Plessy v. Ferguson: The Other Opinion

The court ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson is one you can find in your high school history books, and if you grew up in New York like me, you probably encountered it on you U.S. History regents exam. If there's one thing most kids remember from this case it's the coining of the idea of "separate but equal" AKA one of the most discriminatory rulings in United States history. 

Now, a lot is known about this case and it's outcome, but what about the opinion of the court that didn't make the headline? What about the dissent?

Although the majority opinion of the court was presented but Justice Henry B. Brown, another judge on the case possessed an opinion which contradicted the ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan authored the dissent of the Plessy v. Ferguson case. In his dissent he says "If a white man and a black man choose to occupy the same public conveyance on a public highway, it is their right to do so, and no government, proceeding alone on grounds of race, can prevent it without infringing the personal liberty of each.", meaning that separate but equal isn't really equal at all.

Harlan makes a good argument, an argument so precise that it is still applicable to race issues that continue to trouble this country today. Although his opinion that "The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country" probably wasn't one of much popularity among many people of power in 1896, the truth of his statement still rings true today. 

Perhaps one of the most powerful statements, in my opinion, from Judge Harlans dissent is the following: "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." Overall, what this dissent is saying is that the color of one skin, among other characteristics beyond physical appearance, should not justify discrimination. 

Thankfully, this discriminatory ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson was counteracted by the case of Brown vs. the Board of Education, and with this ruling and other political actions, the U.S. is on it's way to becoming the type of country Judge Harlan believed it should have been 120 years ago. 

Do Our Allies Match the United States Values?

The concept of an alliance has been around since the formation of states. People figured out pretty fast that the more people you've got, the more powerful you are. Especially in todays world, an abundance of allies is key to success. This need for allies increases immensely when you're the hegemonic world power, like the United States is today. Usually, when you think of a list of the current allied countries with the U.S., many European and western states come to mind. England, Canada, Germany, France, countries which, today, share our values as a country. However, the United States also has some questionable allies, such as Saudi Arabia.

photo from: https://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com/category/iraq/

Why would the U.S. be allied with an oppressive regime?

Well, lets be honest, Saudi possess about 40% of the worlds oil: something the U.S. needs. So, Saudi Arabia is our ally, and in exchange we turn a blind eye to violations of human rights. But what happens when citizens here in the U.S. use their freedom of speech to talk about how freedom speech is being crushed in a country the U.S. calls a friend?

While the United States and other western countries speak out against the atrocities committed by the terrorist group known as ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or ISIL), Saudi Arabia continues to oppress the rights of their citizens, and imposes sharia law in some ways as drastically as ISIS has. Saudi Arabia also possess a recent history of imprisoning individuals who spoke out against authorities or for political and human rights reforms. In addition, Saudi Arabia has continuously been executing those charged with minor drug possessions.

These actions committed by the Saudi government have led to unrest in the U.S., especially with the revival of diplomatic ties with Cuba, many U.S. citizens believe it's time to reevaluate the U.S.'s relations with Saudi Arabia. And they're not afraid to let their voices be heard.

Freedom to Petition: Is This Campaign Season Stomping It Out?

Protesting is not an idea new to our generation. We grew up hearing stories of our elders protesting events such as Vietnam War, we learned about the O.G. protests like the Boston Tea Party, and then the more recent history of the Civil Rights Movement. We grew up learning that if there was something we didn't believe in, we had a right to get on the soap box about it. Our freedom to petition has been around since 1787. Which makes me begin to question why some politicians, such as Donald Trump, find the idea of protestors at their rallies simply preposterous. With the rise of

tensions coming with the primary elections, more and more protestors are speaking their mind: and more and more are paying a price for it. Peaceful and outspoken protestors alike are being removed from Trump rallies, some just for wearing a shirt showing support for a different candidate, others are being physically assaulted while they're being removed. 

So do Presidential candidates have the right to squash your speech and kick you out? 

Technically speaking, no, unless under a certain set of conditions. This can be explained by taking a look at who the First Amendment protects your from. This who? Well no other than your United States government. In order for your freedom to petition to be considered denied from you, a force of the government has to be the one denying you your voice. And not just any force of government either, who issues to intrusions to detain a protestor and why also come into play. When protestors are at a private event or venue, they can be removed without their rights being violated. Even if these protestors are escorted out by a government official, such as a police officer , if the orders did not come from a government official, but instead the head of a private event, your right to petition isn't applicable to be protected. 

This being said, I suggest taking note how candidates react to protestors. It may not be illegal to suppress someones right to express their opinion, but how your treat people who may not agree with your speaks volumes. Listen to what people are saying with their actions.

The Tech Zone: Is Your Phone Protected by the First Amendment?

My generation is known for its love and dependency of technology. But we're highly attracted to the concept of privacy as well. This attraction to actions without evidence is displayed by use of social media apps such as Snapchat and Yik-Yak, along with the opinion of privacy settings on other apps such and Twitter and Instagram. For how much we love to share on the internet, we're a generation who likes to decide who can or can't see what we're posting, along with having the ability to post anonymously. This mindset can explain why many Millennials and members of Generation Z are intrigued by recent iPhone cases. 

photo from: http://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/14070625/teen-girl-using-iphone-smartphone.html

A recent case in New York argued that Apple did not have to unlock an iPhone for police to use in an investigation to national attention. Apple also had a case regarding one of the San Bernardino shooters who possessed an iPhone, which the Federal Government wanted access into. Apple presented many arguments to support their decision against unlocking the device, one of which was that doing so would violate the phone owners First Amendment Rights. Building off of this argument was presented Apples claim of 'code of speech', referring to the information of the iPhone be presented in the form of technological codes, which Apple claims is a form of speech, therefore protected by the First Amendment. 

Apples points tot he prior ruling of the 2001 case of Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, in which the ruling stated:

"Communication does not lose constitutional protection as "speech" simply because it is expressed in the language of computer code. Mathematical formulae and musical scores are written in "code," i.e., symbolic notations not comprehensible to the uninitiated, and yet both are covered by the First Amendment."

Nevertheless, even with this ruling the idea of codes is still up for debate, but it looks like our phones are safe for now.

Filming Police: Is It Your Right?

Last week a Philadelphia judged ruled that an individuals desire to film a police encounter was not protected under the First Amendment. This ruling did come with a catch however, filming would be allowed and protected if you had and explicit and critical reason for doing so.

 

Photo From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarunwadhwa/2013/06/04/watching-back-how-using-surveillance-technologies-on-law-enforcement-can-improve-policing/#43eb586e5fea

This ruling was brought about by two court cases, in which two separate individuals suing the city during instances when they were forced to stop recording. One of the individuals was Temple University Undergraduate student, Richard Fields. Fields was recording police outside a college house party. When asked to leave, Fields refused, resulting in his detainment in the back of a police van.

This ruling comes in the wake of the past years outcry of police brutality cases and the strengthening of the Black Lives Matter Movement taking place around the country. In addition, I feel like this ruling pushes against the incentive many police units are taking in encouraging and enforcing the use of body cameras. When recording takes place, there is no disagreement about what might have occurred during an encounter between a citizen and officer goes poorly. In my opinion, recording shouldn't be threatening to an officer doing his job, but instead maybe comforting. With some individuals fearing their safety at the hands of some members of the police force, this bloggers feels like this ruling won't due much when it comes to easing public concerns. Thankfully, an appeals is scheduled, writing this, in my opinion, misruling.