http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/31/students.amendment.ap/index.html

The fact that so many students think that freedom of speech is overrated and there's too much freedom in the first amendment...wow. These are our leaders of the future. And if they hold this attitude...well let's just say the socialist party may be seeing a revival of interest in the US.

Agreed. This is frightening. Makes me want to march to school tomorrow and ask why the hell civics is no longer a required class for 9th graders.

JediKirby

...I have no words to express.

You guys are ****ed.

"Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories."

This is absolutely frightening.

And this:

"When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes. Only 83 percent of students did."

demonstrates exactly the kind of social climate present in many high schools.

I just lost all faith in humanity.

I swear to god I'm going to be so afraid of this next generation. Not only will we have to deal with elderly baby boomers, but the workforce will drop considerably with the new generation. And with attitudes like this...

You know, I think theres a way to enable something like that for here...
*evil laugh*

Unless the government wants to interfere with the O.C. Then they'll be up in arms

It is in my state.

This is quite sad. I hope that if these kids retain that view to 18 years of age that they never vote.

This is what you get when you put the sports team coaches to teach these classes instead of someone actually qualified and passionate about the subject.

Whelp...time to pack my bags and head to Canada.

No they aren't. I am. >: )

No. We ship your kind to Finland.

It is in my state. Furthermore, there are two tests - one on the U.S. Constitution (100-question test about its varying amendments) and a similar test about the Missouri Constitution. If you fail either one, you can't graduate from high school.

It's a program that I think should be implemented in all high schools.

"...Don't wanna be an American idiot..."

Thought that song was somewhat relevant.

I feel that you should be aware of how government works and be aware of the issues before you are allowed to vote.

if we are lucky these people will never show up to the polls. I don't want my vote to be cancelled out by the random ballot choices of one of these morons.

We didn't have to do that, but there was a test that you DID have to pass to get out.

lol i kant pik teh prezedant so i jstu voet 4 teh tallz 1 lol

I don't think that song is relevant anywhere...they contradict that line further into the song. Unless you're trying to make an example of flip-floppers.


That article really isn't surprising, highschoolers get dumber and dumber.

Which, for the record, EVERY politican is. Including our fine president. Hell, every sane human being is.

That's bull. That is such a ****ing bull**** piece of mother-****ing ***. I don't believe that nonsense for one microsecond. POOR STUDY. If, however, it does somewhat accurately convey student attitudes, which I assure you it does not, then dear sweet merciful lord.. god save us...

Glad to know you got the inside scoop on the reliability of this study.

It may be hard for you to believe, but yes. People really are that stupid.

I like how you went back and editted in more swearing. Classy Just kidding.

The study is based on 500 schools. It doesn't say whether or not they are all from the same region of the country, let alone how they chose their sample population. Excuse me for not believing a news article of outrageous claims that doesn't provide any information about how the study was conducted. Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

Try to comprehend sarcasm, metaphor, and tongue in cheek before talking about any song on that album.

USA Today isnt exactly the NY Times

Alright, I might be the only one here...but is this really that surprising?

Look at what the youth is witnessing today. An age of skepticism for the media.

When I was growing up, I don't remember all this publicity on how there 'left-wing' media and news channel, 'right-wing', etc. News was news then. While there was surely differing views in the news, it was not at the level in publicity at this is.

Then you have the whole controversy in "You can't say this in public place cause it violates people's rights", "You can't display that because it violates rights", etc etc etc.

I really don't see how this is study surprises anyone. The next generations are being overloaded with visual and audio signals that contrast each other on what is allowable and what goes under the 'freedom of speech'. That there is a % that wants the governement to approve stories - take a look around and see what they're seeing.

Then you read "The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority."

Let's be honest here...how many students do you know when they take a classroom survey or something else just put a pile of crap down. Like "I would do this, I would do that" blah blah blah. Just cause students are taught something does not mean they will embrace it or even care.

Hell, look at sex education and how students 'embrace' that and really care about the risk of STD's - and the big message that abstinence is the only true protection. Right...

I'm not saying I agree with their views, or that this is a democrat or republican fault, or any politicial view fault.

I'm saying - before you go pointing fingers at the next generation for their 'stupidity', point the fingers at ourselves for that generations upbringing.


Now - DEBATE!

The only thing I find wrong with your argument is the assertion that students are getting pro-censor signals from the media. Isn't that self-defeating for the media? Secondly, there's no denying most mainstream media is a tad on the liberal side, whom you would expect to more outrageously uphold the first amendment and its derivatives. The rest of your argument however I find to be spot on and I agree with most of it.

In God You Trust?

It's more the argument that the youth are getting very mixed signals from the media and discussions areas - (As in not just news sources, but public forums for instance - or class rooms, or teachers or anything else)

So it's not the media defeating itself, it's more a comprehensive outlook on all areas that influence a youth's view.

Meh, this is just part of the natural cycle of societies. When a civilization reaches a point where the rights and freedoms of its populace are so secure that they're taken for granted, they become less valuable in the minds of the people. An oppressed minority in, say, Nazi Germany is going to value freedom a lot more than someone whose idea of oppression is when their parents won't let them go out drinking with their buddies on a school night.

In conclusion, the youth of our society today are spoiled rotten. But only slightly moreso than the adults.

Well, the 60's were about 30-40 years ago...

that's room for at least 1 generation.

Maybe this IS the natural cycle of things.

Stupid war, rotten kids, lots of drugs, lots of expression (take sundance films I read an articel that said it had the most nudity in it's films being reviewed than any year before it), heated politics.

This coming from an under-slept college sophmore who has been working too much to even look at his Calculus book this week :P.

Now I'm going to go drink my carton of orange juice to cover for the increase in potatoe chips and lack of fruit for this week.

*sleep*

Maybe they don't think they have any rights because, in school, they don't...

This is why I think that publicy-owned media is so incredibly important. When people whine about paying television licences I just point at the US. Aren't your three main broadcasting companies owned by the government?

I think that's Italy/Russia

Whoa...since when?

It would be far more worrying if you had a nation full of dolts that blindly accepted the Constitution and worshipped it like some holy script.
You have people that are willing and able to question the Constitution and work out whether it's actually relevant or important. Testing them on 'The Constitution' and forcing it down on them isn't any good for anyone. They should be tested on logic and reasoning, so they can work things out for themselves. And this is exactly what's been happening. They haven't had The Constitution shoved down their throats, so now they have the capacity to question and debate it - something previous generations never did. It is this generation that can ask the important questions, "Is democracy a 'good' thing?" or "Is 'freedom' a 'good' thing?". Previous generations have just blindly accepted the answer to both as 'yes' without any thought or reasoning. This generation can apply logic to derive an answer, and that answer will be much more important than the one that's just been blindly accepted for decades.

Whether they're actually using good logic is a different issue, but at least they're initiating the process.


As for freedom of the media..

The media should be much more limited when discussing legal matters. In fact, perhaps they should even be barred from reporting any legal story until the verdict has been given. As soon as someone is charged with something, the media will leap on it and lynch the defendant. Even if they are proven to be innocent, it doesn't really matter because the media had already given its verdict. This is especially apparent in paedophilia or rape cases, where "charged with rape" will essentially mean "he's a rapist!!!!". The media interferes far too much in the legal process, and can ruin the lives of innocent defendants. Banning the media from reporting any legal case until the verdict is given will protect the defendant. There really isn't any reason why the average joe should be getting a 'blow-by-blow' report of the court proceedings. Courts are there to judge truth and deliver justice, not to provide some perverse 'reality' entertainment. There is no reason why the general public should have anything to do with the legal process, and media envolvement only damages it.

This would probably have to be government managed, there isn't really an alternative, other than giving defendants the ability to sue the news corporations resulting in self-censorship of the media. The latter is the sort of approach that tends to be taken now, and doesn't really work.

Having all media government censored probably isn't necessary or useful. State-run media has the benefits of accountability, whereas privately run media doesn't. So perhaps a mixture of the two would give the best of both, but I don't really see any huge benefits of that.

This is awesome. When I install my totalitarian socialist government no one will bat an eye, except for the 15% that'll have to be purged anyways.

You see, the thing about that, is it's a good idea, and it seems logical, but you have to remember you're dealing with politicians CONSTANTLY. They'll do anything to get what they want, and what they want is usually more power.

Now, you've got a precedent saying that the government can at least in some small way control the media. We're talking about controlling the media, no matter how small. And you can debate to the validity of this statement all you want--because I'm right, and I know it.

Don't you think the government will take advantage of that and control the media even further? Eventually all media will either be government owned, or government puppets. Think about it.

And no, the first amendment is something that makes sense--without freedoms there is no thought PERIOD. Without democracy you have a stagnating socialist economy/government. At which point it's extremely hard to go back. Until you come up with something better, I suggest you stop harping that we teach people that the constitution is a good thing--because you obviously have no idea of how it works. The classes offer the constitution, and its amendments, and asks the kids whether they think it's a good idea or not (if you have a good teacher). There is a lot of openness to discussion, though kids usually don't take advantage of this.

All we do is put the information out there--its the kids' fault that they don't think about it afterwards. I know I've thought long on how democracy may be wrong, socialism may be right, monarchies may be right, etc, etc. I come to the conclusion that, if you want growth and betterness, capitalism/democracy (even republic democracy) is the best way to go.

The problem here is that these kids aren't thinking, not that they are thinking. Idealistic governments don't work, logical ones do.