Lawsuit alleges officers violated juvenile's civil rights

Two local attorneys filed a lawsuit against 2 cops, David Rock and Donnie Kee. They were accused of violating their 17-year old client's civil rights when they pulled him out of a vehicle, handcuffed him, patted him down and placed him in the back of a squad car. The lawsuit states that the fourth amendment, right to be free from unreasonable searches and his eighth amendment, right to be free from cruel and unusual punishmen were violated.

When I first read this article, I didn't think anything of it. I guess its all the television I watch or something. Is this however, a violation of the kid's rights? The attorneys state that the officers had "no valid reason to detain him." Even though this type of violation of rights occurs often, it is taken lightly. It seems that the police have taken the attitude that these violations are not that serious and deserve to lose this lawsuit.

http://www.daily-times.com/news/ci_6345346

Report: Wal-Mart tactics violate workers’ rights

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18404137/

The giant retailer, Walmart, is accused of violating workers' rights to organizing. It is noted that Walmart "stands out" for its aggressiveness in its anti-union activities. Lawyers and researchers have studied how worker's are treated, and based on their results, Walmart calls them unsustantiated.

If employees want to organize, they should be allowed to use the right granted to them in the first amendment. Nothing should impede that.

Earlier I made a post about the "11th plea..." article and I forgot to put my opinion. I feel the Davis should be given another chance to prove his innocence. There has been new evidence that shows influenced and biased testimonies. This is unjust, and before a man is executed he should have the right to try and defend himself and his life especially when he may be innocent.

Senator Thompson denies previous pro abortion claims

Senator Fred D. Thompson, who is campaigning for the republican presidency as an anti - abortion believer, is said to have changed his previously viewed opinions as a pro - abortion supporter. In many interviews, questionairs, and self proclaimed statements in past years by Thompson have lately been revoked due to his believed wants to appeal to the conservative republican community. In this case of course, Thompson is running or presidency in hopes that his election will bring less elasticity to the rights won by pro - abortionists. In the event that he wins the election, previously won rights will be taken away, thus violating rights that though are not specifically stated in the constitution, have been decided by the Supreme court.

Attorneys say suspect’s rights violated

The first phone call to the convicted sex offender went to the man’s answering machine. The second call went to his cell phone, resulting in a short conversation that didn’t produce any evidence.
Then came the surprise for Citrus County Sheriff’s Detective Chris Prus, who was arranging the Jan. 20, 2006, recorded phone calls to Daniel Weckesser, 48, at his home in Lady Lake. Weckesser called back 10 minutes later, speaking to a 27-year-old man who accused Weckesser of performing sex acts on him when he was younger.
Testifying at a court hearing last Wednesday, Prus described the 45-minute conversation where Weckesser reportedly apologized to the man for the sex acts, along with making other statements. Weckesser was arrested on a warrant Feb. 9, 2006, after which he’s said to have “confessed in detail” to performing sex acts on the boy.
Grant argued Weckesser’s fifth and sixth constitutional amendments prohibited Prus from talking to him without a written waiver of his rights. Though the investigation was separate from the other crimes, it resulted from the same episode, Grant argued.
Assistant State Attorney Thomas “Skip” Boll argued Weckesser’s invocation of his rights doesn’t apply to every crime he may have committed, and that this was a similar crime involving a different victim.
A June 6 status conference at 9 a.m. has been set when a ruling is expected. Weckesser faces life in prison if convicted of the charge, a first-degree felony.
http://www.chronicleonline.com/articles/2007/04/29/news/news30.txt

The article shows how Weckesser's rights in the 5th and 6th Amendments were violented. He has the rights of an accused person and the right to a speedy trial, but both rights were denied. He faces life in prison and convicted of first-degree felony, which is not fair.

11th hour plea for Georgia inmate's life

38 year old Troy Anthony Davis is currently is currently scheduled to face the death penalty next week. His mother however has recently found new evidence in hopes to prove her son's innocence. So far the courts have denied to hear the new evidence. Davis' trial in 1991 was based entirely on witness testimony and not 7 of the 9 who testified against Davis have renounced or contradicted their previous testimonies. They have also stated that at the time of the trial that they were intimidated by police officers. People have also cited race as a factor in his trial as he is an African American male accused of killing a white police officer. Throughout the investigation no murder weapon was ever found nor was any physical evidence found. The case rested solely on witness testimony which has now been contradicted by those very witnesses. A year ago the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Davis' petition for rehearing stating that he had not proved his trial was "constitutionally unfair." Troy Anthony Davis

-spfootball5

Court dismisss suit challenging domestic spying

After September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush Administration listened in on international phone calls involving people suspected of having ties to terrorist. ACLU challenged president's program that allows wiretaps without court order. The plaintiffs had no legal standing to pursue thier claims because they could not show they were targeted by the National Security Agency's warrantless spying program, the court decided in a 2-1 vote.

I think this is wrong. We the people of the United States have the right of privacy and the government cannot just tap in and out of phonecalls and emails whenever they want.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/06/court.domestic.spying/index.html?iref=newssearch

The Right of The Common Citizen to Protect Himself

Norman Borden a 44 year old male was walking his dog when 3 males in a jeep were following him trying to run him over. Borden in a means of protection pulled out a gun and shot at the jeep 5 times and then 9 more times when he got closer to the jeep. He was put on trial for murder even though it was for self defence. Also the state of florida in which he lives in has just passed a law that allows a big leeway for the use of firearms for defence. People have concerns about this because people will use firearms not as a last resort but as an initial plan for self defense. Borden faces a life in prison if he is convicted for murder because it was unnesasary for him to shoot that many times. I believe that Borden should not be sent to a life in prison because when someone is being pursued and are in fear of their life they will do just about anything to save their own lives. It is natural human instinct. He might have been a little too trigger happy but can you blame him?

article

privacy violated?

As many would know, there might be a possibility of the government secretly wiretapping people's phones, emails or any other communication device using the excuse of "national security" and "finding the terrorist." Well, if that did happen, the victim wouldn't even know about it since it was done secretly, but how did the government get such information if the first place? In San Fransisco, a Justice Department attorney argued with with lawyers from five states in federal court over the Bush administration's attempt to block states from investigating if phone companies illegally shared customer information with the National Security Agency. Assuming the phone companies did, it would be a serious violation of privacy rights on both the government and the phone companies' part. There is also a violation of phone company contracts with the consumer, since most phone companies say beforehand that they would never give out any private informations.

Doing things secretly behind the citizens' and consumers' backs is just wrong. Government shouldn't have the power to spy on people like that. Both government and phone companies not only violate a person's right to privacy, they also violate the trust a citizen has in their government and the trust a consumer places with the phone company when agreeing to sign up with their services. There are definitely things people do not want others to know as well as others not wanting to know about certain things about people. And what will happen if no one has any trust anymore?

Here's the article.

Just Simply Not Enough

The New York Times leads with Dr. Richard Carmona, the surgeon general from 2002 until 2006, telling Congress that the Bush administration frequently tried to shape his public statements so that they would fit its political goals and prevented him from speaking out about several issues. Carmona has thus become the latest in a string (the WP has a good rundown) of officials who have said that political considerations take precedence over scientific facts at the Bush White House. USA Today leads with a look at how more states are providing discounts in college tuition for veterans, partly as a way to make up for severe deficiencies in the federal GI Bill. Some of it has to do with the increased number of National Guard troops that are being sent into battle, but it's also because often the money provided by the federal government is simply not enough. But as more state lawmakers are dealing with budgetary woes, some are considering cutting back.
http://www.slate.com/id/2170220/fr/nl/

I think to prevent low budget, the Iraq war should stop. The more soldiers go into the war, the more tuition and debts we have to cope; hence, the money is probably being taken out from our tax. If we stop the Iraq war, we would not have to cut back on the GI Bill budget.

teachers rights violated

Elizabeth Shea worked for the Jersey City schools since 1966.
On December 15, 1995. Elizabeth Shea was walking to pick up her students in the courtyard of PS 30. Something she has done since 1966.
As children have been doing for decades, children were running in the courtyard. They ran into her. Not deliberately but accidentally. Pulling and tugging on her coat causing her to lose her balance from this and went flying up into the air...doing a "pratfall".
She landed and hit everything imaginable from her head to the soles of her feet.
The principal came over and said
"She fell ?" He ordered the guard to "get her out of here".
Principal didn't call the medical officer...ELIZABETH WAS NOT TRYING TO GET UP BECAUSE SHE WAS TOO HURT TO MOVE...principal and the guard simply began pulling her up by her wrists. As she begain to scream, begging them not to do this, they let her go and she dropped 4 feet back onto the frozen courtyard. Again hitting everything from her head to her heels.

http://hometown.aol.com/mdevour983/TEACHERSARMRIPPEDBYPRINCIPALAND.html

I think that this is very sad because someone who has been working in the school district should be treated with respect. The principal should be punished.

did policer officer violate skateboarders rights?

The investigators found Officer Joey Williams confronted a situation that "would have overwhelmed any single officer" when he stopped those breaking city ordinance by skateboarding on a downtown sidewalk on June 21st. However, the investigation faulted Williams for leaving a handcuffed suspect unattended while chasing another youth in the resort town's historic Bathhouse Row. City Manager Kent Myers says the ruling was fair. Myers says witnesses supported the actions of the officer. Video of the incident from a business' security cameras show ten skateboarders rolling down the city sidewalk at a good clip. They were followed by Williams, who sprints past the last skater. A video taken by skateboarders and later posted to YouTube shows Williams on top of 1 of the skaters, apparently choking him. The video also showed Williams putting another two skateboarders in a headlock and the officer can later be heard threatening to use pepper spray on a skateboarder lying on the ground.

In this case, i do not believe that the police officer violated any of the skaters rights because they were violating the city ordinances by skating on private property. the video they posted on youtube is perfect eveidence, because it supposedly show the police officer using the focre necessary to retain the skaters.

http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=6740913

Mass. Bar Sued for Gay Marriage Question

A man said he failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer a question about gay marriage, and claims in a federal lawsuit the test violated his rights and targeted his religious beliefs.
The suit also challenges the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, which was legalized in Massachusetts in 2003.
Stephen Dunne, who is representing himself in the case and seeks $9.75 million, said the bar exam was not the place for a "morally repugnant and patently offensive" question addressing the rights of two married lesbians, their children and their property. He said he refused to answer the question because he believed it legitimized same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting, which is contrary to his moral beliefs.
Dunne, 30, was denied a license to practice law in May after scoring 268.866 on the exam, just shy of the 270 passing grade.
His lawsuit against the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court also claims the state government is "purposely advancing secular humanism's homosexual agenda."
I say that Stephen Dunne should get the points and pass his Bar examination. The test violated the first ammendment, freedom of religion, because in many religions, same sex marraige is prohibited. Having a test question on that subject forces the test taker to choose a right answer, even if it's against his or her belief.

Blacks violated Voting Rights Act

In Jackson, Mississippi there has been an incident where whites right to vote have been violated by the Noxubee County Democratic Party leader Ike Brown. Brown was accused for not leting white residents of the town vote in a public election. With this action in place brown has violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Judge Lee, who looked over this case, saw that it was more of a civil matter of Jackson, Mississippi. In the end Judge Lee had decided that it wasn't right for Brown to rule out whites from voting.

I believe that Judge Lee is right for siding with the whites of Jackson, Mississippi because it is not right for Brown to influence other blacks to go aganist the whites. It is like a double negative. They is more piont on doing the same thing that whites had done to the blacks. You are almost going down to the same level.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artcile?

Lawsuit: Farmworkers' Rights Violated

In a small city in New Jersey, the city fined a group of farmworkers $1,500 for having an immigrant rights rally. The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the Farmworkers Support Committee argued with the littles cities charge. The group advocates human rights of migrant and immigrant workers. Last year and this year the group held a rally, but the city charged them this year and not last year. Originally the city demanded $2,000 up front payment for this years rally, but the demand was dropped and then billed the group $1,500 a few weeks after the march.
In my opinion, the group of farmworkers shouldn't have been fined. They were using their freedom of speech and they did no harm. They just had their rally and there wasn't any violence or rude remarks. The city did a horrible job and had no right.

Teacher allegedly taped ex-student’s mouth shut

A school district agreed to pay $33,250 to settle a lawsuit by a former student who accused an elementary school teacher of wrapping tape around his head for talking too much. Adam Roser has his mouth taped for several minutes. Roser had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and was being treated by a school psychologist. An outcome to the taping of this student's mouth lead to pain and suffering while being ridiculed at school.

I think this is violation of the students right to free speech. Although he was abused and mistreated, he couldn't talk against the teacher for fear of retaliation. Years later he has admitted to this abuse and has taken legal action. This should be an example to teachers to restrain themselves no matter what the circumstances are.

Judge Nixes Evolution Textbook Stickers

A school near Atlanta in Cobb County was told to remove all stickers from science books that stated, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered” that were placed in the front cover of the books. There were over 2000 complaints from parents and eventually 6 parents sued along with the American Civil Liberties Union. They argued that it violated the seperation of church and state while sinlgling out evolution from many other scientific theories. The school board argued back that it showed religious tolerance, not activism for religion. Georgia's cheif council suggested that instead using the word evolution textbooks and teachers should say "changes over time."
I don't think that this is really an issue and that the parents had nothing to really sue about. I understand that evolution is a very controversial subject but the stickers in the front seem very harmless and that it does nothing to agitate parents about the school being too active about religion. The sticker was more of a disclaimer, but the school may have been better off without the stickers. I see the parents concerns that church and state were a little too close there, but there was still a sort of tangible barrier.

State and City Clash Over Benefits for Gays
Jerome Post and Paul Renwick are a gay couple that moved from California to Kalamazoo, Michigan because the one of them needed a job that offered good health insurance. The couple already had family members in the city and Jerome had been offered a job. He was given the position assistant human resources director for Kalamazoo. His partner Paul suffers with chronic health problems, where the heath insurance is needed. However, Michigan appellate court rules that employers cannot offer heath insurance to same sex marriages because it is banned by Michigan constitution. The officials said it legitimized their marriage, therefore it is against the law. Attorney Mike Cox states, "In Michigan, marriage is recognized as a union between man and woman." The state Supreme Court is waiting to hear the case, but for the time being the benefits are not provided for the couple. The clash between the cities views and state's law is contradicting and this couple is stuck in the middle.
In my opinion, Jerome and Paul are being cheated out of the benefits that they deserve. If a couple made up of a man and a women had taken up the position, they would be granted the benefits with no questions asked. This law is a controversial issue that needs to be sorted out, so that an innocent gay couple can live their lives. This circumstance is a violation of the couples rights. The city and state need to come to a decision about what law they are going to enforce. A city cannot falsely "advertise" benefits for same sex couples unless it is legitimate. Even if the state doesn't recognize same sex marriages, a couple should not have their health benefits revoked, it's just not fair.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-samesex8jul08,1,7253844.story?ctrack=4&cset=true

The article in the New York Times talks about how Judges in the Supreme Court are becoming activists and making laws instead of interpreting them, often invoking the 14th amendment. They are using their powers to overturn decisions made by congress in many cases due to the appointment of many conservative judges. In cases such as the segregating of the schools in Chicago show that the Supreme Court is appearing to reverse many of the decisions made in the past. The article also mentions that we may go back to an era where judges were activists and enforced new laws, such as the Lochner Era in 1905.

Although the judges may, in interpreting the law, have to create new laws or abolish outdated ones, I feel that lately the judicial branch is becomming too powerful. Just as we have written about the checks and balances the first week of our blogs, if the Judicial Brach is allowed to make more laws then they are essentially taking away the rights that are given exclusively to the congress. In cases such as the segregation of the school in Chicago, for example, I feel that it is a step backward from achieving equality for all races and would bring shame to civil rights activists, who fought their whole lives for equality, wuch as Martin Luther King Jr.

Greenwood Officer Violates Student's Rights

Recently, Circuit Judge Ashley Hines, stated that he would later state whether or not Officer Case Wiggins would be charged for stemming from a confrontation with a student at school. The 18 year old, named James Marshall was claimed to have been attacked by Officer Wiggins on December 6. Witnesses have stated that Marshall did nothing wrong before and during the time when Officer Wiggins had approached Marshall. Marshall's english teacher, Nokes, witnessed that Marshall looked "more angry than afraid" while speaking with Officer Wiggins.

As the school's camera captures Marshall and Wiggins confrontation together, it displays that Wiggins had put Marshall in a choke hold and later, pulled out his pistol and aimed it at his head. Marshall lawyer claims that "Wiggins, who was on patrol at the school, violated his [Marshall's] civil rights by using excessive force."

In my opinion, I think that this case should go in favor of Marshall. Although we don't know what the confrontation was about or what was said during that time, I still think that it is pretty unreasonable for Officer Wiggins to pull out a pistol and aim it to the student's head, especially while still on campus grounds. I believe that that act was very unnecessary and that Officer Wiggins could have handled the situation in a much more responsible way.

Detention center phones frustrate aliens

Across the nation there are more than 280,000 illegal immigrants are being held 400 different detention centers. These people are faced with a complex, and unreliable telephone system that constantly prevents inmates from making free phone calls to complain about their confinement. GAO investigators found "systemic problems" with the pro bona phone system at 16 of the 17 investigated. These included failed connections due to technical problems and insufficient internal controls. In one facility the list of consulate numbers was six years old and nearly one third of the numbers were incorrect.
These people are being held against there will with out any way of properly communicating with the out side world. The numbers that are to be provided include offices that function in order to insure these people are treated fairly. this is a problem, even if these people are illegal, the being held with now way to get themselves out is wrong.

Preaching the anti-shopping gospel

In New York at the end of June, police arrested the Rev. Billy in Manhattan's Union Square on suspicion of harassment after he repeatedly recited the 1st Amendment through a megaphone during a bicycling rally..This Rev on the other hand does not promote religion and is actually not a real true Rev. He is although the alter ego of Billy Talen anactor and writer who is nationally know as Rev. Billy, a character inspired by televangelists, for his fight against consumerism and big corporations. His arrest incited many of his supporters to protest against the arrest and that the arrest was violating his freedom of speech under the 1st Amendment. Billy's attorney is calling for the charges against him to be dismissed.

In my opinion I believe that Billy has the right to say what he wants as long as there are no violent remarks made to anyone. He shouldn't have been arrested for just continuously repeating the first amendment. At the end I believe he had full right in doing what he did

Do Guantanamo Bay Detainees Have Prisoner Rights?

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review whether Guantanamo Bay detainees can use the federal courts to challenge their confinement. This controversy would reverse a previous decision not to hear their plea on the issue. Bush administration pushed a law through Congress last year, that designated these detainees as an enemy combatants and thus stripped them of any right to use the federal courts to challenge the legality of their detention. The judges hearing the case surprisingly changed their view on the topic and have decided to listen to the case instead. The Military Commissions Act had taken away federal court jurisdiction to consider detainees' challenges to their confinement, but this new turn of events goes against this earlier decision. The detainees' legal team had said that dismissing the petitions would be "a profound deprivation" of the prisoners' right to speedy court review. Despite their prisoner status, they Guantanamo Bay detainees are fighting to receive full rights in the US Courts.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070630/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo&printer=1;_ylt=Ag3cj4JFwSz.GyWTQQ0EYCJAw_IE

As stated in the summary, this article deals with a due process of law and a person's right to a speedy trial. I found this article very interesting because it's an example of the 'special circumstances' that can arise when addressing people's rights. By labeling the prisoners as enemy combatants, they were stripped of the usual rights a person is entitled to when dealing with the law. It's interesting to see that they still retained some of these rights though, like the right to an attorney and to hear witness testimonies. It just goes to show that there are sometimes exceptions to the rule, and the government had tried prepare for this by making a person's rights fairly broad and subject to court interpretation in special cases like this one.

My child's rights are being violated

Today many children's rights are being vioalted because they have special needs. Many parents are fighting a battle with special educators to provide their children with the servives they need. The school finally placed him in a contained class for emotionally disturbed children for one hour a day, but the teacher disagrees theat this child is need of these services.If you think your child has a disorder you should have your child evaluated by an expert.

In my opinion I beleive that the child's rights are not being violated. The mother can go to the doctor and get tests done and bring actual proof to the teacher showing that he actually has some type of syndrome.

Freedom of Speech?

This article is about a young student named Joseph Federick. He had received a 10-day suspension for standing outside school and holding up a sign saying, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." He sued the school principal, Deborah Morse, for violating his rights under the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech). He won in the federal appeals court in San Francisco, but things stirred up when it came to the Supreme Court. With the rules, 5-4, the Justices has sided with the principal. They said that it would have been a different conclusion if the sign he held had something to fo with a political or social message (e.g. "Down with Bush" or "Praise Allah") In addition, they began to stress over if Frederick's sign had to do with illegal drug use ("bong hits"). In the article , it stated that since the Tinker v. Des Moines case in 1969, there hasn't been a moment where "high school students have not won a free-speech case in the Supreme Court."

I'm really beginning to see how people, especially students, are over using the quote about people violating their first amendment. I'm starting to feel that many students are abusing their rights and not actually using their freedom of speech the way they should be. Rather than getting their voices heard, I think people are beginning to want benefits (like money) out of suits against people.

Maricopa County violated mans rights, says ACLU

A federal lawsuit was filed May 30th by the American Civil Liberties Union claiming that Maricopa County officials have violated the rights of a quarantined tuberculosis patient for months by treating him as a criminal.
The U.S. District Court complained on behalf of the tuberculosis patient, Robert Daniels, that health officials and the Maricopa County Sheriff have violated numerous constitutional rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The lawsuit asks for appropriate accommodations rather than
the cruel and "inhumane" Maricopa jail ward.
"It's good news for me," Daniels said Wednesday evening. "I finally have a chance to get out of this black hole."
Linda Cosme, an attorney for Daniels, said her client has been victimized by constitutional violations. "Robert is helpless," she says. "And he's at the mercy of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He needs as much support as possible, and the ACLU is supplying that support."
According to the Maricopa court records, Daniels has spent most of his time in custody without a phone, TV, radio, shower or hot water.


I think that this is cruel, unnecessary, and inhumane. Even though tuberculosis is highly contagious he should not be treated as if he were a criminal; it bad enough he is quarantined, separated from all other people, but worse if he is put in a jail cell with inhumane conditions
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0531tbguy0531.html

Military Families of Fallen Soldiers Angered

Families of soldiers who were killed are outraged that their loved ones’ images and names are being used on anti-war shirts and other items. These complaints and lawsuits come from family members who are upset that their loved ones are being represented this way by people who are only concerned about making money. Without their permission, these businesses have no right to do this and profit from their grief. States such as Oklahoma and Louisiana have already passed laws banning the commercial use of their names and images last year, while Texas and Florida have legislation awaiting approval. Arizona is on the verge of approving a measure similar to this. Under this bill, businesses are fined and offenders could receive jail time. Business offenders argue that these state bills infringe on their first amendment rights to free speech, but legislators say that they are selling a commercial good that falls under state regulation.

These soldiers have died while protecting our country and I believe that no one should profit from their deaths. Any legislation that defends their names and images should be passed so that their rights and those of their family’s are protected. Even though dead soldiers’ names are public record, this is a sensitive issue that calls for the protection of their rights. We should maintain some dignity for these fallen soldiers who risked their lives to serve our country by passing laws and bills to ensure that their names and images are respected and not abused.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18728858/

Wal-Mart Efforts Prevent Workers to Unionize

Retail giant Wal-Mart uses anti-union methods to prevent their employees from forming them. By taking advantage of weak U.S. labor laws and telling workers and managers to oppose unions when they are hired, Wal-Mart has put fear in their employees that unions are unnecessary. Tactics such as banning union reps from being on site, firings, eavesdropping, surveillance camera monitoring, and prohibiting union flyer distribution are being done by Wal-Mart. Because U.S. labor laws are so weak, and if Wal-Mart is found guilty of these doings, they will only receive a “slap on the wrist,” and could face no fines or disciplinary actions. The Human Rights Watch (HRW) group wants Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act and President Bush’s approval to make this a law to protect workers who wish to organize unions at their workplace. The HRW also wants Wal-Mart to stop these unfair and illegal tactics and anti-union behavior.

I believe that workers have the right to unionize if they choose to have one at their workplace. They should be able to vote on it, and not be forced by their employer to decide for them. Wal-Mart is one of the largest retail businesses in the U.S., who also hires a large number of people to work in their stores. Wal-Mart should set an example to the American public by allowing their employees to be represented by a union or not, and not have to use unfair and illegal methods to scare or force them to not unionize. These workers have rights in their place of employment, so by passing this bill it would protect their right to form or join a union.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/01/usdom15797.htm

"Extreme" Body Art Ban

Suffolk health department's proposed a ban of "extreme" body art. It would bring ancient sanitary rules for tattooing and ban practices deemed to be "unhealthy" back into effect. Protesters of this proposal call it "unneeded, unconstitutional and unsafe." They find the health department to only be interesting in enforcing morals instead of the public health.

After the hearing, a health department spokesman Ed Dumas stated, "The county executive does not favor any of the prohibitions of this type." Others agree that there are more pressing matters in the health industry than those in a tattoo shop. "If someone got an infection from a nostril piercing, how is that a threat to the public health?" asked Lynn Fenn, a body art enthusiast. Others may argue that a ban would drive such practices underground and away from any regulation.

Most importantly, it is argued that this will go against the Bill of Rights. "People have been putting bones in their noses for hundred of years. Next you'll tell people they can't dye their hair pink." Attorney Paul Pepper says he will sue if the "unconstitutional" proposal is put into action. He argues that they are a form of spiritual and meaningful communication that must be protected by the 1st Amendment.
___________________________________________________________________
I agree with those opposed to this ban, not just because I myself am a tattoo and body art enthusiast, but because it is such a specific violation of freedom of expression. It is a terrible thought that the issues concerning tattoos which have just finally been legalized in all states have come back under attack March 29, 2007. While seemingly unconventional to many conservatives, it is an ancient art form that has been a part of cultures around the world for generations. Some may even say it can almost be a religious practice. It has never proved to infringe the rights of any other person. It only has been shown to make people uncomfortable. Issues of employment have also come into light because the showing of tattoos or piercings can be considered vulgar. However, by whose standards is this measured by? The whole idea of any sort of a ban on whatever someone disagrees with is ludicrous! If we were to give into that idea, everything and anything can be banned. Our freedom as we know it will dissolve into nothing.

Bong Hits 4 Jesus

Summary
An 18 year old student displayed a 14 foot banner outside of his school that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." His principal ordered him to take the banner down but he didn't. When he refused he was suspended for 10 days because it violated a school policy on illegal drug promotion. It went to court where they ruled that his first amendment rights were not violated

Opinion
I think that schools often over react in situations like this because it has a drug reference. The banner was displayed off school grounds as a joke and a test of free speech and not a drug promotion. I think 10 days was too much and it did not need to go to court.

Theme for this week: 7/9 - 7/13: Rights

For this week's posts, please find an article that talks about rights, some one's rights being violated, or the creation/limitation of rights. I would prefer that the article be based on an event in the United States, but other countries are OK too.

However, please make sure that the article in no older than 1 year old.

Articles must be posted by 4:00 on Wednesday
Comments must be done by 4:00 on Thursday

DON'T WAIT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE!!!