In an article written this morning by The Des Moines Register, it talked about the fine line between freedom of speech and where it crosses the line into threatening another citizen. The story takes place at Northern Iowa University where 200 students gathered to talk about diversity. These students claim that they often hear hateful or racist language on campus and claim that it creates an unwelcoming environment on campus.

It is hard to believe, but the Ku Klux Klan is still being mentioned to this day. In the article one African American student says "If a black person sees the KKK we are alarmed; it's a threat". This student is referring to a statue on campus that resembles a man in a KKK outfit. A woman named Samantha Harris who is the director of policy research for the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education argues against taking this statue down and says "You shut down speech that is making a contribution to the marketplace of ideas".

Obviously these are two very different views of this historic statue and it is making headlines. The ultimate question we need to ask ourselves is, "Is this statue free speech protected by the first amendment, or is it crossing the line into being a threatening environment for students?" This article is a perfect example of knowing and understanding our First Amendment rights and how we can exercise them in our everyday lives.

     In 1896, the court case of Plessy v Ferguson upheld the legality of the "separate but equal" mindset in the US between whites and blacks. All but one judge voted in favor of the separate but equal ruling. Judge Harlan was the one judge that disapproved, and wrote out his argument in hopes to sway any of the other judges or any American citizens. However, all of Judge Harlan's time and effort to try to sway people went to waste because everybody in America at the time was still in favor of slavery and being the dominant race.
     Judge Harlan's argument obviously was not a popular one in 1896 due to the fact that there were still very many people who either owned slaves illegally or still had strong feelings that black people were meant to be slaves. Obviously, we have made a lot of ground in the past hundred years and in todays world I believe the majority of people would side with Judge Harlan and his opinion on this court case. There have been many national events since 1896 that have really helped blacks get their feet under them so that they have an equal playing field in political matters.
     I believe that Judge Harlan was a little ahead of his time. It may have been a little early in 1896 to fight for complete equality and peace between blacks and whites. This is obvious because he was the only one that thought it could work in 1896; however, I believe he would have been a very powerful political figure if he made his point in a year like 1964. During this time, Judge Harlan's argument would have been very powerful because blacks would have had many more rights and legislation such as the Civil Rights Act that would give his argument some leverage.

In class, we also did a moot court case on the topic of State v. Mann. The two sides argued were obviously one defending John Mann and the other defending a slave named Lydia. The situation at hand was that Lydia tried to escape a whipping from her master; thus, prompting Mann to shoot and wound her. This led to a jury finding him guilty of battery and setting a five dollar fine for Mann. Then, the North Carolina Supreme Court overruled the previous decision and set the law that claimed all slaves were property and could be treated as such.

As for class today, there were two sides of the argument obviously, with five people arguing each side. On the side defending Mann, the major claim and most obvious is the one that was ruled by the North Carolina Supreme Court, which stated that slaves are property to their owners. There were also arguments made that if she had just obeyed her masters orders, then she not be in the position to get whipped or run away. Finally, the last argument was that it was a better option for Mann to wound her than let her escape because it would have broken his contract with the woman he had leased Lydia from.

On the side defending Lydia, the strongest argument made was that Mann was attempting murder. Next, there was an argument made that Mann did not own Lydia because she was leased from another slave owner. This was a key point because there was a lot to debate about whether Mann had enough invested into the slave to wound her this badly. Their final argument was about the bible and how it speaks against slavery and owning other humans.

Ultimately, the side defending Mr. Mann won the moot case. The reason behind this is because at the time this actually happened it was completely legal to treat slaves like property and that's all Mr. Mann did. Also, after the real case ended, this was the "black and white" policy, meaning that the ruling gave slave owners a lot more power when dealing with their slaves.

     In todays class, we observed a mock trial for the case Scott v Sandford. This case was very important in shaping the boundaries of slavery. In this case, a slave owner by the name of John Sanford, would not be allowed to get paid off by Scott and the slave sued. The court ultimately decided that Scott was not technically even allowed to sue under federal law because he was african and was not a citizen.
     During the moot court, one side of the class sided with the slave and fought for his freedom. I heard very good arguments such as letting the slave be free because they were technically in a free state when this interaction took place. Also, the Missouri Compromise made slavery illegal in the place that Scott was living at the time.

     On the other side, students defended Mr. John Sandford by saying that he was originally from Louisiana where slavery is legal and therefor, Dred Scott will always be property to Mr. Sandford until he releases him. The most important point of this case and the ultimately the deciding factor was that Dred Scott was fully from african decent and was not considered a citizen. This means that Scott had no legal authority in a court room and the case was dismissed on this condition.
     This decision ultimately led to the north holding little power when it came to the topic of slavery because it had been legally determined that slaves were not equal. When people found out about this controversial decision, there were a lot of people who got upset and looked to reform it.

In 2007, a man by the name of Elven Joe Swisher of Idaho was convicted of violating the Stolen Valor Act. The Stolen Valor Act was first signed by George Bush in 2006 which made it illegal to wear military medals that were not acquired the right way. The federal appeals court says that the act of wearing falsely acquired medals is a First Amendment misdemeanor under the freedom of speech.

This act is a freedom of speech case because it is conveying the message that you earned certain achievement that other people actually struggled and suffered to obtain. Wearing these awards basically slanders everything that these honorable people went through and stand for.

In this article, it also mentions the fact that, by law, you may not receive financial support if you do not rightfully deserve it. This is also covered under the first amendment for the same reasons as wearing false medals. It conveys a message that is untrue and therefor can be taken to court.



URL (picture): https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/purple-heart.jpg?quality=75&strip=color&w=1100

     Donald Trump has been making huge waves in the current republican campaign. His reckless word choice and loose lips have been sparking huge controversy for a few months now. Many people have found this not politically correct and would rather have him stick to being a successful businessman. On the other hand, there is an abundance of voters that respect him exercising his first amendment rights to the absolute limit.

   
Recently, Mr. Trump backed out of the republican debate, once again, throwing Fox News and the political world into a frenzy. In The Washington Posts latest article on Trump, they explain the reasoning for Trump's risky decision. One of the moderators of the debate, Megyn Kelly, has been accused by Trump of asking unfair and biased questions. This lead to his campaign partners releasing a statement saying "Unlike the very stupid, highly incompetent people running our country into the ground, Mr. Trump knows when to walk away. Roger Ailes and FOX News think they can toy with him, but Mr. Trump doesn't play games."
     It seems as though Trump and his campaign members have a very bold strategy in winning over voters. Shockingly, the "if you don't like it, don't vote for me" attitude has placed him at the front-runner in our republican campaign. The reason for this might be that no one has seen such a flamboyant candidate in such a long time, or it might be that people see how freely he is speaking with no remorse and want to be like him. There are many reasons that may lead us to a conclusion as to why he is in first place; however, until the first amendment is removed, Mr. Trump can say whatever he pleases to win voters.