Puerto Rican Students Protest School Funds

Puerto Rican Students Protest School Funds

May 20, 2010

The article is titled ‘Student Protests Tie up Campuses in Puerto Rico’ and is from the New York Times on May 20, 2010. The University of Puerto Rico’s school system is being bombarded with protests from their students who are unhappy with the budget cuts from the government. The students feel these new austerity measures will impede the low-income students. Only one campus in all of the school system is functional.

This strike has been going since April 21, 2010. The problem is that the territory has to deal with 16% unemployment and a huge budget deficit. Students are demanding an alternative to the budget cuts and a greater transparency for university finances.

This article ties closely with the first amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. The students have the right to protest against school funding if they want and the police should not be allowed to take away their resources and supplies because of the first amendment. Also, the government is taking away funding for student scholarships which is considered discrimination against poor people.

We believe that the students have the right to protest the school’s new policy if they want to. They should be allowed to voice their opinions to the school.

Photo Credit: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/21students.html?ref=us

Grade This Post

Posted By: Anne Lucado and Hannah Slovacek

Kagan wrote that government can restrict free speech

This article describes Elena Kagan's opinion that government can restrict freedom of speech. Since Kagan has been awarded the Supreme Court nomination, hidden information has been uncovered from an article she published in the University of Chicago Law Review in 1996, entitled "Private Speech, Public Purpose: the Role of Government Motive in First Amendment Doctrine." She believes that as long as the government can show 'proper intent' in restricting freedom of speech, the restrictions stand. The problem is that the exact wording of the Constitution, "Congresss shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." therefore any government restriction on free speech is prohibited. Exactly from the article, Kagan saw that "government can restrict free speech if it believes that speech might cause harm, either directly or by inciting others to do harm. Laws that only incidentally affect speech are constitutional, the governments motive in enacting them is not the restriction of First Amendment freedom but the prohibition of some other - unprotected - activity. She doesn't define "harm" in the article, but she does offer examples of speech that may be regulated, such as incitement to violence, hate-speech, threatening, or "fighting" words. Her words, as compared to the Constitution, make her the most extremist nominee in the history of the Republic and poses a grave danger to the rights of all citizens. We think she is overstepping her boundaries as a nominee, and that the more hidden information that is uncovered regarding Elena Kagan and her beliefs, the more her popularity will dwindle among Americans. In Schenck v. United States, a socialist was urging young men to resist the draft during World War I by distributing flyers. He was convicted of impeding the war effort. It was felt that this was a violation of his freedom of speech, but the U.S. Supreme Court said otherwise. They upheld that speech can be restricted if it presented “clear and present danger” and Kagan appears to agree with this idea. She agrees that if there is the possibility of the public being in danger that the speech should be restricted. 

Article Credit May 12, 2010
Photo Credit

Infringment on First Amendment.

In the Austin-American Statesman article "Immigration Protesters Released from LA Jail" the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, assembly and petition are demonstrated . Dissenters to Arizona's new immigration laws decided to stage a protest last week in Los Angeles where they chained themselves together and layed down in front of an immigrant detention center. after blocking traffic for roughly four hours, they were surrounded by police and arrested. The assembly was deemed "unlawful" and the demonstrators were charged with interfering with police work, and failure to disperse. They were released late Friday and are due in court on June 4th. This situation deals with the freedom of assembly, speech and petition secured by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The protesters had every right to assemble and protest, but they lacked a permit for the demonstration stating the time, place and manner (a provision established in Skokie v. Illinois).