Well, whether a student has a first amendment right to bring a non-transparent backpack to school certainly has never been resolved. But I wouldn’t bet on the student winning that one.
By “essentially” perhaps he means “a violation of the spirit of the first amendment–infringing on our right to choose our own backpack designs”)
He might have a point about privacy under the 4th Amendment, but not the First.
Yeah, this is not a new issue. Students have been publicly objecting to schools’ mandatory see-through-backpack security rules for over a decade.
AFAIK such objections have never risen to the level of an actual constitutional challenge on either First Amendment (free expression) or Fourth/Ninth Amendment (privacy) grounds, but it doesn’t seem likely that the schools’ backpack policies would be found unconstitutional (although IANAL so what do I know). But it’s pretty well established over quite a long time that many students regard such policies as unjustifiably intrusive even if they’re wrong about their constitutional status.
Yes, as was clear from the link. Honestly, D’Anconia, I don’t think that anybody who couldn’t manage to figure that out has any business calling somebody else an idiot.
No right is absolute - every right that one person has is subject to all the rights that everyone else has. Otherwise my right to privacy could mean that you’re not allowed to get within 100 miles of me and you’re not allowed to own a phone or a computer (because you could spy on me with those), and my right to free speech could mean that you have to stay silent forever and you can’t own earplugs or a radio, so you’ll always be ready just in case I might want to talk.
There’s nothing at all even slightly wrong with the fact that decisions have to be made where one right takes precedence over another right, in a certain situation.
How those decisions are made, and who gets to make them and when, are important issues. The fact that the decisions do get made, however, can never be a problem to anyone. That’s just how rights work.
I don’t think we disagree. (At least about this)
I don’t think so either. It seems there are a few scattered people who do disagree, and they make a lot of noise.
I’m going to make a wild stab and assume that you’re referring to Joe Louis, the boxer. Civil rights had been a movement for decades before Joe Louis. Hell, Joe Louis as a symbol was important long before the war. His popularity as a boxer during WWII was nice and utterly meaningless as a change mechanism, except perhaps as a metaphor.
The racism he faced during the war symbolized the hypocrisy of the way Negroes of the era might be sometimes approved of and the way they were treated in everyday life. It was that enormous gap between the principles that the U.S. said publicly it was fighting for and the lack of application of those principles to millions who gave their all for the war effort that sparked the postwar civil rights movement.
For a protest to work you have to be sufficiently annoying. Look at what the French do: they block off access to fuel until their demands are met. Just meandering around with pretty signs for one afternoon is unlikely to lead to direct change, because why would it? Through what mechanism? Of course setting up a movement and getting some press is great, but that won’t usually get you change directly. You have to annoy and create a disturbance. Something those with power to affect change don’t want you to do again tomorrow. And then you have to be willing to do it again tomorrow.
In the Netherlands, our cycling culture comes from some effective protests in the '70s. Children were dying because cars were prioritised on the roads. So people took their bicycles, sat down in the middle of some important roads and didn’t get up until politicians promised change. They were annoying. Things changed because it was clear they would continue to be annoying until cyclist were better protected. People blocking streets are annoying but the people trying to get to work won’t turn against them if they’re holding pictures of dead children. They’ll turn on the politicians. Suddenly it turns out a whole lot can be accomplished in very short time.
I think that annoying protests increase the visibility of movements at the expense of acceptability. Of the civil rights protests I can think of in the past century or so in America less than half rise to the annoyance level of french road blockages, yet they’ve still been plenty visible. The French example means that I am more aware of their grievances than I was before, but at the expense of being less likely to go to the French countryside which can’t do anything good for local farmers.
On the other hand, you don’t want to change your tactics so you annoy nobody since then no one will listen to you. I just don’t think that annoyance is a bonus and people will cower in their boots and say “sure, whatever you want, I will bow down and give in to your demands, just stop infringing on my rights of movement” because people don’t work that way.
Take for example the “taking a knee” movement. It annoyed only stupid people, yet still provided publicity. I’d say that was a good middle ground.
The current push is directed squarely against gun culture, limiting the ways that gun culture is passed to friends and family, sons and daughters, and in the outreach efforts to bring new shooters into the fold. The surest way to get someone to move to a more favorable view of gun culture is to take them shooting, be responsible, and be an ambassador for the cause.
March for Our Lives coincides with efforts to restrict content from places like youtube, restrict financial transactions from credit card processors, restrict sales from vendors like Dicks and Walmart, etc. All of this won’t have immediate impact, but in the long term these types of things restrict the growth of gun culture. When youtube bans a video on how to reload ammunition, that’s within their ability to do, but it’s aimed at gun culture. When placed like facebook and twitter restrict the ability to organize based on content, that’s aimed at gun culture.
But March for Our Lives isn’t some grassroots organization that spontaneously sprung up. Yes, the Parkland tragedy was the catalyst, but the folks responsible for organizing the students are the same ones that have been organizing gun control groups for years - they simply used this lever to continue to push the agenda they have been pushing. I applaud the students involved for becoming active, for speaking out. But it’s not the students I hear, it’s Bloomberg, Joyce, and the rest of the gun control crowd that funds these efforts. Look at the website:
If you want to make a tax deductible donation, it goes through Everytown which is Bloomberg. But the non-taxable donations are going to be used for general legislative advocacy. I have no problem with 501(c)(4) orgs and the fact that they can spend unlimited money and aren’t required to disclose anything, but it’s clear this isn’t about the students involved or specifically students - it’s about general efforts to push for gun control.
For kids and by kids? Bullshit.
A grassroots movement could be a catalyst for large scale change. March for Our Lives is not that and I would expect it to be absorbed by Bloomberg and Everytown, notwithstanding that it already has.
What would change if everything were the same, but the kids had rejected all those other groups and accomplished the same turnout completely on their own? Or if, alluded to in your 3rd paragraph, you made the decision to only listen to the Parkland students and not the big organizations? Would you suddenly be receptive to their message? If not, then this post is merely an excuse and/or rationalization for your dismissal of their efforts, and their affiliations don’t actually matter to you.
You mean magic? Because there is no way that the group of students would be able to accomplish the same turnout completely on their own. That’s the point - what they did would not be possible without Bloomberg.
I would be more receptive to the message if not tainted by the usual folks pushing the usual agenda. Or put another way, when talking about informed consent, all other things being equal is the message more persuasive if it comes from folks like Rose McGowan or folks like Roy Moore or Weinstein?
The students suffered a tragedy and I’m glad they are active, speaking out, using the opportunity in ways they feel is wise. Good for them. But they are a prop of gun control advocates like Bloomberg.
Very likely, but so what? Their words are their own (even if someone helped them write their speeches). IMO, you’ve found a very easy way to rationalize dismissing them. That will always be easy, since there will never be perfect messengers, with perfect tactics and a flawless message. I’m not an unbiased observer (and neither are you, of course) but I thought the kids were extremely impressive. Even if their goals aligned with the goals of various big groups.
It’d be just as easy for me to say that you’re a prop for the NRA. I don’t actually think that, since I’ve been talking to you for a while and recognize that you think for yourself, even when your views happen to align with the NRA or other gun rights organizations.
I think this issue (mass shootings and school shootings in particular) is an extremely complex interrelation of many things, including society, culture, race, gun laws, economics, and probably other factors as well. There are plenty who try and pretend it’s a simple one – most notably IMO, the NRA (or at least its public face). Also some gun control advocates – anyone who thinks it’s a matter that gun laws alone could fix.
But I think you’re taking the easy way out, and doing just what the NRA and other over-simplifiers want you to do, if you’re dismissing these kids because the unpreventable happened, in that other organizations hitched their wagons to theirs.
What you’re asking for – these kids acting alone – is just as much “magic” as a massive protest unencumbered by big-money assistance, when big-money assistance is so prevalent. The easy choice is to dismiss them. The hard choice is actually trying to come up with complex solutions to this complex problem – solutions that might involve gun laws as well as changes in society, culture, media, economics, and other factors.
Or, more likely, they’re willing allies with similar aims.
To portray those kids - as you seem to be, Bone - as some sort of stalking horse for Bloomberg is to deny them their own agency to choose their goals and work towards them. Pairing up with existing gun control groups is the politically savvy action to take if they wish to be effective.
I realize you may not mean it this way, but it seems to me you’re saying, “I’d have a lot more respect for those kids if they weren’t so effective.”
Exactly. Yes, after all the black lives matter protests, people are still getting shot, but at least now it is out in the public sphere and something that politicians are talking about. I would say the same thing to those who claim that Occupy Wallstreet was a failure. Yes it went on too long and they didn’t have and end game, but, thanks to this protest, wealth inequality became a political issue and the “top 1 percent” became part of the average American’s political vocabulary.
The main message that I hope gets out from the current rally is that single issue gun voters may not only be on the pro-gun side anymore.
Did you read the other posts in that thread before you posted? Their consensus was that large scale demonstrations had declined in immediate effectiveness, in very much the same terms that people are repeating in this thread. Marches do not create change. Their success is measured in long-term political activism, which is the vehicle for creating change.
Actually, I applaud the students for reaching out to established Groups and learning from history on what tactics work and which don’t, instead of trying to re-invent the wheel all over again. Coordination of effort, knowledge and Money is important to reach a Goal, instead of infighting of the “People’s Front of Judea/ Judean People’s Front” type.
That was one of the mistakes of the Occupy movement, after all: they couldn’t agree on one/a few easily implementable laws to campaign for, they just wanted “a different Society” - which most agreed with, but few knew how to achieve, and so everything petered out in theoretical discussions. (It’s also how the Pirate Party managed to squander the huge upswell they got from dissatisfied voters wanting a fresh protest Party - instead of learning from the first protesters, the Greens, and avoiding all their mistakes, they ignored everything before them and tried out everything “Basic democratic”, sabotaging themselves instead of bringing a handful of workable laws to the table).
Not at all. It’s the answer to those People who are calling for demonstrations as the only way to achieve Change in the US, which in the current political climate is simply misguided. People in power, especially without conscience, can simply ignore demonstrations, or Arrest People (if necessary under pretense).
As has been pointed out, demonstrations as part of Long-term activism, strategic thought, together with registering voters, getting actually different politicans out there so voters have a real choice between different positions, and so on - that can make a Change, just by getting it in the News.
It’s still a Long game.
Yes, demonstrations have. And Regimes have also sent tanks and soldiers to kill demonstrations.
A simple clerical error and the decision of one subordinate officer lead to the opening of the Wall (not Ronald Reagan), which led later to the fall of East German government; but the many decisions before that - like Hungary opening their border to the West - and the on-going Monday demonstrations showed the ordinary People that everybody else thought like them.
It wasn’t a Change of heart by the government, however.
But I’m not asking them to act alone. I think they should do whatever they think is best. If they think the best shot at getting their message out there with traction is becoming a prop for Bloomberg, that’s their prerogative.
I think it’s bullshit that my elementary school kids have to do “intruder drills”, or they have to identify places they could hide in the classroom. It’s not bullshit that it’s being done, but that as a society this is a prudent thing to do. So if and when kids talk about these issues, I want to listen. If teachers speak about what kind of impact this has on their classrooms, their ability to teach, etc. I want to listen.
But when Bloomberg talks, I don’t dismiss him or the groups he funds - I want to fight them, metaphorically, in the marketplace of ideas because he is an enemy of the 2nd amendment and a pseudo fascist.
It is politically savvy, no doubt. I think the jury is out whether it will be effective. Bloomberg has been effective in some areas like Oregon and Washington, and less so in Maine, and he would have been in Nevada had they not made critical errors in legislative drafting. As to whether these students are a stalking horse for Bloomberg…I don’t know. I wouldn’t want to deny their agency but I don’t see much daylight between them especially given the group’s board and leadership, as well as the fundraising arm they have aligned with. The money they have gathered is either going directly to Everytown, or is in a 501(c)(4) (setting aside the gofundme) that is controlled by a board to be used for legislative advocacy with the students as advisors. It’s complicated because as minors they are not allowed to be board members, but if it was me and I wanted to retain control of the message and agency I would select as the board members of family and have the big name affiliates as consultants.
Compare to the #metoo movement which I would consider much more grassroots. Or blacklivesmatter which has had missteps for sure, but ultimately I think has a more persuasive message.