Students Present on Constitution Day

On Thursday September 17, four HPJ students presented their ideas about Freedom of Speech and Social Networking sites.

The presentations were part of Constitution Day, and Professor Jo Ann Scott began the program by giving a brief background of the celebration. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia sponsored an amendment to change Citizenship Day, which fell on September 17 to commemorate the final ratification of the United States Constitution, to Constitution Day in 2004. His amendment required that all educational institutions that receive federal funding present a program celebrating the document's passage on that day.

Pictured from left to right Daniel Arant (JR History Lima, OH) Brendan Kinder (SO History Elida, OH), Alexandra Habbouche (JR Political Science Oregon, OH), and Matt Allen (SR History Chicora, PA) discussed various First Amendment issues dealing with social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter.

Matt began the presentations by giving an overview of why our constitution protects freedom of speech. He told the audience that these protections grew out of British abuses prior to the American Revolution, particularly in regards to prior restraint of the press and seditious libel. Colonial papers were required to submit their text to the government before publication and if officials deemed a story unacceptable, it was suppressed. Seditious libel laws made it a crime for newspapers to publish stories that were disrespectful to government officials, regardless of the story's truth. This censorship began to break down however, after the Zenger case in 1735, when John Zenger was acquitted of charges of seditious libel in an instance of jury nullification. This opened the floodgates, which helped lead to the Revolution. After the Constitution was ratified, the First Amendment was written to protect freedom of the press, even though some of the Founding Fathers initially opposed the idea of a Bill of Rights.

Alexandra spoke next, and she described the increasing incidence of employers firing their employees after reading content that angered them on social media sites. For instance, one woman was fired after she tweeted that "My job is boring." Alexandra drew a sharp line between and employee's behavior on and off of the job, arguing that what a person does on their own time is their own affair, and that employers are guilty to suppressing free speech when they take action such as described above. She maintained that free speech ceases to be free when it opens up a person to retaliatory action by an employer, likening the situation to that described in the book 1984, where Big Brother watched everything.

Brendan took a different tack, arguing that companies exercising their property rights were not guilty of violating the First Amendment's protections. Using a definition of censorship taken from the Roman Republic, he discussed how some cases that seem to be clear cut censorship, are in fact not so clear. He gave several examples, including Wal-mart's insistence that music artists ad record companies censor their songs before they can be sold in the store. Brendan argued that did not represent an abridgment of the First Amendment since the musical content is available elsewhere in unabridged form, and that Wal-mart is within its rights as property owners to control what they sell on their property.

Daniel spoke last, arguing that the internet was an important tool in maintaining free speech, which he argued was not so much in danger from government as it is from media conglomerates. As ownership of media outlets becomes more and more concentrated amongst a smaller number of companies, the true threat to free speech comes from prior restraint by news organizations that decide what the public needs to know. Daniel argued that the internet served as a powerful tool to check the power of big media, allowing many voices to forward stories that the conglomerates would not. He pointed to the over 100 million blogs that are written in English alone as proof that stories not privileged by the media could find expression.

Professor Rob Waters, the discussant then asked the panelists questions about their presentations. However, before he began his questioning, he took a moment to remind the audience that these students were not recycling papers that had been written for class and that they were not receiving any financial reward for their participation. All they would get from the night was the experience of nervously presenting in front of a large group of their peers, faculty and university administration.

Waters and panelists traded questions and answers and then the floor was opened to the audience, with President Baker acting as microphone provider. Mike Hamper (JR Political Science Jefferson, OH) mentioned that a court in Spain had ruled employees could swear at their supervisors without fear of firing. The panelists were agreed that here that would probably end up in an American being fired. After some discussion of Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who called out "You lie" during a speech by President Obama to both houses of Congress, Lawren Neeley (JR Social Studies Alger, OH) asked if Obama calling Kanye West a jackass was any different. Matt answered and maintained that he disagreed with anyone calling a president of the United States a liar. He argued for the standard held during Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration, when policy differences could be aired, but personal attacks were off limits. In response to a question about the amount of unreliable information on the internet, Daniel argued that one must filter claims found there, but that the shear number of sites available there makes cross checking available, if one takes the time to check sources.

All panelists turned in superb performances that belied their undergraduate status, and they should be commended on their hard work and willingness to address serious issues. If they are indicative of the nation's young people, the constitution is in good hands.