Humanities 12
Thursday, October 11, 2012
First Amendment Video
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Obamacare
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known
as Obamacare, is a federal statute of the United States that was signed into
law by President Barak Obama on March 23, 2010. The Act’s purpose is to
decrease the number of uninsured Americans and reduce the overall cost of
healthcare. The law includes mandates, subsidies, and tax credits to employers
and individuals to increase the coverage rate within our country. For example,
the Act requires that healthcare companies cover those with preexisting
conditions among other things, (with some exceptions). This Act has been found
constitutional, as it complies with Congress’ ability to regulate interstate
commerce and individuals who interact with it. Healthcare providers do business
over state lines. The Act has also been labeled as a tax in many situations.
While it may feel like a violation of our rights, the Supreme Court has
determined Obamacare lawful.
The Democratic Platform
Though many parts to the Democratic Platform stand out to me
as very important, including education, the improvement of civil rights is a
key aspect to the Democratic Party. Since 2000, the Democratic Party has: lead
the fight for ERA and equal employment, passed hate crime legislation,
supported affirmative action to redress discrimination, strengthened parts of
the Patriot Act and modify other parts, keep marriage and gay marriage at the
state level, discouraged racial and religious profiling, treated same-sex
couples as equals under law, increased access to federal jobs, and enabled
disability access throughout the country. I believe the Democratic Party
addresses the fundamental issues of civil rights in an appropriate manner.
Question for Alex Pena: How will higher education benefit,
in terms of loans and grants, if Obama were reelected?
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Google and Anti-Islam Video
The
recently viral video, “Innocence of Muslims,” has challenged free speech on the
Internet. The video was produced in the United States, but many around the
world have viewed it. The controversial and offensive nature of the video’s
content has pressured Google and YouTube to remove the video from the Internet.
According to Somini Sengupta, author of “On Web, a Fine Line on Free Speech
Across the Globe,” Internet companies have the right to censor their contents,
but often try to comply with the laws specific to different countries. Google
found that the video did not violate laws within the United States, as its
contents did not qualify as hate speech. The video’s contents are covered by
the First Amendment. While in some countries, including Libya and Egypt, Google
has removed the video due to the violation of laws specific to the country; it
has not deemed it necessary to deny its access within the States.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Shouting Fire Documentary
“A good index of
health of any social institution is its allegiance to the strictures that
define this middle realm,” (Kimball). In a democracy, protestors such as the
Quran-burners in Florida, who fail to protest in a wise manner, drive us toward
totalitarianism on one end of the legal spectrum and imprudent behavior on the other,
with an ever-decreasing middle ground to exercise our rights. The Protests of
2004 fell victim to the inopportune moment and circumstance of limited freedom
to secure the essential allegiance to the government necessary in a successful
democratic setting. “Democracy destroys itself because it abuses its right to
freedom and equality. Because it teaches its citizens to consider audacity as a
right, lawlessness as a freedom, abrasive speech as equality, and anarchy as
progress,” (Isocrates). The Protests of 2004 exemplify a demonstration that
crossed the bounds of the middle realm by its taking advantage of the allowance
of civil protest. While arrests were excessive, the disruption of the
Republican Convention was grounds enough to curb the protest as legitimate
State interests were at stake.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Alvarez vs. United States
In his
second term in office, President George Bush passed a law, labeled the Stolen
Valor Act, which prevented anyone from falsely claiming service of the military
or falsely asserting a military achievement position. Intended to preserve the
honor and valor of soldiers who had served in the military, as well as those
who have received military honors; violation of the Stolen Valor Act was
considered a minor (misdemeanor) offense and was punishable for up to a year in
prison.
When
introducing himself at a meeting, Alvarez claimed to have been a marine and
received the Medal of Honor. Upon his statement, he was arrested. Though he
pled guilty to lying about his service, he argued that it was his first
amendment right to claim service the military service. Once taken to the
Supreme Court, the case found that the Stolen Valor Act was in fact unconstitutional,
as it limited the “robust and uninhibited marketplace of ideas.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)