parts of history and government.
We did the First Amendment to death in that time and learned a lot. Learning about big cases that tested the limits of the Constitution is not only fun (to me) but it also allows you to see how free you really are. But back on topic, we learned why you can say anything on Slashdot and why you can't publish anything in your school's newspaper (because it belongs to the school).
It's not the school environment it's the teaching staff!
Is it getting better, or worse? (Score:5, Insightful)
Inside me is a kneejerk activist who wants to point to this as evidence that growing up, as children have since 9/11/01, surrounded by authority figures who casually restrict freedom of speech in the name of guarding against terrorism, encourages children to pattern their thoughts and behavior along similar unfortunate lines.
But actually, I'd like to know what similar studies have been conducted in years past. If this is the way young adults have always thought, then things probably won't get any worse. What would be disturbing is a trend showing young adults finding restrictions on free speech increasingly acceptable.
Re:Is it getting better, or worse? (Score:4, Informative)
Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like the kids are not the only ones in need of education about the First Amendment?
Re:Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
This shouldn't be surprising... (Score:5, Interesting)
In related findings... (Score:5, Funny)
U.S. *Adults* Don't Understand the 1st either... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd bet dollars-to-donuts the results would be almost identical.
The problem isn't with the kids; it's the system that allows these kids to develop ideas like these that's the problem.
No child left behind, indeed. Does it count when they've *all* been left behind?
Even more scary.. (Score:5, Insightful)
People die to defend these rights, and some of our students don't even know what these rights are?
Hey conservatives! Maybe if instead of worrying about absitence only education and attacking Darwinism you spent your efforts in communicating why and how we are a free society, and why that is of tantamount importance, we could all get along here, hm? Cuz I'll be honest with you, I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with James "Spongebob Is Gay" Dobson if it means we get the message out loud and clear about the Bill of RIghts.
Regarding flag burning (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I myself care about what happens to a flag in the slightest, of course - if you're a soldier and in a fight, you probably have better things to do than worry about than a piece of cloth that probably was produced in a sweatshop in communist China, anyway.
It's funny how these neocons aren't actually conservative in the actual sense of the word, though.
Re:Regarding flag burning (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. Some years back, in the late 1970's, there was a fun court case in Chicago. A theatre group produced a play in which an American flag was burned as part of one scene. The actors involved were arrested.
When they got to court, their defense was simple: They produced the oficial rules for handling flags, and pointed out that flags are supposed to be destroyed by burning. Their flags had come from local organizations such as the VFW. They had sent these organizations the script, and asked for worn-out flags that they could use (and burn) in the play. It seems that all these organizations had discussed the request, and decided that this was in fact a proper (if unusual) way to dispose of the flags. The play itself wasn't "disrespectful"; it merely had fictional characters that were disrespectful of the flag.
I only read the first reports, including the fact that the judge thought it was all pretty silly and tossed out the case. There were, however, lots of offended "patriots", and there was some sort of appeal. I never read what happened in the appeals.
But it is fun to mention to people that burning is the officially-approved way to dispose of old flags, and watch their confusion. After all, would you want someone to just toss a flag in the trash?
Also, how do used-car dealers dispose of their old flags?
Who can blame them? (Score:5, Insightful)
The first amendment, after all, doesn't say that "Congress shall make no law except for laws barring child pornography, the exposure of military secrets, and naughty words on the radio."
Not that I don't favor barring child porn, but you know, if you want to do that, you need to change the amendment...
Yeah, yeah, I know all about our English Common Law system and all that. I'm just saying, you can't blame people for not understanding the law...and frankly, the law is always a mushy, malleable pile of goo if the Supreme Court can change the meaning of pretty plain words.
And Why Would They Be Expected To? (Score:4, Interesting)
...Ban [sptimes.com] the display of the Confederate flag.
...ban pictures [nsba.org] of guns.
... dissent on widely held scientific theories. [cnn.com]
...write speech codes [speechcodes.org] that severely penalize students for voicing their opinions. [brain-terminal.com]
...and a legion of similar examples.
If the American judiciary can't understand the First Amendment, how the hell are America's students supposed to?
Re:And Why Would They Be Expected To? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It's bad when they present non-scientific hypothesis (such as creationism/intelligent design) as "scientific theories" when in fact they are anything but scientific.
It's one thing to say "There are two prevailing views on how we came to be here. One is religious, and you'll learn about it on Sundays in Church, and the other is the scientific theory of evolution, which you'll learn about in this science class." (an appropriate disclaimer prior to teaching students about the theory of evolution) and presenting creationist psuedo-science that fails the basic test of falsifiability and the most basic definitions of science on an even footing with the theory of evolution, when one is a philosophical hypothesis that is not scientific, and the other is science.
If you want religious education in school, go to a religious school (the country's lousy with them), but keep your religious dogma and pseudo-science out of our public, secular schools.
So IOW... (Score:5, Insightful)
just curious... (Score:4, Insightful)
asking:
can the government restrict internet contents for obscene material?
will get a vastly different answer than:
should the government restrict internet contents for obscene material?
but both question can be reported as "X% of students feel government can strict obscene material on the internet."
what do you expect (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of the press, isn't that what leads to disagreements ? Can't we all just adopt the sanctioned viewpoint of our leaders, put this in the past, and look forward to all the great shopping opportunities we have available in this fine country ?
Re:what do you expect (Score:5, Insightful)
Demographics (Score:4, Interesting)
Try the same study with college kids (Score:5, Insightful)
Far more interesting would be to ask people in college the same question, and see how much an open environment led them to expand expectations of freedoms.
Is this suprising? (Score:5, Interesting)
Lack of money for WHAT?? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Lack of money limits their media offerings, but they'd rather plunge a red-hot porcupine up their asses than cut a football or basketball program, even if their program is losing money.
I don't doubt that schools and students benefit from sporting programs. But what life skills are actually learned in sporting programs? Instead of cutting sports, they cut the arts, funding for computer labs, and so-called "media offerings."
Mr. Holland was right. If they quit teaching anything other than reading and writing, pretty soon the students won't have anything left to read or write about.
It's all about the parenting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parenting is a full time job for both parents, and reinforcing things taught in school is one faucet of that job. Many parents, my friends included, think their kids education and well-roundedness will be the result of attending classes in school. They couldn't be more wrong. A U.S. History or U.S. Government teacher has one hour a day in which to cram a 3 hour course-required schedule to 30 students in a crammed classroom. At least that's the way it is in Arizona, one of the worst states for public schooling.
As far as the kids are concerned going to school is something that takes place when they aren't living their lives. I mean, learning is something they do in bits and spurts during a 1 hour course, and it can be thrown out the window during the after school trip to the mall with their friends.
It's really up to the parents to get involved and reinforce the ideas and priciples taught by the public school system. Only by making the student think and ponder the concept of Freedom of Speech will that concept become meaningful to the student, and they can then develop their own opinions about it. Making the student truly ponder it can be a simple dinner table discussion between the student and his or her parents and family.
Unfortunately I know too many parents who send their kids off to school so the parents can do their own thing, then send the kids off to play when the kids get home so the parents can continue to do their own thing. I wish more parents would take the education of their children farther than punishing or rewarding the kids based on the merits of their report cards.
RTFA (Score:5, Funny)
despite its inherent lack of profanity, i like it.
Think that's bad??? (Score:4, Insightful)
How many US citizens, let alone students, know about the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? A document which seems to be acknowledged and recognised in almost every member country BUT the USA?
I've had a long time interest in civil rights and constitutional law but never heard of this document until I became an exile and moved from the US to New Zealand. If you read the document [hrweb.org] you can see it's actually BETTER for the citizens than the US Bill of Rights. No wonder they don't teach about it in schools!
So, teach some law in high school. (Score:4, Insightful)
This really isn't all that surprising or even alarming to me. The Constitution isn't most holy writ, it's just a law. If you want people to know the law, you have to teach it to them. I firmly believe that basic con law and contracts should be taught in grade school, or at least in college (when people have attained majority and it starts to matter more). Yes the law is difficult and esoteric, but there's some amount of it we all need.
If someone refused to learn CPR because they weren't studying to be a doctor, we'd consider them to be lazy and a little hazardous to their peers. I think the law falls into the same camp. Certainly you're way more likely to sign a contract in a given day than you are to have a heart attack.
The system (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything is being taught in order to pass a test...in the end the whole class ends up learning absolutely nothing.
Teacher's dont tech kids to think more open mindedly, and the students who are free thinkers are usually put down.
example:
1.My friend wrote a brilliant paper on socialism - analyzing different positive effects on society, economy... Another kid in the class wrote a complete bullshit paper on democracy - just kissing ass on how America is so great and how democracy works for all. My friend ended up getting a lower grade, just because the teacher did not agree witht the paper. Because teachers are so biased, many students are reluctant to actually write what they think and usually just end up just kissing ass for a good grade.
2.In class my friend and I usually end up fighting against the rest of the class on topics of discussions, such as weather or not people of different cultural backgrounds (i.e Muslims) should be "watched by Big Brother". The scary thing is that most of my classmates think that its ok for the government to control the media and limit the rights of citizens (and especially those of specific cultural backgrounds). [I'm not 'Middle Eastern', in case you think that I'm defending muslims for personal reasons. I believe in freedom - especially to express yourself. Excuse the horryfic grammar, I'm also an immigrant
Side note: I'm really tired of the bullshit saying: "If you dont like America get out of the country". Many older people have said that to me, and I think that it is a very ignorant thing to say - it's a bullshit counter to the flaws I usually bring up. There are many flaws in the American system, just like any other system, and it is those who rebel - fight for our rights - that, I believe, will reform this country to a better place.
Freedom replaced with Fear (Score:4, Insightful)
They want us to be afraid of everything these days. Things like "homeland security" and there idiotic "terrorist threat level" are examples of this. What is your average joe suppose to do? Board themselves up in there house and hide in the basement everytime the stupid color scale hits red? This is America, we are suppose to laugh in the face of terrorist and there attempts to make us fear, not run and hide.
The worst part about it is that it seams to be working. Lots of people do seam to be afraid of things... and not just terrorism.
News flash... Seeing a bare ass on TV isn't going to make your child a sex offender. Hearing an expletive won't turn a kid into a degenerate loser.
Education is, and always has been, the best method for making sure kids keep on the right track. I think it is a parents responsibility to make sure there children aren't scared to ask them questions about anything and everything. If your kid sees a word written somewhere (like the inside of a bathroom stall or the back of the seat on a bus) he/she should know they can always ask there parents and get a straight, correct, answer without any chance of getting in trouble. We should teach our kids about sex. We should tell them about "alternative" lifestyles they might be exposed to.
Anyway... I know when I was 13 my friends and I had already gotten our hands on numerous dirty magazines and other things of that nature and all of us managed to grow up, go to college, and live a decent life.
If you want censorship then get the hell out of this country, there are plenty of places you can go live if you want others making all your decisions for you. You don't deserve to live here if you believe in limiting others freedoms.
Re:The Constitution (Score:5, Informative)
> church and state"
It does. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
That is the very essence of the doctrine of separation of church and state, and goes much further to protect this fundamental right of the people than your wished-for clause would.
Re:The Constitution (Score:5, Informative)
IOW, not making laws that discriminate between different sects.
Yes, it's true. Etymology helps, so does reading history. It's sad, most people don't know history, and don't read much either.
Re:The Constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
The grandparent post was right, though: etymology does help. As does grammar. The object of the sentence is not "religion": it's "establishment of religion." In this context, it most likely means organized religion as a whole. In other words, a passably acceptable paraphrase is "Congress can't make laws which deal with religion," not "Congress can't establish a state religion." You cannot parse the sentence that way (correctly, at least)! In any case, "establishment" is a noun, not a verb: I can't "establishment" a religion, and neither can Congress.
To be sure, yes, this means that Congress can't establish a state religion. But it means quite a bit more than that, when you actually sit down and start thinking through the repurcussions of it all. It means, in short, that any sort of preferential/discriminatory treatment of any religion on the part of Congress is disallowed. Which is how the Supreme Court has long interpreted it (that being a major part of their job, an' all...) and how the phrase was commonly understood until a bunch of people who really should know better decided to start flaunting the grammatical structure of English in service of misguided spiritual ideals (IMO).
Very slanted interpetation there. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the key. Congress can make no law, nothing in the Constitution prevents states or their legislatures from doing it. What does it the over extension of the Federal Courts into the business of the States.
Allowing children to read a prayer at their graduation is not a violation of the First Amendment. In fact it probably is more of a violation of the intent of the First to prevent the students from doing just that.
First take away their ability to practice religion. Second make them rely more on their govenment and state appointed officials. Third thing is to ban certain types of speech by law or itimidation (hate speech).
Do not read into the First what is clearly not there. The Congress already recognizes major religious holidays which would clearly be against the First but I don't see anyone crying over that.
The First was meant to protect religions from dominance by one over another, not to put them all out of the public eye.
Re:Very slanted interpetation there. (Score:5, Insightful)
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
Therefore, the citizens of each state are entitled to the protections that the Congress of the United States provides (by legislation), or the Courts provide (by judicial review), for ALL citizens of the United States. If one state (New Hampshire, for example) wants to provide MORE privileges or immunities, it's quite welcome to, but it CAN NOT remove privileges or immunities provided for by the Constitution or the federal govt.
Re:Two things (Score:5, Informative)
This is the link [cpanda.org] to the opening page which describes the methodology and other information about the study.
Way to go editors. Please don't include actual information for stories.
For those interested you can check my journal for some of the stories which were rejected to see what you've been missing.
Re:Not just the first amendment (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, you're kind of wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
There is NO "preamble" to the Bill of Rights.
Actually, in a manner of speaking, there is. The OP's quote is taken from the original proposed amendments [loc.gov] to the Constitution, said list being drawn up by Congress an approved on March 1, 1789. As a note, there was a preamble to said list, it did include the quote as cited by the OP, and there were twelve proposed amendments, of which one was never approved and one was approved in 1992. The First Amendment was originally "Article the Third".
Re:Wake up, everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
And consider the implications of making flag burning illegal: no doubt protesters of such a law would burn more flags, resulting in legal costs, court time, and possibly imprisonment, which will all land on my desk the next time I have to pay taxes. And if we made flag burning illegal . . . what about pictures of flags? What about tearing up pictures of flags (ala Sinead - "Fight the real enemy!")?
Making flag burning illegal won't stop protesters from doing something to piss you off.
Still, I do agree that some countries have more freedoms in narrower areas. But when it comes to across-the-board freedoms, a US citizen in the US has a hell of a lot.
Re:Wake up, everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
[/irony]
And if i may quote the words of the late Bill Hicks:
"Hey buddy, my dad died for that flag"
"Really?...I bought mine...They sell 'em in K-Mart and ****..."
"yeah..He died in Korea for that flag"
"Wow, what a coincidence. Mine was made in Korea..the world is THAT big man..."
No-one, and I repeat NO-ONE has ever died for a flag. A flag is a piece of cloth, they might have died for freedom, which, by the way, is the freedom to....Burn the.. ****ing flag you see??..Burning the flag doesn't make freedom go away, it's kinda like Free-dom ok?..ok.
And they've had 4 cases in this country's 200 year history, so it's not that big an issue. One of the hotter smokescreens they've put down the pipe. I don't wanna burn a flag, but what business is it of mine if you do?
Is it my business if someone wants to..Is it?...NO
Is it my business what other people read or watch on TV? NO IT'S NOT...THANK YOU
You see, when we talk these things through, it becomes a little clearer doesn't it? That's called logic and it'll help us all evolve and get on the ****ing spaceships and get outta here.
Re:From the vote half of ADULTS dislike 1st rights (Score:5, Funny)
Re:2nd Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
A well-regulated Militia shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
You can't justify infringing on the latter because the People haven't yet organized the former. How effective would a well-regulated Militia be if their rights to bear arms had been revoked ten years earlier?
I'm guessin that most of the members of NRA are aware of the full text of this rather succinct Amendment.
Re:2nd Amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
So, since you obviously support this decision, you must believe that ordinary citizens should be able to possess fully-automatic rifles, explosives, and other arms that are "in common use at [this] time." Right?
Yes, it's parsing words, but so's quibbling over meaning of the first clause of the Second Amendment.