Swan V. Board of Education- moot court

For a final moot court the case of Swan v. The Board was called into session. This case covered the issue of segregating students on buses due to race. In this instance in particular the board was accused of manipulating zones, so that blacks were forced to ride predominately black buses.
 The following arguments were made-
    Swan-

• students were forced to be transported farther than need be, which is a hassle to their everyday life
• it goes directly against everything Brown v The Board worked to resolve
• the learning opportunities were not only unfair but unconstitutional
• the constitution calls for equal protection under the law, no matter the race
• violates the 14th amendment by mandating students be bussed due to race

   The Board-

• it would be a waste of money to pay to bus blacks to a different zone when the money could go to a better cause
• zoning is not illegal, so therefore it is not unethical to put it into practice
• it is impossible to make it fair for everyone

   Ruling-

In conclusion Swan won the case, as it was decided that it was unconstitutional to allow for secreted busing. This court case proved that the United States was moving in favor of black civil rights. 

You have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney, and you also have the right to record

    As America becomes increasingly digitally savvy several issues regarding privacy and technology are beginning to unfold. Considering that most Americans have recording capabilities on their phone, it makes it possible for any moment to turn into one that can be preserved forever digitally. A recent trend that has conspired involves bystanders recording police officers when they are on duty. After a video of a women recording a police officer and then later having her phone smashed by that same officer surfaced the court decided it was necessary to have a law protecting people's freedom to record what they desire.

The law will make it clear that citizens have the right to record police as long as they are not interfering with the investigation. The court believes that it is a protected to right to be able to record things at our leisure. It is an important step in securing our rights, and guaranteeing that we are not being punished for simply exercising constitutional rights.
 
  As a result of this new push to protect a right police are being trained to act accordingly. Now that their actions have the potential to be video taped they are instructed to act as if every action is being watched through a camera lens. The digital era that is upon us has proven that liberties that appear to be assumed in some cases need re ad justing or reassurance. It is important to understand that in order to keep the first amendment as it is it can not be justified solely because a legal body is involved. This link provides more details on how the case is unfolding.

Plessy v Ferguson

Plessy v. Ferguson is arguably one of the most important precedents that was established during the debate on civil rights. This land mark court case occurred in 1896 and was not overturned until 1954 with Brown v. The Board of Education. After having sat in a "whites only" part of a train Plessy was asked to move from his seat, when he refused he was then arrested. From this a land mark court case was born.

Plessy-
In defense of Plessy his lawyer chose to pull in arguments from the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment in regards to equality. These amendments state that everyone be treated by legal protection under the law. Therefore by forcing him to sit on a separate part of the train he was being robbed of his fourteenth amendment right to equality.

Ferguson-
Ferguson argued that this was not the case at all, and Plessy should be forced to pay the fine for sitting in the "whites only" section of the train. In an effort to back this up they used past court cases regarding segregation. They argued that it is not the laws fault if there is prejudice, the issue of segregation was to be purely legal. The prejudice that spawns from separate but equal is not the court's fault, and it is only their duty to uphold the current precedent.Check out the link below to find each sides opinion!

Decision-
 After a seven-to-one decision the court ruled in favor of Ferguson. It was decided that Plessy was in fact breaking the law. Justice Brown declared, "We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it" (wikipedia). 
   Plessy v Ferguson proved that at the time America's legal system was still blinded by discrimination. The decision to uphold separate but equal effected blacks for decades until it was finally overturned. This link provides a detailed look into the court case.

Breaking News!- North Carolina has just flushed any chance of anti discrimination down the toilet

    North Carolina has been drawing national attention to itself after passing a bill that blocks local governments and cities from passing anti discrimination laws. On February 22 Charlotte, North Carolina expanded an ordinance that would expand anti discrimination for LGBT citizens in public accommodations. In response to this the 'bathroom bill' was drafted and put into effect that same night. Essentially the law finalized the states standing on anti discrimination laws, making it impossible to expand "public accommodations" or "employment" protections on the basis of sexual orientation.

     Unfortunately, in the wake of this bill being passed, the real issue is being muddied by the bathroom component of it. For those who are not fully educated on what the bill entails believe that it only effects trans genders ability to use which ever bathroom they please. Although this is an aspect of it the greater issue is that this new bill allows for businesses to discriminate against race, religion, gender etc. Essentially the general feeling is that legislatures went specifically out of their way to discriminate against the LGBT community. The link below provides a more detailed break down of the law.



    The bill has received mass amounts of attention on social media from your average joe to the famous recently trans gender Caitlyn Jenner. Even with the ample amounts of detest towards the bill, North Carolina still stands behind it's decision that involved spending 42,000 dollars to rush the bill into action.
Click this to read the 'bathroom bill' in it's entirety

Brown v The Board- Moot Court

In class today the court case Brown v The Board of education was argued. Brown v The Board was a monumental court case that occurred in 1954 that not only ruled in favor of integration, but also nullified separate but equal. This case served as one of the first precedents to be set in favor of blacks being seen as equal in the United States.

 The Board of Education:

 Some of the main points that were brought to the courts attention by The Board of Education were ones regarding the disadvantage that blacks could face if schools were integrated. As blacks have been separated for so long they are at a clear mental disadvantage to their white counterparts, making integration a dangerous road to embark upon. If black students are placed in an environment where they are years behind their white counterpart they face the danger of feeling more in superior than they are already made to feel. Along with the mental danger, there is also a very obvious physical threat. By implementing integration they are placing themselves within the lion's den. The amount of physical and mental abuse they are likely to face would only cause more distraction to their education.  The real issue at hand is securing blacks with a fair chance of educating themselves. In The Board of Educations defense the decision to integrate appears to risk causing more harm than good to the black communities ability to learn. The issue at hand is education, and it should not be muddled by integration. The court should seek to mend the un equal facilities before any major changes are implemented.

    Brown:
 In response to this there were several arguments brought up in favor of integration that ultimately served as the deciding factor in the case. Although according to separate but equal schools were obligated to have facilities of equal values for both blacks and whites it was quite evident that this was not the case. Not only were the educational facilities lacking, but the transportation services were as well. It was declared that in order for blacks to be considered equal integration was necessary. The facilities that black school children were forced to learn in were no where near the same level as their white counter parts.
   Ruling- In Favor of Brown:
It was therefore decided as well that it was impossible to maintain separate but equal while implementing segregation. The decision was thus made in favor of Brown, ending separate but equal and implementing integration. To further your knowledge on this land mark case decision the link below provides more information.

The Fight for Freedom of Speech its a Beach (Ball)

Freedom of speech is arguablly one of America's most cherished principles, and as of recently it appears that America as a whole has become more concerned with how liberal society is with their freedom of speech. One of the best breeding grounds for controversy regarding freedom of speech is arguably college campuses. The plethora of eager minds hopped up their new found independence creates the ideal environment for controversy regarding social issues to breed.

Ithaca college used the release of the documentary video "Can we Take a Joke" as a platform to unearth the issue of freedom of speech on their campus. As a means to advertise the film throughout the campus posters were hung regarding mental health adorned with slogans such as "Trigger Warning." Many students felt that these signs were an inappropriate way to convey their message. Those in favor of the signs on the other hand believe that the signs serve their purpose as a means of advertisement. An organization on campus by the abbreviation of ICYAL is petitioning signatures to implement the Chicago Principles of Free Speech on campus. The Chicago Principle of Free Speech explicitly say that the college supports a spirit of inquiry and dialogue and will not censor speech.

The documentary addressed the issue of this generation becoming too sensitive to speech and therefore hindering people's ability to express themselves without the fear of backlash. As America is becoming increasingly open to new platforms of expression, along with this comes a heightened sensitivity to not offend anyone. The documentary tackles the issue of comedy in a new sensitive America, and in no way condones hateful or derogatory speech. But does support that it is necessary to keep speech open to all forms of expression in when discussing possibly offensive topics.

 In an effort to keep the debate of free speech on campus flowing and relevant a giant beach ball was placed on campus in order for students to write messages regarding free speech across it. The ball was implemented by a group called Young Americans for Liberty as a response to the unrest regarding the advertisement for "Can we Take a Joke?" America is most certainly becoming increasingly soft to topics that can be taken as offensive. These subtle acts in favor of keeping free speech objectively free are necessary to maintain an amendment that America was founded on.
More on the fight to keep freedom of speech on Ithaca's Campus

Not so Black and all White Oscars

For the second year in a row Hollywood yet again showed a lack of diversity at the 2016 Oscars. Last year the Oscar's nominations stirred up a great deal of controversy when there were few African American's receiving nominations, this year a record breaking zero were up for Oscars. Another reason why this caused such a controversy was that several major films such as Straight outta Compton and Concussion received no nominations. Both of these films were highly anticipated box office hits. Not only were none of these films acknowledged but none of the films that were nominated contained African Americans. Some believe that the lack of diversity reflects a bias against minorities and women within the academy, but the problem lies within Hollywood's major studies and agencies. 

In an effort to retaliate the black community especially, believed that they should retaliate by boycotting the Oscars this year. One of the main issues with this is that the person hosting the Oscars was Chris Rock, a well known black comedian. This appeared to offer the black community some appeasement for the fact that no blacks received nominations, making a boycott less valid. In response to this the black community suggested that Chris Rock not host the awards. Although under pressure, he chose to host them and used this as a venue to speak out against the racism that black actors face. Many people believe that if black actors were given the same opportunities as the major white actors such as Brad Pitt, Jennifer Lawrence etc they would receive more nominations. This article offers more information regarding the all white Oscars.
  
 Although Hollywood appears to be an ever evolving community that maintains up to date with the newest social trends, there is still an obvious racial disadvantage that has yet to be amended. This article offers more information on the topic of the all white oscars.

Sun Down Towns

Recently in class a documentary regarding sun down towns was shown. The documentary discussed the rumor if these towns were still existent or not. A sun down town was a town in the Jim Crow Era that did not condone black people being within city limits after daylight. If a black person was caught within the town they risked being not only beaten, but potentially murdered. The documentary explored two towns in particular that were known sun down towns in the past.

 These towns have maintained such a low percentage of blacks to this day that it has led people to believe that they may still remain true to their sun down town reputation. One of the main investigations revolved around a small town in Indiana where a 21 year old black female was murdered after having been in the town after dark. She was reportedly selling encyclopedias and when she failed to make her way out of the town before dark she was then followed and later murdered. To this day the case remains open as no one has been charged for her murder. Click this link to learn more about Carol Jenkins murder

The topic of african americans in this town remains a sensitive topic, as when the main investigator in the documentary hinted at the obvious lack of racial diversity he was asked to leave the restaurant he was at. Sun Down Towns are an unfortunate reminder of America's dark history as a racially oppressed country for much of the 1900's.I've attached the link to the documentary here for anyone interested.

Apple v FBI- a case of privacy

   The recent conflict with Apple and the FBI continues to un fold, as the issue of privacy remains important among Americans. The issue is one concerning the FBI attempting to breach Apples privacy policy. In order to progress a court case the FBI is asking to view messages in the suspects phone that could reveal important information. Although at first glance it seems to be an easy solution, Apple would need to create new software in order to solve the problem.

Apple has fought the FBI's request on the grounds that it violates their rights to due process. The argument that they are attempting to utilize is that by asking them to write new software to get into the phone it violates their first amendment right. They are using the precedent that writing code software has classified as a form of free speech in the past. Along with this Apple is also concerned that if they chose to bypass the current security features they have in place it would create a permanent way for law enforcements to modify security in the future. The government believes that this could be a landmark step for future cases regarding terrorism and things of that nature. Apple and privacy activists see this as a danger to their privacy rights in the future.

As this court case is still current no decision has been made, lawyers are expected to report their advancements on April 5th.

Read more about this case here!

Dred Scott vs. Sandford

Today in class the moot court case of Dred Scott vs. Sandford was called to order. This case explored the issue of Dred Scott, an enslaved African American who wished to free himself from his owner. Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia, and after his master's passing was sold to a farm owner in Wisconsin. At the time the Wisconsin territory was considered a free slave state, for this reason Dred Scott attempted to free himself from the bonds of slavery.

The court began with a brief description of the case, following this the defendant began to lay the foundation of their argument. One of the most important pieces in this debate is the fact that Dred Scott was being taken to a part of the country where slavery was not allowed. For this reason the defendant felt that Dred Scott should be not only allowed to request his freedom, but be granted it. Along with this argument the defendant also used an argument on the basis of humanity and ethics. They argued slavery as a whole is an evil that should not exist. Although several important arguments were heard, overall their side did not hold up to the law at the time.

In response to these arguments the persecution fired back with several strong points. Dred Scott was a born a slave and therefore did not have the right to even bring his case to trial. The most important aspects of this case were establishing that due to the fact that he was a slave he did not hold any legal rights. Being born a slave he was also not considered a citizen. The result of Dred Scott v. Sanford set forth an important precedent that slaves were not considered citizens and therefore had no rights. The court was faced with the  question if Scott's case was even justified to be heard by the court and if moving to a free state entitled a slave freedom. After much deliberation the verdict was that no Scott did not have the right to sue and that moving to a free state did not entail freedom.Below is a link providing more information on the court case.

Dred Scott v Sanford was a turning point in America's history, as from this point on until slavery was abolished slaves were not considered citizens. The ruling of the case lasted for decades, and impacted slaves across the country.
 

State v Mann

In class today a moot court was called in order to discuss the case of State v Mann. The case involves a slave, Lydia and her master John Mann. Mann chose to punish Lydia for attempting to run away by shooting her in the back, as a result this case was brought to North Carolina Supreme Court. The issue of whether Mann should be forced to pay his fine or if he should be relieved of his punishment is being called to question.

In favor of Lydia the argument is made that overall slavery is immoral and for this reason the acts taken upon her are wrong. The defendant also argues that the bible states that slavery is wrong, therefore Lydia's master should not condone nor perpetuate slavery. These two points worked to not only declare the acts taken upon Lydia wrong, but slavery as a whole. Along with this argument the defendant also stated that Lydia did not belong to Mann, as he was renting her out. He therefore did not have the right to shoot and damage her.

   Although these arguments held some ground in the moot court, the overall verdict was in favor of the prosecution. One of the most important arguments that was made was that Lydia was a piece of property. Due to the common law at the time it was crucial that the court rule in favor of Mann as there was a precedent to maintain. If the court had altered the common law in favor of Lydia it would have set a negative precedent that when emotions of the court are involved the law can be remolded. The prosecution also reminded the court that Lydia was in fact fully Mann's property at the time of her shooting. Although she was being rented out she was Mann's responsibility, therefore if Lydia had not chosen to run away she would not have been shot. In court it is very important to understand where fault lies, especially when delivering a verdict. As Lydia had chosen to run away from her punishment it was her fault that Mann had to shoot her in order to prevent him from loosing her.

The United State's Judicial system has a duty to uphold the law. Mann was in turn declared free of the fines regarding Lydia.
Check this out for some background on the case!

Blacks Only

 After a student at the University of Buffalo chose to adorn public places with 'white only' and 'black only' signs a controversy emerged. Many students and professors were outraged by the signs, finding them highly offensive. Ashley Powell, an art student at the university admitted to having hung the signs not out of prejudice but for a school project.

These signs were hung in her defense in order to symbolize her suffering with white privilege. For many though it brought up unwanted feelings of the past that symbolized a dark time in America's history. Although these signs can be viewed as offensive to believe that these issues are no longer prevalent just because signs like this no longer exist would be a grave understatement. These signs having brought up unwanted feelings of segregation reminded the university of what used to be.

With this upheaval of the past a great deal of anger also emerged. For Powell it is not only when these signs are up that she is reminded of the still prevalent issue of racism in America. Having caused so much unrest Powell did release a statement regarding her project, but does not regret what she did. "I apologize for the extreme trauma, fear, and actual hurt and pain these signs brought about. I apologize if you were hurt, but I do not apologize for what I did." 

Check out this link to read more on the issue!

I Have A Dream..

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"- Martin Luther King Jr.

Arguably one of the most famous speeches from the 19th century, Martin Luther King Jr's 'I Have a Dream Speech' continues to echo in the ear's of many. Those lucky enough to have been born in the current generation are spoiled by the luxury of equality. The prospect that their children will be judged by the color of their skin has most likely never entertained their thought process. Their is an understanding that skin color does not determine the worth of a person. The prejudice eye remains closed amongst children, leaving them open to intermingle with those of any race. And character is not determined by an uncontrollable factor, but by the construction of ones values. These concepts are not only the norm, but accepted as socially correct.


 Having recently passed it is important to

acknowledge Martin Luther King Jr Day on not only January 18th, but every day. Due to a man who was willing to separate himself from the tainted norm of the time Americans no longer live segregated by color. To acknowledge this day only once a year would not only be a disservice to his honor, but to the sacred concept of equality and freedom Americans so highly treasure. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr, I have a dream that America will live everyday in understanding of the gift of equality that Martin Luther King Jr set into motion.
Click the attached link below to read all of Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream Speech.