America - The Official Thread

[McLaren]

No. It protects you from social retaliation as well.

It's the government's responsibility to make sure that your rights are protected, not just protected from government interference but from any interference. For instance, the government can't say that they protect your absolute right of property if they allow non-government agencies to cease your property. In the same way they can't say that they protect your absolute freedom of speech if they allow your employer to fire you because of something you said.

Doesn't work that way. A private company is just that; private. If an employer doesn't like what you're saying, they are within' their rights to let you go. It is the government that can not take action against you.

Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.

A private company does not have to abide by the COTUS. If one wants, your employer can fire you just over what you write on social media. The only thing you can't be fired for usually relates to either religion, sex, or race because of anti-discrimination laws. Everything else is free game for an employer.

As he tells NPR's Ari Shapiro, "Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment — but only where the government is concerned.

"What most Americans generally don't know is that the Constitution doesn't apply to private corporations at all."

In terms of monitoring its employees, the list of things a corporation can't do is a short one — it's basically confined to eavesdropping on a personal oral conversation, Maltby said. "Anything else is open season."

And outside the workplace, personal blogs or social media pages on services like Twitter or Facebook offer no refuge.

Asked if workers can be fired for things they write on those sites, Maltby said, "Absolutely. Happens every day."

As I have learned from Famine & Imari on this, the company is free to social scrutiny for doing so if folks believe the employee was wrongly terminated.

 

[eran0004]

Doesn't work that way. A private company is just that; private. If an employer doesn't like what you're saying, they are within' their rights to let you go. It is the government that can not take action against you.

Private companies can violate the freedom of speech. It doesn't just apply to governments.

 

[Com Fox]

Private companies can violate the freedom of speech. It doesn't just apply to governments.

Examples of companies violating Freedom of Speech laws and getting into legal (not social) troubles because of it?

 

[ryzno]

Sooo... What's up America? Good morning!!

 

[eran0004]

Examples of companies violating Freedom of Speech laws and getting into legal (not social) troubles because of it?

Well, Expressen for one, but it's not really relevant because now you are talking about legislation and that is something else. A limit to the freedom of speech doesn't stop being a limit to the freedom of speech just because the limit is legal, just as slavery doesn't stop being slavery just because you make it legal.

Private companies often provide a much more limited freedom of speech than governments (with some exceptions). And maybe that is okay, maybe that is how we want it. But regardless of that, it's still a limit to the freedom of speech. If you've been following this from the start I'm sure you remember that I said that absolute freedom of speech is not a good thing, there needs to be some limits. The problem is deciding where those limits should be because there is no perfect answer to that. There is the principle of harm, that your rights should only be limited if you use them to harm somebody else's rights. When it comes to private companies for instance it would hurt their right to property if their employees were allowed to speak freely about their patents, so if you value the right to property higher than the freedom of speech then you'd limit the freedom of speech in such a case.

There is nothing about the freedom of speech that says that it only applies to governments. It is universal. If a teacher in school stops a student from speaking, then they are limiting the student's freedom of speech. If an sergeant in the army punishes an enlisted for speaking his mind then that is also a limit to the freedom of speech. If the government throws the opposition in jail then that is also a limit to the freedom of speech.

 

[ryzno]

So what is your point @eran0004 ?
There is no free speech?
Or we have free speech but we're still limited on what we can say?

 

[Danoff]

Private companies often provide a much more limited freedom of speech than governments (with some exceptions). And maybe that is okay, maybe that is how we want it. But regardless of that, it's still a limit to the freedom of speech.

Nope.

Private companies are not allowed to use force against you. This means they cannot force you to stay silent. If they do, if they send some goons to your house to shut you up, you get to call the cops for protection against attack. This means that private companies can never limit your freedom of speech. All they can do is provide a social response or enforce your own agreements with them (I'm thinking of things like non-disclosure agreements or being fired for violating your job duties).

Here's the big difference, governments CAN use force against you. That's kinda what they are. They have police that can lock you up. If you try to defend yourself against the police, they'll shoot you. Government is force, and this is why they're not allowed to attempt to censor free speech - because they'll be able to do so at gunpoint.

You continue to confuse the social pressure (such as losing your job, public denouncement, being ostracized, etc.) with limits to freedom of speech (guys with guns telling you to shut it or be shot).

 

[novcze]

I am pretty sure that in due time you will get restrictions on how one will be able to make public speeches when the "minorities" get fed up an demand a change to what is considered as free speech.

edit:
I find extremely interesting that some people go on a tirade about someone not speaking considerate enough, but rabid ideologues beating innocent people and causing real damage are overlooked.

 

[Aki Ko]

Can we take a moment to look at something that's quite concerning?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...r-proposes-abolishing-department-of-education

It's already bad enough with Betsy DeVos only gaining the DoE by one vote (thanks Mike Pence), but this?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Can we take a moment to look at something that's quite concerning?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...r-proposes-abolishing-department-of-education

It's already bad enough with Betsy DeVos only gaining the DoE by one vote (thanks Mike Pence), but this?

What are you concerned about specifically? It's basically a move to return control back to the states and away from the federal level.

 

[Danoff]

Can we take a moment to look at something that's quite concerning?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...r-proposes-abolishing-department-of-education

It's already bad enough with Betsy DeVos only gaining the DoE by one vote (thanks Mike Pence), but this?

I'm fine with it. We don't need a federal department of education, it only invites policy arguments really.

 

[BobK]

If it reduces federal bureaucracy my first inclination is to be in favor of it.

In this case, considering what I've seen of recent high school grads, I have to wonder if there are any positive accomplishments the DoE can claim to make up for the fact that kids can't even count change any more.

 

[Danoff]

Regarding the federal department of education:

Having a centralized department of education is a way to force local public schools to teach particular subjects. Do you want to have a federal fight over whether your local school needs to teach ID alongside evolution? I don't. Maybe there will be some public schools in Alabama that take a run at that, but I'd much rather that fight be fought at the state level, where people still have choices (even among public institutions) available to them.

This is one of the lessons that our democrat friends are learning the hard way, you don't want your government to be too powerful (think executive orders), because what happens if the republicans get a president and congress and can start abusing that power? A department of education is a great tool for them to shove ID down your throat. We're better off not having nation-wide education policy.

 

[Aki Ko]

What are you concerned about specifically? It's basically a move to return control back to the states and away from the federal level.

When I remember the fact that Texas had wanted the history of the civil rights movement and slavery to be altered because they didn't like how the South was portrayed, that throws up a red flag. It's not the fact that I'm concerned with giving the states control of the education system. It's the fact of who gets to pick what should be taught that bothers me.

Based on my experience with the education system here in South Carolina (a Republican led state), it's already a joke as it is. The last thing this state needs is more emphasis on what to believe in than what you need post high school.

In this case, considering what I've seen of recent high school grads, I have to wonder if there are any positive accomplishments the DoE can claim to make up for the fact that kids can't even count change any more.

They don't know how to count, but they sure know about certain sexual acts.

Regarding the federal department of education:

Having a centralized department of education is a way to force local public schools to teach particular subjects. Do you want to have a federal fight over whether your local school needs to teach ID alongside evolution? I don't. Maybe there will be some public schools in Alabama that take a run at that, but I'd much rather that fight be fought at the state level, where people still have choices (even among public institutions) available to them.

This is one of the lessons that our democrat friends are learning the hard way, you don't want your government to be too powerful (think executive orders), because what happens if the republicans get a president and congress and can start abusing that power? A department of education is a great tool for them to shove ID down your throat. We're better off not having nation-wide education policy.

I do see what you're getting at. I'm just concerned about the manipulation that can happen just by adjusting the education standards. One thing I did note was the potential of each state having different standards to learn, which can cause issues if one state requires this and a student from another state didn't/didn't have to take it.

(Trying to work on discussion skills a bit.)

 

[Danoff]

I do see what you're getting at. I'm just concerned about the manipulation that can happen just by adjusting the education standards.

Well there will be attempts at manipulation for sure. I just want to localize the damage rather than spread it to the whole country.

One thing I did note was the potential of each state having different standards to learn, which can cause issues if one state requires this and a student from another state didn't/didn't have to take it.

Why do you find that problematic?

 

[Aki Ko]

Why do you find that problematic?

From what I understand, there have been cases where some high school students had to move to different states which had different standards. They had to repeat several years to get in line with the standards of education that the state required. Inconsistency with the education requirements can be a headache.

 

[Johnnypenso]

From what I understand, there have been cases where some high school students had to move to different states which had different standards. They had to repeat several years to get in line with the standards of education that the state required. Inconsistency with the education requirements can be a headache.

Several years? I find that highly unlikely unless you're using a different language or something.

 

[DDastardly00]

I'm fine with it. We don't need a federal department of education, it only invites policy arguments really.

We need at least some oversight at the state level and perhaps at the federal level to make sure the states are meeting their education goals. I'm all in for any improvements to the current system we have though.

If it reduces federal bureaucracy my first inclination is to be in favor of it.

In this case, considering what I've seen of recent high school grads, I have to wonder if there are any positive accomplishments the DoE can claim to make up for the fact that kids can't even count change any more.

Depends on the state which is why some federal oversight is needed, some states are lagging behind others and need to be brought up to speed. In the case of my kid's school, they have some of the highest test scores in the state in Math and Science. My 9yr old son just tested for the Accelerated Learning program last week (when I was a kid they called it the Gifted Program), he's already met and exceeded his end of year goals (June) for Math in early December. He comes home with 100% test scores regularly, the lowest I've seen is 97%. His school and the WA dept of education should be applauded for the job they are doing in my County, they have to overcome many challenges from kids coming from all over the place, Middle East, South American and so on. Despite that, his school is one of the top rated in the state. I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel here, let's just study what's working and apply it everywhere.

 

[Danoff]

We need at least some oversight at the state level and perhaps at the federal level to make sure the states are meeting their education goals. I'm all in for any improvements to the current system we have though.

Maybe? at the state level. Why at the federal level?

From what I understand, there have been cases where some high school students had to move to different states which had different standards. They had to repeat several years to get in line with the standards of education that the state required. Inconsistency with the education requirements can be a headache.

I can see how it could become one if nobody complained. Or states can develop reciprocity. The bar exam is a good example of how some states develop reciprocity with others and ultimately end up with a fairly uniform product without any federal oversight.

 

[DDastardly00]

Maybe? at the state level. Why at the federal level?

The reality is not every state is meeting there obligations to the children they are educating and that is why you need at least some oversight at the federal level to step in and help those states that are lagging behind.

 

[Danoff]

The reality is not every state is meeting there obligations to the children they are educating and that is why you need at least some oversight at the federal level to step in and help those states that are lagging behind.

Which state is not meeting their obligation to the children (under federal supervision currently)?

 

[DDastardly00]

Which state is not meeting their obligation to the children (under federal supervision currently)?

Washington state, search McCleary Versus the State of Washington if you want to read more.

Cliff notes:

In 2012, the Supreme Court found Washington in violation of its constitution for failing to adequately fund public education and leaving individual school districts to make up the shortfall.


That situation, not surprisingly, has led to gaping differences across the state, with wealthier areas able to pay more for teachers, buildings and supplies than poorer ones. This is what officials mean when they say the quality of children’s education is too dependent on their ZIP code.

 

[Danoff]

Washington state, search McCleary Versus the State of Washington if you want to read more.

Cliff notes:

That's a budget issue, not an education issue. Also, it's a budget issue in light of that particular state's constitution.

 

[DDastardly00]

That's a budget issue, not an education issue. Also, it's a budget issue in light of that particular state's constitution.

Budget issues affect the quality of education.

 

[Danoff]

Here's what you said:

The reality is not every state is meeting there obligations to the children they are educating and that is why you need at least some oversight at the federal level to step in and help those states that are lagging behind.

Currently there is oversight at the federal level, and yet you're still suggesting that obligations to the children are not being met. So already I call into quest your proposed solution, which is more of what's not working (in your view). I asked for an example of this, and you gave me an example where Washington State violated its own constitution (not a federal issue) in not providing the funding guaranteed by its constitution. Federal oversight has nothing to do with that example, it's purely a state-mandated guarantee that the state itself run afoul of.

So you can see that when I explain to you that this is not actually an issue with failing to meet obligations to children, but actually failing to meet constitutional obligations for budgets, your response:

Budget issues affect the quality of education.

...is entirely inappropriate. Give me an example where children are not receiving the quality of education they are obliged to receive.

 

[DDastardly00]

Here's what you said:



Currently there is oversight at the federal level, and yet you're still suggesting that obligations to the children are not being met. So already I call into quest your proposed solution, which is more of what's not working (in your view). I asked for an example of this, and you gave me an example where Washington State violated its own constitution (not a federal issue) in not providing the funding guaranteed by its constitution. Federal oversight has nothing to do with that example, it's purely a state-mandated guarantee that the state itself run afoul of.

So you can see that when I explain to you that this is not actually an issue with failing to meet obligations to children, but actually failing to meet constitutional obligations for budgets, your response:



...is entirely inappropriate. Give me an example where children are not receiving the quality of education they are obliged to receive.

Obliged is a bit tricky of a word, but one look at the dropout rates of the of the top 5 worst states and it's painfully obvious we are not doing a good enough job at educating our children. Then compare the USA's metrics on graduation rates and higher educations graduation rates with the rest of the developed world and it's not hard to see we are falling behind in key areas.

Rather than throwing the entire US Dept of Education under the bus, my focus is on what is working instead of what is not working. So with that in mind, in my view, I will give you one example of what is working and that is the US Dept of Education's Billion dollar investment in Pre-K education and early learning programs in about 20 states, which also wasn't being properly addressed or funded in Washington State. This was primarily due to a lack of available funding caused in part by the State's poor performance in their fiduciary duty to fund K-12 education (hence the lawsuit reference), so there was nothing left to fund early learning programs. In other words, if the state is being sued because they can't fund basic education properly, that does not bode well for investments in areas of need like early learning programs. This is an example of the US Dept of education stepping in to help where it can be useful, where it is needed. This is what I meant by not needing to reinvent the wheel, but just focusing on what programs actually working and making improvements from there.

This is certainly not my area of expertise, so I apologize that I am doing a bad job of tying in the various moving parts of the problems and solutions of education in the USA, the state's role in this and the US Dept of Education's role as well.

 

[Joey D]

Why should I care about what it says on the US constitution/bill of rights when it has nothing to do with my arguments.
It can say the most beautiful and uplifting things imaginable, promises of eternal life and what not.
It would still not change the fact that it is just a piece of paper that can be ignored or changed if something unexpected happened.

You're free not to care, honestly I'm not even sure why you would, but it stands to reason if you're going to be arguing a point, in a thread about America, and debating something that is one of the core beliefs of the US Constitution, that you would least understand it enough to make a rationale statement.

What if we get free unlimited energy, technology to live long healthy lifes and have interplanetary technology. You think anyone would even care about the US constitution.

As long as America exists as a country, many of its citizens will continue to care about the Constitution and stand up for the ideals it presents. I'm not entire sure how advancement would change that. Compared to 1787, our world today has greater access to energy, the technology to significantly prolong life, and interplanetary travel. Guess what? People still care.

If you want to know about a country that was kind of like USA and what it happened to it then you should study Poland and its history. It is was not that different from USA.

Please explain, with cited sources.

Why would I care what Sweden did several hundred or thousand year ago, the thing is that they do not redo the mistakes. Something USA is doing over and over and over again.

I'm not sure why you'd care, but you brought it up. You said that no Swedish or Polish solider has ever done anything wrong (even though you hadn't bothered to look). I merely pointed out given the amount of time Sweden has existed the likelihood of that happening is high enough to suggest that your assumption isn't correct.

====

With regards to education, if you abolished the governing of it at a federal level and allowed states to set their own standards you'd probably end up seeing better education overall. The federal government doesn't care as much as a state does about training young people to be successful later on in life since no matter where those people end up, they are still going to be paying taxes. States care because if people move away due to poor educational options or because the state has done a poor job educating people to fill certain job roles, then they loose tax revenue and potential jobs.

Given enough time you'd see certain states come out ahead on education and they would attract more people, especially young families. If they could maintain that high level of education, they'd retain those families and keep generations of people who were well educated and could provide specialized labor to growing industries. Those who couldn't educate their population to a high degree would end up losing people to other states or end up having a lower skilled workforce that would ultimately cost jobs. And this goes for all education, not just K-12, but university studies, as well as vocational studies.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

With regards to education, if you abolished the governing of it at a federal level and allowed states to set their own standards you'd probably end up seeing better education overall.

Quite the opposite. Education systems aren't designed to compete with one another. All you will succeed in doing is creating massive inequalities and force the states lagging behind to cut corners as they try to close the gap. You'll wind up with an increased dependence on standardised testing (and you already do a lot) and a system geared towards pushing the state up the rankings rather than meeting the educational needs of children.

You're quite happy to condemn a generation to an inferior educational experience and the decreased opportunities that come with it for the sake of trying to advance the system forward, but I'll bet that you wouldn't enrol your own children in such a biased system.

Given enough time you'd see certain states come out ahead on education and they would attract more people, especially young families.

You'll have a disaster first. The value of an American education relative to an education in other countries will crash, and you'll spend decades trying to rebuild it.

 

[Imari]

Can we take a moment to look at something that's quite concerning?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...r-proposes-abolishing-department-of-education

It's already bad enough with Betsy DeVos only gaining the DoE by one vote (thanks Mike Pence), but this?

Seems fine. At least then if you disagree with education policy you have the choice of moving to another state.

When I remember the fact that Texas had wanted the history of the civil rights movement and slavery to be altered because they didn't like how the South was portrayed, that throws up a red flag. It's not the fact that I'm concerned with giving the states control of the education system. It's the fact of who gets to pick what should be taught that bothers me.

I mean, someone gets to pick what should be taught either way. It's just that at the federal level those people are a long, long way away from the actual schools. See DeVos, Betsy.

At least if it's at the state level you have a reasonable shot of going and talking fairly directly to the people responsible.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

With regards to education, if you abolished the governing of it at a federal level and allowed states to set their own standards you'd probably end up seeing better education overall. The federal government doesn't care as much as a state does about training young people to be successful later on in life since no matter where those people end up, they are still going to be paying taxes. States care because if people move away due to poor educational options or because the state has done a poor job educating people to fill certain job roles, then they loose tax revenue and potential jobs.

Given enough time you'd see certain states come out ahead on education and they would attract more people, especially young families. If they could maintain that high level of education, they'd retain those families and keep generations of people who were well educated and could provide specialized labor to growing industries. Those who couldn't educate their population to a high degree would end up losing people to other states or end up having a lower skilled workforce that would ultimately cost jobs. And this goes for all education, not just K-12, but university studies, as well as vocational studies

Let me explain why this is a problem:

A few years ago, we introduced a system of standardised testing called NAPLAN. The idea was to assess reading, writing and arithmetic nationwide so that we could keep track of changes over time and between seven states and territories, each with a different education system and curriculum. As part of NAPLAN, federal funding was tied directly to a school's results, and all individual school results were published on a website for parents to review and make decisions about their childrens' education. The idea was to promote competition between schools and to provide needs-based funding, and it was a complete disaster.

As soon as the NAPLAN results were published, schools abandoned the curriculum and started teaching to the test. Never mind that the test only examined students on the most basic skills; schools started deliberately skewing their own test results by whatever means they could for the sake of more funding, and with everyone doing it, it became impossible to tell where schools were actually performing. As soon as one school did it, every school had to and the whole thing became a free-for-all. Students graduated at the end of each year missing key skills because they had spent so long preparing for the tests that they didn't complete the curriculum, and we're still dealing with the fallout years after the website was abandoned.

"The Simpsons" has parodied this multiple times. There's one episode where Springfield Elementary deliberately take under-performing students out of the school on the day of a standardised test to prevent them from dragging the school average down; there's another where they resort to literally teaching to the test, analysing standardised tests and breaking them down to teach the students the patterns of answers by rote. I know it's "The Simpsons" and done mockingly, but I have seen schools do its like without so much as a second thought as to the consequences for students.

Putting the states into a battle royale for federal funding isn't the answer. Competition between the education systems isn't going to produce better results - it's going to cause an implosion.