First Amendment Intended to Protect Creepy Photographers?

It's legal to do this in Massachusetts and Texas

Exactly 225 years ago today congress passed the Bill of Rights.  The bill of rights gives us Americans everything from freedom of speech to the right of peaceful assembly and petition.  However, I am sure that 225 years ago they never imagined that the first amendment would be used in the defense of "up-skirt photos".  In Texas the state law banning improper photography in public has been thrown out, meaning anyone can take pictures of anyone in public places. This is because photographs are "inherently expressive" and a camera is "essentially the photographers pen and paint brush".  I find this to be ridiculous considering this ruling originated from a case in 2011 where Ronald Thomas was charged for taking pictures of children's breasts and butts at Sea World in San Antonio.  However, Thomas has walked away with no charges due to the fact that the court believed he can do that due to the first amendment.  I do not think that a camera could be necessarily classified at the same respects as a "pen and paintbrush" considering that a camera is instant.  With that, I do not see how the first amendment would even begin to justify taking indecent photos of children.  Not only Texas but also Massachusetts has ruled that taking photos up the skirts of women is perfectly legal given they are wearing underwear. Who knew that 225 years later the Bill of Rights would defend creepy men who take perverted pictures, I am sure that that is not what the Bill of Rights was intended to do.

Read More about it Here

Losing State V Mann

Did punishing John Mann for shooting a slave violate his rights as a slave owner? The answer to that question, in my opinion, is yes.  Our team, Team Nido, argued with that opinion.  Our arguments consisted of:

Judge Thomas Ruffin

1) Cruelty and inhumanity in slavery 

2) That John Mann did not own the slave therefore had no right to commit battery against Lydia 

3) That Lydia has higher stature than an animal and based on animal cruelty laws Mann deserved a punishment 

4) That the bible is economic not race based and states that abuse of slaves is wrong

Our arguments I thought were strong, however the opposing team had solid arguments that agreed with many opinions at the time of the case in 1830.  These arguments were economic based and incredibly logical at that time period. I could see how our team lost the case, although I did find it interesting to see how Mann initially was given a fine.  The fine was only five dollars, but it was a fine which was given to Mann by twelve white men who were also slave owners.  It is interesting to see that opinion is starting to shift in that time, even though that fine was eventually taken away. Another thing that I found very interesting was the animal cruelty laws which I researched. It was truly incredible, in a horrific way, to see that in some ways cruelty of animals was taken more seriously than cruelty inflicted upon human beings. In the United Kingdom in 1822, eight years prior to this case, Parliament passed the Cruel and Improper Treatment Cattle Act which prohibits improper treatment of horses, cattle, sheep, ox ect. and is enforced with punishments.  Yet, in the United States eight years later, a women can get shot in the back and the man who did it gets no punishment. I learned from this that it is hard to put your mind into a different time period, but it is essential to do so in order to understand decisions made.

Read about 1800's animal cruelty laws here

The Aftermath of 9/11

Thirteen years ago on September 11th , 2001 nearly 3,000 lives were lost when terrorists hijacked four planes, but what did we lose besides those 3,000 lives? We lost freedom. Freedom, the foundation of our country, and what many seek when they come to the United States, and a portion of that was lost in that tragedy thirteen years ago. The Patriot Act is the result of that tragedy and this Act is one which violates our rights as United States citizens. Starting with the Fourth Amendment, which states that the government can not conduct searches without a warrant and probable cause. Yet, with the Patriot Act the Government now no longer has to show probable cause, now “All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation”. Not only does it violate the fourth amendment, it also violates the first amendment by allowing the FBI to launch investigations for citizens exercising their freedom of speech. Surveillance orders can be started just based off of what someone is reading, websites that they have visited and even a letter that they have written to the an editor. Additionally violating the first amendment is by restricting freedom of speech by “prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.”. Not only that, but it violates many more of our rights as United States citizens. Overall, September 11th was a horrible day, and only made more devastating by our rights and amendments being violated by our own government.

Read more about it here

Justice Department Stepping In

Today the Justice Department is expected to open a civil rights investigation on the Ferguson, Missouri police department.  This will investigate primarily the complaints of racial profiling and the use of excessive force. After the tragedy which occurred with Michael Brown being shot and killed by a Ferguson police officer, many protests uprose. In my opinion, because of the weeks of protests that followed this event, there is clearly a bigger issue than just that one shooting.  It is evident that this is an issue which has just been brought forward after years of repressed problems. Evidentially there is an issue of racial profiling and police officers abusing their power and disregarding the law.  With that, the Justice Department is not only investigating Darren Wilson, the police officer who shot Michael Brown, they also plan to investigate the entire police department.  In addition, they intend to look into other police departments in Saint Louis County.  Many of these departments are mainly white police officers serving predominately African American areas. This investigation will look deeply into whether Wilson violated Brown's civil rights and if the departments used different strategies and practices which violates the citizens civil rights.  Currently there are six lawsuits against Ferguson police officers all of which claim unnecessary force was used.  It is horrible that it took a kid having to die and weeks of protesting for people to see the recurring issue of racism and abuse of power.  It is clear that the police officers are not doing their job, abusing their power and violating the rights of many citizens.

Read Article Here