Bill of Rights – Law Street

U.S. Drops to 49th Place For Global Freedom of the Press

Anneliese Mahoney — Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:52:07 +0000

Image courtesy of [U.S. Army/Cherie Cullen via Flickr]

The American Bill of Rights includes some fundamental freedoms to which we all, as American citizens, are entitled. One of them is called “Freedom of the Press.” It’s a freedom we may take for granted; it’s easy to assume that a nation whose President is often dubbed “the leader of the free world” also has the freest press; however, this year the United States ranked #49 out of 180 nations on Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index 2015.

Reporters Without Borders explains its goal as follows:

The aim of the index is to measure freedom of information in 180 countries. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists, news media and netizens (Internet citizens) enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom. It should not be seen as an indication of the quality of the media in the countries concerned.

The top ten on the list were Finland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, New Zealand, Austria, Canada, Jamaica, and Estonia. The lowest ten were Eritrea, North Korea, Turkemenistan, Syria, China, Vietnam, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, and Laos.

The rankings include both quantitative and qualitative data. In order to compile the list, Reporters Without Borders “scores” nations based on seven criteria categories:

Pluralism: Are different opinions present in the media?
Media Independence: Does the media function independently of other spheres of influence?
Environment and Self-Censorship: What sort of journalistic environment is there in the nation?
Legislative Framework: What sorts of laws govern the news?
Transparency: How transparent are the institutions that produce the news?
Infrastructure: How strong are the institutions that produce the news and what support do they have?
Abuse: What is the violence and harassment toward those in the media like?

This format allows Reporters Without Borders to create a “score” for each nation; the lower the better. A score of 0-15 points shows a “Good Situation;” 15.01-25 points is a “Satisfactory Situation;” 25.01-35 points indicates “Noticeable Problems;” 35.01-55 points is a “Difficult Situation;” and 55.01-100 points is a “Very Serious Situation.” The United States scored a 24.41, so barely in the “Satisfactory Situation” category.

The United States’ place on the list at 49 is tied for the lowest its ever been–it was also 49 in 2007. Last year, the U.S. was three places higher. Reporters Without Borders explained the drop, stating:

In the Americas, the United States (49th, down three places) continues its decline. In 2014, the New York Times journalist James Risen came under government pressure to reveal his sources. Although the Obama administration backed away in that case, it continues its war on information in others, such as WikiLeaks.

Reporters Without Borders also cited the American treatment of Edward Snowden as another reason for the U.S.’s slip down the list. In addition, the treatment of the press in hostile situations, such as the environment in Ferguson, Missouri after the shooting of Michael Brown, was a reason for concern.

The United States’ commitment to Freedom of the Press doesn’t appear to go as far as it could. It’s concerning–hopefully some positive changes will be made in the New Year and we’ll move further up the list when the next rankings are released.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Drops to 49th Place For Global Freedom of the Press appeared first on Law Street.

Police Decisions Up for Debate in Today’s SCOTUS Case

Anneliese Mahoney — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 16:53:11 +0000

Image courtesy of [Jason Rojas via Flickr]

The Supreme Court has an exciting new term ahead of it, and today’s case is no exception. This week the justices will hear arguments in Heien vs. North Carolina, a case that at its core poses one very simple question: should police officers be held to a higher standard? It’s a timely question, given the events of this summer, and one whose answer may hold some interesting ramifications.

In 2009, a man named Nicholas Heien was with another man who was driving his car in North Carolina when he was pulled over for having a busted tail light. Officers ended up searching the car — which belonged to Heien — and discovering a relatively substantial amount of cocaine. Heien was arrested and charged with drug trafficking.

Now under North Carolina law, if Heien was pulled over because he was breaking a law, and the subsequent search yielded the cocaine discovery, that would have been legal. The problem is that he wasn’t actually breaking a law when he was pulled over — technically, as long as you have one functioning tail light, you’re operating within the law in North Carolina. The officer who pulled him over was simply wrong about the law.

The Fourth Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment requires that searches are lawful — and there’s significant evidence to suggest that the search of Heien’s car was not. There needs to be reasonable suspicion that a law has been violated in order to conduct that search. A non-functioning brake light, which is not even illegal, is simply not enough.

Heien lost his original trial. He then won an appeals case, but lost in the North Carolina State Supreme Court. The case will now be making its way to the Supreme Court, which will have to figure out whether the North Carolina Supreme Court made the right decisions saying that Heien’s arrest was fair, even though the cop who pulled him over was ignorant of the laws in the state in which he worked.

The State Supreme Court held that requiring officers to be walking encyclopedias of the states’ laws is ridiculous and creates much higher standards than the Fourth Amendment mandates. But the dissenters pointed out that allowing that kind of subjectivity could create a sort of slippery slope. In the dissent, Justice Robin Hudson wrote:

The danger in adopting a new constitutional rule here is that this particular case seems so innocuous: Of course it is reasonable that an officer would pull over a vehicle for a malfunctioning brake light. But this new constitutional rule will also apply in the next case, when the officer acts based on a misreading of a less innocuous statute, or an incorrect memo or training program from the police department, or his or her previous law enforcement experience in a different state, or his or her belief in a nonexistent law.

Then there’s the context of this August to discuss. The events in Ferguson propelled a national dialogue, one that was opened by stop-and-frisk laws, militarization of our police departments, and dozens of other issues around the country about the power of our police departments. Obviously, none of these examples are about the same kind of issue — the cops in Heien’s case obviously did not shoot anyone. But it does hark back to that question: what leniency do we give to our cops?

In the United States, not knowing a law is no excuse for breaking it. Should not knowing it also be an excuse for incorrectly enforcing it? Now, that’s up to the Supreme Court to decide.

Anneliese Mahoney

The post Police Decisions Up for Debate in Today’s SCOTUS Case appeared first on Law Street.

Giving the Devil His Due: the Legality of Satanism

Madeleine Stern — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:58:02 +0000

Image courtesy of [Steven Depolo via Flickr]

With all of the recent issues in the media, Satanism has become a unique topic of discussion. Rarely spoken of, it tends to be a controversial taboo, and a typically condemned ideology. Despite all of the negative debate, it is interesting to analyze the legality behind such a forbidden topic, and see how the controversies surrounding recent incidences are handled by the courts.

Part of what the United States was built on was the freedom to freely practice the religion of one’s choice. According to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” There is no amendment which excludes or singles out a particular religion as not applying to the constitution. According to John Farina, a professor of Religion and Law at George Mason University, “The state is incompetent to make judgments about what is a good religion and what isn’t.” Legality of religion is not about morality or ethics, it is about breaking the law. So where does Satanism fall within this spectrum. Here is an in depth look at the legality of Satanism.

What is Satanism?

According to Contemporary Religious Satanism, “Satanism of today is atheistic[…] Satanic ideology states that one should pursue one’s own satisfaction.” There is discrepancy between how scholars define the religion and how the organization defines it themselves, but Satanism can loosely be defined as more of a philosophy than a religion that focuses on “empowerment, self-realization, actualization, [and] assertion or development […] a general opposition to all traditional and modern institutions of authority.” Satanists do not embrace evilness per se, yet they embrace rebellion and prefer not to adhere to the conformity of traditional religion. Many Satanists feel that that have been wronged by society, and choose to resort to this alternative lifestyle.

Case Study: The Black Mass at Harvard University

At Harvard University, there was a planned Satanic ceremony, called Black Mass to occur in May 2014. The mass would mock the classic Catholic mass, with the students intent of “exercising their First Amendment rights.” The Cultural Studies Club wanted to explore and demonstrate a new realm of religious expression. According to CNN, a cultural studies club student at Harvard said, “Our purpose is not to denigrate any religion or faith, which would be repugnant to our educational purposes…but instead to learn and experience the history of different cultural practices.” Some students felt that this was a very innovative and enlightening idea; others were extremely upset and wanted to put an immediate end to what they felt was an an attack.

The Harvard Extension School said in a statement that it encouraged students to assemble freely. However, “we do not agree with the student group’s decision to stage an event that is so deeply disturbing and offensive to many in the Harvard community and beyond.” As a university, a private institution, Harvard does not owe this group of students the right to hold a religious ceremony. The Constitution does not require nor regulate an educational establishment; and a private institution has the right to oversee and set precedent for the students’ public activity on the account of preserving a safe environment, that is conducive to learning. The fact that the Black Mass caused such an extreme backlash from a large portion of the student body and staff gave Harvard more than enough reason to put a halt on the ceremony before it started.

To see an interview with one of the participants of the Black Mass click here:

Case Study: Oklahoma Satanist Group Attempts to Erect a Statue in Celebration of Satanism

In Oklahoma, a Satanist group is currently battling to have their statue erected in front of the Oklahoma State Capitol. The statue is being built in a studio in New York City, and is almost in its final form. The statue is a seven-foot tall demon-like man with a goat’s head; the figure has long horns, a beard, and wears a partial smirk. Two children statue look up admiringly at the demon-like man. The group argues that they should be able to place their statue on the grounds because the Ten Commandments are displayed there. If a religious symbol is already placed on public grounds, how can the state block the Satanist group from displaying their statue? According to CNS News, Lucien Greaves, a representative for the Satanic Temple argued, “We would have never suggested that a Satanic monument should be represented on Capitol grounds if it weren’t for the fact that the 10 Commandments were already there. The idea of a solitary monument, related to any one religion, standing on Capitol grounds is offensive. “

According to ABC 15, “In December, state lawmakers told CNN that the satanists’ message wouldn’t fly in their Bible Belt state, where nearly two-thirds of the population are Christian.” In 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, the courts ruled in an establishment clause that a federal nor a state government “can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” Justice Black also ruled that there can be no official church of the state established. Religion is an independent facility, and should be treated accordingly. Oklahoma’s legislators are contradicting the basic principle which is established in the case; by erecting a statue symbolizing one religion’s values, yet denying another the right to display their symbols publicly. Farina says, “The court has to balance that religious freedom right against the compelling interest of the state.” In this case, it is clear where to majority lies, yet seems to contradict the separation between church and state clause. In fact, neither the ten commandments nor the demon statue should be displayed on public grounds. Religion should remain a private entity, and be confined to a religious establishment.

This First Amendment and the Establishment Clause, banning any “law respecting an establishment of religion,” was made applicable to the states by due process and the Fourteenth Amendment. In terms of religion, the only way that the government can intervene and regulate is when there is illegal activity or criminal action resulting from the religious practices.

An example of this scenario was Gonzalez v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal (2005). In this case, which was brought to the Supreme Court, O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal (“UDV”), a Brazilian religious group in the United States, claimed that they needed to import a hallucinate tea which included the drug DMT for a part of their religious ritual. According to Farina, UDV won the case and was able to continue to import the tea on account of traditional religious purposes tied to the consumption of this mind-altering tea.

Case Study: Van Orden v. Perry

Another case that supports the preferential treatment of certain religions is the Van Orden v. Perry case in 2005. In this case former lawyer, Van Orden, sued Texas for the display of the Ten Commandments on state capitol grounds. He claimed that the statute violated the Establishment Clause, in which the government is banned from making an official religion or favoring one over the other. In this case, the state won on the grounds that “the Ten Commandments have an undeniable historical meaning.” The fact that the monument included historical context that applies to national history, outweighed its secular purpose. According to Legal Information Institute, this where an inherent is a contradiction lies, “One face looks to the past in acknowledgment of our Nation’s heritage, while the other looks to the present in demanding a separation between church and state.” Yet, one has to argue what is history truly . Although, we have a very mainstreamed view on what is taught in the educational system, what one may deem important is subjective to that person’s background and upbringing. Anything that is suggested for a secular purpose can easily offend anyone with opposing personal view.

Tax Exemption

According to Farina, there really is no such thing as a legal religion. The only thing that would make a religion “valid” would be their status with the IRS and whether or not they receive exemption from paying taxes. In the 2001 case, ESA v. Rylander, the Ethical Society of Austin applied to the courts to get tax exemption for being a religious organization; they were initially granted the benefit by the courts, yet the decision was revoked when the courts decided that in order for it to legally be considered a religious organization the religion must worship a “supreme being.” In 2010 Oklahoma granted the Satanist church tax-exemption. According to Pro Con, “A tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community, but there is no such provision in the U.S. Constitution.” This statement may cause Satanist establishments issues when applying for tax exemption in their state. On the other hand, according to TCI College Law Review, “there is no adequate definition of a protected religion or religious tax exempt activity […] religious institutions are not obligated to perform services to the community in return for the tax exemption.” Also, tax exemptions are not required by the First Amendment, therefore the state courts are left to handle the decision, which leads to inconsistency in the state’s legislation.

Private vs. Public Interests

What it really boils down to is religion is truly a private entity. As the constitution supports the idea that people should be able to worship freely, it does not support the public involvement in the matter. Religion is personal; no religious organization should have the freedom to express their beliefs in an aggressive manner. Legally, Satanists should have the right to practice their religion (as long as they do not break any laws). The issue for most people seems to be more about morality, when we bring up a religion that has such a negative connotation.

Resources

Primary

Charters of Freedom: Bill of Rights

Harvard: Statement on ‘Black Mass’

Supreme Court: Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

US Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit: Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal

SCOTUS: Van Orden v. Perry

Additional

USA Today: Satanic ‘Black Mass’ at Harvard canceled

Boston Globe: Amid Outcry, Black Mass at Harvard is Called Off

Fox News: Satanic Group Says Oklahoma Must Give the Devil His Due

Cornell Law: Establishment Clause

Boston Globe: Satan Statue Should be Welcome in Oklahoma

New York Daily News: Devil-Worship Group Unveils Satanic Statue Design for Oklahoma State Capitol

ABC 15: Satanists Unveil Design for Oklahoma Statehouse Statue

Time: ‘Black Mass’ on Harvard Campus Canceled

CNN: Update: Harvard’s Satanic ‘Black Mass’ Cancelled

ProCon: Should Churches (Defined as Churches, Temples, Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?

Jesper Aagaard Peterson: Contemporary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Giving the Devil His Due: the Legality of Satanism appeared first on Law Street.