Klansville USA

With the exponential growth of the Civil Rights Movement there were many people that were not happy about all the change. Many white americans felt as though the African Americans would be taking away there privileges and opportunities. The caused many people to join the KKK or the Klu Klux Klan. Now the southern states were really not to active when it came to the number of Klan members. The state although with the largest number of active Klan members was North Carolina. This cause many to wonder why does North Carolina have such a vibrant Klan life?

The head Klan members do the best that they can to persuade as many white americans as they can to joining the Klan. The Klans main goal and what they really wanted was a "pure white American" country. Some of the members of the Klan were really not active members. When I say they weren't active members this means they really only attended the retreats and not the violent aspects of the Klan. A lot of families attended the rallies because they contained live music, food, entertainment and preachers ranting about the needs and desires of the white people. When a whole town is attending the rally it causes others to feel more comfortable with joining and going to the rallies.

Overall this short film was very entertaining and very beneficial for my educational purposes. I learned several things, but the one thing I really took from it was how big the KKK actually was during this time. I originally thought it was a bunch of crazy guys running around in sheets killing African Americans. It turns out I was wrong and the Klan is actually a lot more prevalent then I anticipated. With the millions of people attending the rallies it really showed the country the immense number of members, and really the possible impact they could have on the country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uoAfdB1l14

Bakke V. Board of Regents

Today in class we held a moot court for the case of Board of Regents of the University of California V. Bakke. This was a supreme court case that took place during the Civil Rights Era. This case was a case concerning a white man who felt as though he was discriminated against based on his race. Another student of African American decent was accepted to the University, but Bakke had more successful grades, a better resume and an overall better GPA. Many universities use quotas, and this is when a university reserves a certain number of spots for African American students, in order to achieve greater diversity. These quotas actually violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it uses race as a determining factor in the acceptance of a student. 

Overall I felt as though the class did a great job with this moot court. This case was not the easiest and the groups did a great job of finding supporting information for their arguments. I felt as though the defense team struggled a little bit. The reason for this was because the prosecutors had such good statistics and strong information. The moot court in general went really smoothly and the groups did a great job of arguing their case. 

Elementary Students First Amendment Rights Violated

Can schools punish students for handing out invitations to a religious event? We first must discover whether the school is public or private. If the school is public then the school shouldn't be allowed to discipline students for sharing their religious beliefs. In the First Amendment of the United States Constitution it states Freedom of Religion. This means that we the people are free to practice whatever religion we would like. Also because of the Freedom of Speech clause we are also able to preach to whomever and whenever we want. 

In December 2010, a fifth grade girl at Barrett Elementary Center in Cresco, Pennsylvania went to school carrying flyers for a Christmas party at her church. Her flyers were confiscated by the school and she was punished for promoting her religious beliefs. The only problem with this is that by the school punishing the little girl, they are directly violating her First Amendment Rights. 

In March of 2011, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit against Pocono Mountain School District on behalf of the student. They claimed that her First Amendment rights of free speech had been violated. The case just reached the Court of Appeals and is still under review. All I know is if I was the school board I would do nervous for the cases verdict. 

http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/03/students-first-amendment-rights-violated-school-us-circuit-court-appeals/#

Does Banning Yik Yak at a University Violate Students First Amendment Rights?

With the many applications on electronic media we the people have the access to promote our speech at any moment. Some applications require you to create a profile, so your speech is not private in this case. The new app called Yik Yak allows users to post a small anonymous status within a small range of miles. Other users can see these updates and decide whether they would like to up the status, or down the status. When a status receives five downs the statement is removed from the news feed. 

The applications received amazing reviews right away, and was just awarded the 2015 TechCrunch award for for fasted rising startup. The only problem with this application is that, the users are allowed to say whatever they want because it is anonymous. At a few University's across the country the school boards are begging to consider banning Yik Yak at the campus. Now the schools are treading dangerous waters here as I'm sure they know the First Amendment of Freedom of Speech. 

The universities I'm sure know that this violates students First Amendment Rights, but that doesn't mean a private university can't ban the application. These rights only apply to public universities, and private universities can even develop a speech code if wanted. The government cannot punish a private university for breaking constitutional rights. This will make the public universities really think before banning this application. They know that if the students want, they can fight for the right of Freedom of Speech.  

http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/06/yik-yak-app-banned-at-universities

Were Sterling's First Amendment Rights Violated?

When it comes to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution there are a number of freedoms, but the freedom of speech is the key one with this case. Donald Sterling who was the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, was facing serious charges from the NBA because of some racist comments he made on tape. The NBA commissioner David Stern banned Donald Sterling from the NBA forever and fined him the maximum penalty of 2.5 million dollars. As David stated at the press conference after the racist comments, "Our organization does not stand for this, and the NBA has no room for it". Something big had to change with the ownership in LA because the players began to threaten to boycott the games. 

Donald has been known as the kind of rich guy who gets whatever he wants in the court room. He felt as though his first amendment rights were being violated because he had the freedom of speech. Donald is actually correct. He does have a right to say what he said and not have the federal government silence him or punish him. Although the federal government can not touch Donald sterling, that does not mean this also applies to the private organization with which he does business with the NBA. 

The National Basketball Association is a private organization that Donald Sterling was a part of. This means that the United States Constitution, and its First Amendment freedom of speech rights do not apply in the NBA. Unfortunately for Donald, the amendment does not protect him from whatever punishment the NBA decides to give him. Therefore Donald Sterling can take this case to court all he wants, but it seems like his racist comments will still be the death of his NBA career. 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2014/04/29/were-sterling-first-amendment-rights-violated-nope/dBiqZloaUYWzvoIX1pYcPM/story.html

Tennessee Tech Policy Violated First Amendment Rights

A Kentucky Man who wanted to share his Christian beliefs on a Tennessee college campus, has won a case before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The police asked him the leave the campus because he didn't give two weeks notice, and didn't disclose what he wanted to talk about. The Cincinnati-based appeals court ruled that this policy was unreasonable and violated first amendment rights. In early April of 2009 the man also known as McGlone called Tennessee Tech about visiting to share his message. 

The very next day McGlone and his friend arrived on the campus and began talking to the students on the south patio. This is a pedestrian mall area where students gather to hang out near the university center. When McGlone went inside a university official told him that he was only allowed to talk to students on the north patio and not on the south. He objected because the north patio has no chairs or tables and much less space. McGlone was outraged because he felt as though the school was not granting him the best opportunity to talk to these students. 

The school is clearly in violation of the mans first amendment rights, and it was time for the courts to take action. The courts looked to see if the university had the authority to tell him where he was allowed to talk to these students. They actually did have the authority to tell him where he was allowed to talk to them, and for how long. This is because Tennessee Tech is a private university, which means the first amendment shouldn't apply. 

The Only problem was that the south patio is also part of a public pedestrian mall. And he is allowed to peacefully assemble people, according to the first amendment, and he has freedom of speech. The mall is a public area, so therefor he is protected by the first amendment, and the university has no authority. 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-09/tennessee-college-first-amendment/54851034/1

High School Violates First Amendment RIghts

There was a student that attends Everett High School and he was suspended by the school for preaching during class. With further investigation it was determined that the student was preaching in "non-instructional times" as stated by Michael Leal. He felt as though he was not interrupting the classes at all, and he was still suspended on three separate occasions. The school felt as though this was inappropriate for their school grounds and it was also punishable. 

http://sukofamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/photodune-880125-bible-s-001.jpg

The student named Michael Leal's first amendments rights were clearly violated in this situation. He was in no way disrupting the learning of the other students. He also did not want to prohibit the students from learning in anyway, so he would find appropriate times to preach to the students. The students expressed that his preaching would take place, "in the halls and passing times, or free time. We have this period in school - it's called pause, we have a free class. We also have lunch and that's also free time as well, and before and after school". It is clear to see that the Michael was not disrupting the process of learning in any way. 

It was also farther investigated by the lawyer of Michael Leal. They really looked into the case to make sure that "Michael wasn't someone who was screaming at kids, that he was sharing his propensities with a loving attitude, not one of hostility or harassment, and that he wasn't disrupting the classroom". The lawyer clearly displays how the students first amendment rights of freedom of speech, as well as freedom of religion were violated. The case in currently still in the process of a verdict, but its clear that the student may have an advantage in a federal courtroom. 

http://mynorthwest.com/992/2652561/Attorneys-School-violated-student-preachers-first-amendment-rights