Enter our giveaway for a chance to win an 18-piece set of Callaway Strata golf clubs!
Are you worried that our society is becoming more divided? Please consider joining FAV this Fall at our Third Annual National Symposium in Philadelphia. We have an exciting line up of speakers coming together around the theme of E. Pluribus Unum or Divided? Join us again or for the first time. We’ll tackle the issue of polarization head on.
Philadelphia is a historic town and wonderful place to consider the relevance of principles established in our country over two hundred years ago. The National Constitution Center (NCC) is a world class facility that provides a great venue to host our gathering. If you’re traveling from afar, the hotel this year, the Wyndham, is within walking distance of the NCC. We have a special discounted rate, so please consider the trip. You won’t regret it! The first fifteen people to register get a free ticket to the Museum of the American Revolution in downtown Philly. REGISTER NOW!
Please forward this newsletter to friends and colleagues you think would appreciate FAV’s work. Subscribe here.
Yours in service,
Steve Miska and the FAV Team
Listen Up!
Do you want to learn more about FAV or are you seeking more information about the Symposium this year? Hear Jim Hulton interview Steve Miska through radio station WFYL in Philadelphia during the Veteran’s Voice program on Saturday, July 21st at 10:00am Eastern Time. Not within radio antenna range of the station? It will also be live-streamed on the station website, http://www.1180wfyl.com.
Not available at that time because you’re still sleeping on the West Coast? We’ll send the link to the podcast the following week.
In the News
Freedom of the Press: Read the following research from Brookings that indicates small town newspaper closures increase local government spending. The authors speculate that closing local newspapers increase government borrowing costs because (1) less information is publicly available, and (2) local officials are no longer monitored as closely, reducing the quality of governance. The authors find suggestive evidence that alternative sources of media, such as the internet, are not acting as sufficient substitutes for local papers.
Polarization:
This is a lengthy piece from the New Yorker about Berkeley’s historic involvement in free speech what lengths the campus is taking to guarantee free speech.
When a small town in rural Virginia becomes a social media magnet for division and protest, read the Christina Science Monitor account of the Red Hen incident. Declining to serve a government official in a public restaurant.
Follow 1st Amendment Voice on Instagram so you can be a part of our August contest to win free tickets to the National Symposium!
First Amendment Voice Third Annual Symposium
Join us at our national convening in the City of Philadelphia,founded by William Penn as a place of religious tolerance, as we join people of faith and conscience to celebrate our Constitutional ideals; honor the annual Constitution/Citizenship Day; and address the erosion of our First Amendment Rights.
Date: September 14-15, 2018
Location: National Constitution Center (525 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106)
After the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, there has been an uptick in public discourse concerning the legal voting age in the U.S. In many vicinities, the legal voting age is 18. However, there are some districts and areas, such as Takoma Park (Maryland), that have lowered the legal voting age to 16 instead. In 21 states across the country, 17 year-olds can vote in primaries if they’ll be 18 by the general election date, but is this enough?
Since voting is a crucial First Amendment issue, consider these pros and cons of lowering the U.S. voting age to 16:
Pro: Increase Civic Engagement and Awareness Among Youth
As the American Council of Trustees and Alumni points out, we have a crisis of civic education in the U.S. currently. We have people of all ages who barely know important aspects of history (studies have shown that people are even forgetting about the Holocaust), and many Americans can’t explain the difference between the 3 different branches of the federal government.
This ignorance is not limited to young people (voter apathy happens at every age!), yet we focus on their life inexperience and lack of knowledge as a justification for denying them voting rights. Since young people must obey the laws like any other citizen and they’re affected by the policies our government leaders establish for our society (especially when it comes to education and long-term economic policies), why shouldn’t young people have some say in the laws that uniquely affect their lives? By lowering the voting age, we could likely increase youth involvement in civic participation and bolster their interest in political issues because they’re no longer sitting on the sidelines.
Con: Their Brains Aren’t Fully Developed Yet
A major argument against lowering the voting age is that young people’s brains aren’t fully developed until they’re in their mid-20s. However, this scientific argument demonstrates why 18 is a mostly arbitrary number when it comes to something like voting, not to mention: teenage brains aren’t so different from adult brains.
Yes, teenagers are still immature and learning about how the world works. Yes, teenagers can be prone to emotional decision-making. Yes, teenagers are more susceptible to external influences than adults with more life experience. However, consider how these arguments function when applied to people who are 18 or older:
Should an adult with maturity issues be denied their right to vote?
Does everyone have their lives figured out and understand how the world operates by 18? By 30? By 60? Ever?
Should we assume that rational decision-making is something that automatically kicks in once you turn 18? Are adults (of any age) not prone to emotional decision-making as well?
Are adults completely immune to external influences (such as fake news, political propaganda, fear appeals-based political advertising, vitriolic campaign rhetoric, etc.) and able (and willing) to make fully-informed decisions about their voting options?
Once you see how the common arguments against young people can be similarly employed to disenfranchise adult voters, the claim that 16-17 year-olds shouldn’t be allowed to vote falls apart.
Pro: Increase Voter Turnout
Did you know that young people have higher voter turnout rates than you might expect? While the issue of mandatory voting could take up a whole other blog post, it’s important to consider what role choice plays in American society. Adults have the freedom to decide whether or not they want to vote, regardless of their education level, work experience, military service, gender, religion, family background, and other factors. All that matters (with the exception of mental disabilities and felony records in some states) is that you’re older than 18.
To increase voter participation in our elections, we should allow younger people the opportunity to vote if they want to. That’s the beauty of America: we have the freedom to decide if we want to participate in our democratic system or not.
Con: Parental Manipulation
Another common argument against lowering the voting age in the US is the notion that parents will force their kids to vote for whomever they’re voting for. However, this argument is non-unique because children grow up with their parents’ political ideology expressed in familial interactions – how is an 18 year-old who still lives at home more immune to parental influences than a 16 year-old?
Furthermore, 16-17 year-olds in the news recently (such as the Parkland shooting survivors and other school shooting survivors) have demonstrated a keen awareness of political issues affecting them, even when their parents were minimally interested in politics beforehand. Perhaps parental manipulation could still happen, but arguably the pros outweigh the cons here.
Pro: Protect Youths’ First Amendment Rights
As the Yale Law & Policy Review points out, voting is speech. Voting is the act of expressing a preference for a candidate, policy, and/or ideology, and in a democratic society, there is arguably no such thing as a “wrong” vote. By preventing young people from voting, we’re preventing them from exercising their First Amendment rights. As we can see from the Parkland shooting survivors, Malala, and other extraordinary youth, people under 18 are already getting involved in politics.
There are even youth volunteering and interning opportunities within political action committees and other political organizations. If young people are interested in politics and want to exercise their First Amendment rights, then who are we to deny them that fundamental right?
In a recent trip to Philadelphia, I had the pleasure of meeting the new President of Valley Forge Military Academy and College. You might recall that I spoke at VFMAC in February about leadership as it relates to the First Amendment. We’re looking forward to deepening our partnership with cadet participation in this year’s Symposium in September. If you would like the opportunity to interact with young men and women seeking to serve our country, please consider joining us at the National Constitution Center on September 15th for our 3rd Annual FAV National Symposium. We’ve got some great speakers who have committed to raise awareness about first amendment trends, including Ms. Janessa Gans Wilder. Watch her Tedx Talk below! They will also provide tools for citizen engagement and hopefully, inspire attendees to get more involved in civic engagement. It’s going to be an exciting time.
Please forward this newsletter to friends and colleagues you think would appreciate FAV’s work. Subscribe here.
Yours in service,
Steve Miska and the FAV Team
In the News
Do students have freedom of speech? This story describes how a High School cut a valedictorian’s microphone after she deviated from the script during her commencement speech.
An article in USA Today on June 12th relates how some churches have attempted to address racism and how some churches promote white supremacy.
An interesting article shares a libertarian perspective about the current state of civil discourse. At this year’s symposium, we are excited to feature speakers who will address the current state of civic discourse and how we can all become more tolerant when we engage in our own causes.
UPCOMING EVENTS:
First Amendment Voice Third Annual Symposium
Join us at our national convening in the City of Philadelphia,founded by William Penn as a place of religious tolerance, as we join people of faith and conscience to celebrate our Constitutional ideals; honor the annual Constitution/Citizenship Day; and address the erosion of our First Amendment Rights.
Date: September 14-15, 2018
Location: National Constitution Center (525 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106)
There are civic duties – such as paying taxes and following the laws – then there are civic responsibilities, which LearningToGive.org defines as “comprised of actions and attitudes associated with democratic governance and social participation. Civic responsibility can include participation in government, church, volunteers and memberships of voluntary associations. Actions of civic responsibility can be displayed in advocacy for various causes, such as political, economic, civil, environmental or quality of life issues.”
If you want to get involved in your community and go beyond what is expected of you as an American citizen, here are 4 ways you can fulfill your civic responsibilities beyond simply voting once every few years.
Volunteer with a Local Nonprofit
There are many benefits of volunteering, including (but not limited to): decreased feelings of loneliness, increased self-confidence, higher levels of empathy for others, and a renewed sense of pride in your civic responsibilities. If you already work 40+ hours per week or attend school full-time, it might be difficult to find time to volunteer with a local homeless center, animal shelter, educational group, or elderly assistance organization. However, volunteerism is crucial for filling in the gaps left by underfunded government programs designed to help those who need it most.
Even if you just have 4 hours per month to spare, every little act of service matters. Our elected officials cannot solve every societal problem we have — but nonprofits and their volunteers can certainly make it better if we’re all willing to lend a hand to our fellow citizens.
Donate to a Civic-Minded Organization
Whether you already volunteer or you have no time in your schedule to accommodate volunteer opportunities at the moment, another way you can demonstrate a high level of civic responsibility is by donating to civic-minded organizations. For instance, First Amendment Voice accepts donations to help protect our most fundamental rights through community outreach programs, informational resources, and annual symposiums on First Amendment issues.
Additionally, the Center for Civic Education is a great nonprofit, nonpartisan resource that empowers students across the US by providing access to high-quality civic education programs.
Help Others Stay Informed
A major problem in the US right now is the proliferation of apathy among voters and nonvoters alike. Understandably, our lives are stressful and busy, but too much focus on ourselves has led many of us to neglect the positive impacts we could be having on our communities through civic participation efforts. You don’t need to dedicate several hours per week to helping others stay informed; instead, you could start by sharing important but underreported news stories from credible news organizations on your social media channels.
As the word citizenship implies, we’re all part of a larger community and we should take pride in fulfilling our civic responsibilities instead of avoiding them to focus on matters that directly impact ourselves. Sharing news stories, spreading awareness of local issues, and encouraging others to share credible information on social media is a great first step toward fulfilling your civic responsibilities.
Get Your Community Involved
A final way you can fulfill your civic responsibilities beyond just going to the polls once per year is getting your community involved in civic-minded efforts at the local, state and national levels. This may involve asking for contributions for a charity run, encouraging friends and family to volunteer with you on one of the many days of service throughout the year, and reminding everyone on social media to get out and vote.
There are no limits to what you as a citizen can do to exceed the minimum expectations of civic responsibility. As John F. Kennedy once said, “ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”
America is divided over the issue of offensive speech, but these divisions don’t fall into simple categories of Democrats versus Republicans or Millennials versus Baby Boomers. At some point, many of us, regardless of age or political affiliation, has been offended by something someone else said. Does the First Amendment protect our rights to offend others (or others’ rights to offend us)? Here are 3 things to consider:
Offensive Speech Across Political Boundaries
Feeling offended is not limited to one political party affiliation. Whereas conservatives disparage “liberal snowflakes” for rallying against hate speech and in favor of political correctness, liberal groups and organizations have offended conservatives with the removal of religious or historical symbols in public spaces and media critiques of Republican figures. In other words: everyone is capable of being offended!
Questions that arise from this dilemma are:
Should the offensive quality of speech be disregarded in legal considerations related to the First Amendment?
Should the intent of the speaker have any impact on legal decisions involving offensive speech?
Are there any legitimate harms to the circulation of offensive speech (such as the fighting words issue)?
Could Democrats and Republicans ever come to a common understanding on issues related to offensive speech and political correctness?
Matal v. Tam (2017)
Contrary to popular misconceptions, there is no “hateful speech” exception to the First Amendment. This notion was reaffirmed in the 2017 Supreme Court decision in the case of Matal v. Tam. To explain his decision, Justice Kennedy wrote, “A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.”
The decision in Matal v. Tam case demonstrates how speech viewed as offensive by a group of people is nevertheless protected under the First Amendment. There will likely be many legal cases similar to this one in the years to come.
Nonverbally Offending Others
The act of offending others isn’t limited to verbal speech or comments written in online, public forums. As the ReACT Gallery in Iowa demonstrates, art can be seen as pushing the boundaries of social appropriateness and downright offensiveness, depending on the values, beliefs and perspective of the person viewing a piece of art.
Similarly, offensive gestures such as raising one’s middle finger are typically protected by the First Amendment, and even “symbolic speech” acts such as burning the US flag have been protected by the First Amendment in Supreme Court decisions like Texas v. Johnson(1989). Nonverbal acts can be considered offensive to many different people, but unless these acts could lead to physical retaliation or even violence, they are generally considered protected under the First Amendment.
Do you think there should be laws prohibiting offensive, nonverbal speech? If so, where do we draw the line?
“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.”
After the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, there has been an uptick in public discourse concerning the legal voting age in the U.S. In many vicinities, the legal voting age is 18. However, there are some districts and areas, 
There are civic duties – such as paying taxes and following the laws – then there are civic responsibilities, which 
America is divided over the issue of offensive speech, but these divisions don’t fall into simple categories of Democrats versus Republicans or Millennials versus Baby Boomers. At some point, many of us, regardless of age or political affiliation, has been offended by something someone else said. Does the First Amendment protect our rights to offend others (or others’ rights to offend us)? Here are 3 things to consider:
