Suchergebnisse

In the early 1950s, New York City's teachers and professors became the targets of massive investigations into their political beliefs and associations. Those who refused to cooperate in the questioning were fired. Some had undoubtedly been communists, and the Communist Party-USA certainly made its share of mistakes, but there was never evidence that the accused teachers had abused their trust. Some were among the most brilliant, popular, and dedicated educators in the city. This book tells of the teachers and professors who resisted the witch hunt, those who collaborated, and those whose battles led to landmark Supreme Court decisions. It traces the political fortunes of academic freedom beginning in the late 19th century, both on campus and in the courts. Combining political and legal history with wrenching personal stories, the book details how the anti-communist excesses of the 1950s inspired the Supreme Court to recognize the vital role of teachers and professors in American democracy. The crushing of dissent in the 1950s impoverished political discourse in ways that are still being felt, and First Amendment academic freedom, a product of that period, has remained in peril. In compelling terms, this book shows why the issue should matter to every American. -- Provided by publisher.

Who could object to Ohio's anti-terrorist oath? Created as part of the 2006 "Ohio Patriot Act," it merely requires every new public employee to answer "no" to six questions regarding affiliation with, or "material support" to, any organization on the U.S. State Department's "Terrorist Exclusion List." The oath also applies to anybody who has state or city contracts worth more than $100,000 in a given year. Beneath the uncontroversial veneer of this anti-terrorist measure, however, is a reincarnation of the "test oath" that has long been used by governments to coerce their subjects into religious or political conformity. When Ohio attorney Marc Triplett, who contracts with the state to represent indigent defendants, was confronted with the oath in 2006, he secured the help of the American Civil Liberties Union and filed a legal challenge.

The Internet threatens to make US obscenity law unworkable, says Marjorie Heins

Ohio's 2006 "Patriot Act" requires all potential public employees to answer six questions regarding "material support" for any groups on the U.S. State Department's Terrorist Exclusion List. Answering "yes" to any of these questions automatically precludes public employment with the state of Ohio. Although not supporting terrorist groups seems like a reasonable request for public employees, the oath-taking denies the presumption of innocence that is a cornerstone of American law: if a person fails to swear innocence, they are automatically presumed guilty. This article looks at the history of loyalty oaths in America from the pre-colonial Puritans to the Ohio Patriot Act, & efforts to resist them by groups such as the ACLU. Adapted from the source document.

The issue of whether US adolescents require additional First Amendment rights is explored. Although traditionalists argue that US minors need protection from certain kinds of speech because of incomplete development & socialization, it is countered that minors must be granted free access to information & ideas to goad the process of identity formation. A history of Supreme Court rulings concerning minors & their First Amendment rights (eg, the 1957 obscenity case Roth v. US & the 1997 Internet sexual content case Reno v. ACLU) is provided to illustrate the extent of fervor for child protectionism. Therefore, it is contended that the issue of whether speech affects minors' ethical & moral development should not be a sufficient foundation for censorship. It is concluded that the First Amendment must be emphasized in the debate surrounding minors' rights. J. W. Parker