Supreme Court rules for student in social media free speech case Mahanoy Area School District v. BL
Guest blog post by Gene Policinski
Public school students can speak freely – even vulgarly – off-campus in most instances without fear of being punished by their schools, an 8-1 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court said Wednesday in a case that had a lot of First Amendment advocates holding their breath.
The Tinker siblings from Tinker v. Des Moines
Most notably, Mahanoy Area School District v. BL, the court Wednesday upheld the main principle of the core 1969 student speech case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
There was wide concern that a new conservative majority on the court – which over the past 40 years has supported school authority to regulate some in-school student speech – would extend the power of administrators into after-school hours and off-school grounds.
In one of the more recent cases, Morse v. Frederick – more popularly known as the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case – the court upheld an Alaskan school’s right to punish a student for the off-campus banner carrying those words, as an important school role in preventing use of illegal drugs. [NOTE: The “Bong Hits” banner is currently on display at the First Amendment Museum, in Augusta, Maine).
The ruling restrains the off-campus reach of school officials, even as its decision acknowledges exceptions such as field trips, athletic events, bullying that continues off-campus or when student speech specifically targets an individual teacher or student. The decision also notes the increasingly difficult line to draw between “on” and “off” campus given the rising use of online instruction and social media in general.
Brandi Levy, the student in question. Source: ACLU
In the case at hand, a student used and posted on social media criticisms of the school and its cheerleading squad when she failed to make the varsity team. On the following weekend, while at a local convenience store, she used her smartphone to post two images on Snapchat – where such images disappear after a time — one showing her and friend with raised middle fingers and repeated use of the f-word. A few other students relayed the images around the school and to teachers and coaches, and the posts were discussed briefly during an Algebra class taught by one coach.
The court said with no evidence of significant disruption of the educational work of the school, legal justification was lost for a public school to punish the student for her posts – noting such territory has been reserved to parents. Also, the court said that since school officials already can regulate in-school student speech that otherwise would be protected, extending that authority to off-school hours “may mean the student cannot engage in that kind of speech at all.”
Justice Stephen J. Breyer, writing for the majority, left open the door for adding circumstances in which school might be able to act without violating First Amendment rights: “Particularly given the advent of computer-based learning, we hesitate to determine precisely which of many school-related off-campus activities” might warrant future oversight and “neither do we know how such a list might vary, depending on a student’s age, the nature of the school’s off-campus activity or the impact on the school itself.”
In words that will echo longer after the specifics of this case, Breyer took special note of the role of schools as “the nurseries of democracy.” The governing system only works, he said, if it protects “the marketplace of ideas” in which “free exchange facilitates an informed public opinion.”
Breyer said that “Schools have a strong interest in ensuring that future generations understand the workings in practice of the well-known aphorism, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it’.”
Justice Stephen J. Breyer
Justice Clarence Thomas the lone dissenter, offered the view that schools are unlike other public bodies in that they traditionally have functioned in the place of parents – and thus are not bound in the same way by First Amendment concerns. He also wrote that the intent of the cheerleader’s post was to “degrade” the program and cheerleader staff in front of other students, “subverting” the coaches’ authority.
The fact that schools in some circumstances may act as parents does not, to me, mean that applies in all cases – especially when students are away from school, after regular school hours and not participating in a circumstance that would imply school approval or involvement. And the majority opinion by Beyer notes that the coaches saw no impact on their work other than having to respond to a few students when the posts became public.
While not dismissing the vulgarity of the student’s remarks, Breyer noted that had she “uttered the same kind of pure speech … the First Amendment would provide strong protection” as it does for “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure we do not stifle public debate.”
As if to speak to the media attention that – at times, somewhat gleefully in my view – focused on the shock value of a cheerleader using the “f-word” in the posts, Breyer said “it might be tempting to dismiss (her) words as unworthy of the robust First Amendment protections discussed herein. But sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous to protect the necessary.”
The “necessary” here was the need to balance the need for schools to be able to educate, the right of parents as the primary actor in overseeing their children’s conduct away from school and – most importantly – the need for student’s First Amendment rights to be respected and protected, both in the moment and as a learning tool for full participation in a self-governing democracy.
Gene Policinski is a member of the board of trustees and board secretary of the First Amendment Museum and frequently writes on issues involving the First Amendment.
Related Content
Learn more about the Morse v. Frederick case, in which the Supreme Court ruled against off-campus student free speech, and see the original banner that caused it all in our Bong Hits 4 Jesus exhibit.
Share this story:
Keep reading...
First Amendment on Maine Calling
On June 15th, 2021, the live Maine Public radio call-in show, Maine Calling, hosted our CEO […]
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes the freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. But the Founding Fathers couldn’t have anticipated contemporary challenges such as social media, hate speech, religious extremism and public school funding. We’ll discuss how the First Amendment applies to current events. Plus, we’ll learn about Maine native and newspaper editor Elijah Lovejoy and Maine’s First Amendment museum.
Maine Calling episode description
Christian was joined by two other panelists: author Ken Ellingwood whose latest book is First to Fall: Elijah Lovejoy and the Fight for a Free Press in the Age of Slavery, and Hasan Jeffries, professor of history at the Ohio State University.
Journalists again in the crosshairs in Gaza Strip violence
Guest blog post by Gene Policinski
Who’s on the “right side” in the current outbreak of violence between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip?
Well, don’t look for that answer here – but do know that good journalism allowed to do its job is among the ways to explore that question, and more.
Destroyed building in Gaza City. Source: MAHMUD HAMS/Getty Images
For the moment, here is what we do know, thanks to reporters and correspondents risking their lives among bombs and rockets.
We again see disturbing images of civilians in Israeli cities and settlements dashing for underground shelters against incoming rockets fired from Gaza. On the Palestinian side, again we see wailing women and weeping men, cradling injured children, or mourning over bodies of family members killed in airstrikes.
We may be seeing less, though, even as the two sides appear to be groping toward yet another tenuous cease-fire.
An Israeli airstrike destroyed a building in Gaza City that housed media outlets, including The Associated Press and Al Jazeera. Source: New York Times
AP president Gary Pruitt said on Saturday, May 15 that “the world will know less about what is happening in Gaza because of what transpired today.” And that gets to the heart of the matter: We need information from independent news sources, with such reports all the more important and urgent as the death tolls rise.
Another circumstance also has produced complaints from multiple press operations: Early Friday, Israeli officials told international journalists – but not local Israel news outlets – that IDF forces had entered the Gaza Strip, only to pull back the statement about an hour later. Journalists are dependent on government announcements because Israel has declared its side of the Gaza region off-limits to news organizations.
A later report on the non-incursion in the Jerusalem Post was headlined “Did IDF deception lead to massive aerial assault on Hamas’ Metro?” – noting speculation that Israel’s initial claim was an effort to get Hamas’ fighters to gather to repel such an incursion, making themselves easier to target.
Members of the press in Gaza. Source: Newsweek
The independent Committee to Protect Journalists, headquartered in New York City, asked in a statement if the IDF was “deliberately targeting media facilities in order to disrupt coverage of the human suffering in Gaza.” On Wednesday, May 19, it also condemned the killing of a Palestinian journalist for a Hamas-run radio station, Al-Aqsa in an aerial attack on the top floors of a Gaza apartment building, saying “Israeli authorities must explain why they bombed the home of a journalist, a civilian who was protected under international law.”
Armed members of the Palestinian Hamas, Source: AFP
For Hamas’ part, Israeli officials said they believed the terror group was using the Gaza building to direct rocket attacks on the Jewish state. In response to criticism of the bombing, an Israeli official reminded reporters that “this week’s case is far from the first time Hamas used journalists as human shields. During the 2014 Gaza War, Hamas was caught red-handed launching rockets 50 yards from a Gaza hotel known to be housing foreign journalists.”
A government spokesman also said it appears to Israel that Hamas used the brief warning time to remove possible munitions from the building before the attack began. The IDF has not yet responded to media requests for evidence.
Reporting from the Middle East – and globally – is difficult enough without the added burden of being in the crosshairs of whatever combatant chooses to attack the press, an increasingly common tactic. With the introduction of the Web and social media, journalists are no longer needed to convey messages or images to the outside world – and thus “protected.” In fact, as both governments and terrorist organizations have developed sophisticated online operations, reporters often are viewed as threats to carefully crafted narratives.
The Middle East has long been a danger zone for journalists, from kidnappings and murder to the risks of reporting from live combat areas and in operating in nations controlled by dictatorial regimes. The nonpartisan group Reporters Without Borders’ recent World Press Freedom Index 2021, noted that given political tensions and the COVID-19 crisis … “most of the Middle East’s governments responded … with increased authoritarianism,” undermining already shaky free press guarantees across the region.
The decades-old Middle East crisis won’t be solved by journalists, and to be sure some – perhaps many – will report through the lens of nationalism or partisanship. But many also will report the facts needed to find an end to the conflict – if they can gather and report them without fear of restrictions, injury, or death.
Gene Policinski is a trustee of the First Amendment Museum and a First Amendment scholar. He can be reached at genepolicinski@gmail.com.
Related Content
Watch scenes of Americans using their First Amendment freedoms to voice their opinions regarding the recent outbreak of violence between Israel and Palestine.
Across the country, protests, marches, speeches, and gatherings have occurred – in support of both Israel and Palestine. View now.
Share this story:
Keep reading...
How to live your First Amendment freedoms
Guest blog post by Genie Gannett, granddaughter of former Portland Press Herald owner, and president & […]
Guest blog post by Genie Gannett, granddaughter of former Portland Press Herald owner, and president & co-founder of the First Amendment Museum. This article was originally published in the Portland Press Herald on May 1, 2021.
Many Americans can’t name the five freedoms this amendment guarantees: the freedoms of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly and government petition.
Recent months have shown that the phrase “free speech” is often misunderstood. Americans generally know about the First Amendment, but most cannot name the five freedoms it guarantees – the freedoms of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, and government petition.
Through my work with the First Amendment Museum in Augusta, I’ve encountered many people who do not know how to put their First Amendment rights into real, concrete practice. Here are five examples of living your freedoms:
HOSTING A FAMILY DINNER
When I was growing up, my family sat down for dinner together every single evening. It was during those family dinners that we had our most robust, informative conversations, touching on politics, religion and everything in between. From a young age, I learned how to express myself and listen to others, in case I might learn something. And I often did.
While family dinners are less common nowadays, they represent a comforting example of lively discourse. We can learn a lot from our family members, with the tool of free speech in our toolbox.
GETTING A LIBRARY CARD
Of course, there’s more to learning than just eating with the family. Even the simple act of obtaining a library card and roaming the stacks of books reinforces the pivotal role that free expression has played throughout human history. Libraries are filled with thousands of books on a wide range of topics, but that would never be possible if the writers couldn’t express themselves freely.
Now, we can all reap the benefits of their speech, using it to elevate our own knowledge in many different ways. As the French philosopher Rene Descartes once said, “The reading of all good books is like a conversation with the finest minds of past centuries.”
USING SOCIAL MEDIA
Perhaps the most popular form of free expression today is social media. Whether you’re using Facebook, Twitter or something else, technology has gifted us with unprecedented platforms, which can be used to engage with and contact millions of people around the world.
We can not only post whatever we want (for better or worse), but we can also learn from all sorts of interesting people – from family and friends to “influencers” overseas. Even clicking “send” on a single tweet is an example of the First Amendment at work.
GOING TO CHURCH
While the First Amendment is most commonly associated with free speech, there are four other freedoms:
“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.”
For example, freedom of religion is what enables millions and millions of Americans to attend church, synagogue, mosque or other house of worship. Whatever your religion, it is American for you to be able to worship as you choose, without government interference. From Christianity to Pastafarianism, which is the worship of the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” (yes, it’s real), we all have the freedom to get in touch with the divine.
PROTESTING – PEACEFULLY
The First Amendment also affords us with another freedom: “The right of the people peaceably to assemble.”
And Americans are living it now more than ever. Last year, as many as 26 million people joined the Black Lives Matter protests after the tragic deaths of George Floyd and other African Americans. They took to the streets, marching, mourning and advocating for change. This also happened during an election year, which saw tens of millions of Democrats and Republicans mobilize on behalf of their respective candidates.
And it was all possible because freedom includes the right to peaceably assemble. Emphasis on the word “peaceably”: Americans can and should assemble nonviolently, without any rioting, looting and other forms of violence.
So get out there and live your five freedoms! As Americans, the best way to show gratitude for the First Amendment is by exercising it in our daily lives.
Regulating “sticks and stones” … and free speech on social media
Guest blog post by Gene Policinski
Remember the old children’s adage: “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me?”
A retort to hurtful insults and harsh words that the young can sometimes hurl, the saying has picked up new impact – and irony in free speech terms – in the age of pervasive social media.
Retooled for these times, it could read “Sticks and stones do hurt my bones, and tweets encourage some to hurt me.”
Hate crimes against Asian Americans have spiked across the United States, totaling nearly 3,800 hate-related incidents across all 50 states, according to a report Tuesday by Stop AAPI Hate (Stop Asian American Pacific Islander Hate).
Demonstrators rally against anti-Asian violence in Los Angeles on March 13. Photograph: Ringo Chiu/AFP/Getty Images
Critics say crass remarks describing the COVID-19 pandemic as “Kung Flu” or the “China virus” and unproven claims about the origin of the pandemic have fueled those increased attacks. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has called on congressional colleagues “who have used that kind of hateful rhetoric — cut it out because you also have blood on your hands.”
White supremacist propaganda reached new levels across the U.S. in 2020, according to a new report by the Anti-Defamation League on Wednesday, The Associated Press reported. It said 5,125 cases of racist, anti-Semitic, anti-LGBTQ and other hateful messages were spread through physical flyers, stickers, banners and posters — nearly double those noted in the 2019 report. The ADL said online instances probably totaled millions.
Increase in white supremacist propaganda incidents on and off-campus in the U.S. Source: ADL
Mass shooting at spas in the Atlanta area. Source: WSJ
Regardless, the incident already has raised renewed calls for government intervention to censor posts on social media sites that might be classified as “hate speech” – from clearly racist language to images and words that prolong decades-old demeaning stereotypes. The sites currently are protected by their own free speech rights and an added layer of legal security that prevents them from being held liable for content posted on their operations.
There’s no denying the value to society of stifling hate and ridding us of racial and ethnic profiling rooted in shameful history. But the government has proven to be very clumsy and very slow as a censor.
“Community standards” on obscenity have been difficult to define let alone fairly impose. The so-called “Fairness Doctrine” applying to broadcast TV and radio eventually failed because it produced the unintended consequence of chilling the open exchange of conflicting ideas. When TV or radio personalities have uttered racially insensitive remarks, the “court of public opinion” reacted within days while a court of law properly took months or years to work through due process.
And, as Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a 2011 decision involving a group that protested at military funerals, “as a nation we have chosen a different course – to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” Roberts also noted such a commitment is to be upheld even recognizing “speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain.”
Still, the speed, reach and very nature of social media seems to present a new challenge to the old idea that “the antidote to speech you don’t like is more speech” in opposition. Does hateful speech on social media create, in effect, a virtual community in which such language and imagery is not just acceptable, but with the impact of repeated echoing, has such resonance that some will be driven to action?
The quickest solution is for Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and such to act themselves to stifle dangerous posts. But do we want secret algorithms and private panels as the sole determiners of what is dangerous, and the proper remedy of what it or they deem improper speech.
Conservative commentators decry “Cancel Culture” and attack social media outlets for what they say is unfair treatment limiting conservative voices – even when such restrictions are applied to such things as clear misinformation about the effects of COVID-19 vaccinations. Liberal voices want bans on right-wing posts as racist and advancing white supremacist ideas, failing to recognize what Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson noted in the late 1940s: We sometimes need to hear ideas we find repugnant if only to be better armed to refute them.
There are other good reasons to wish the 24/7 omnipresence of social media could be restrained: So-called “revenge porn,” instances in which family members must endure over and over reposted public images or videos of loved ones insulted, assaulted, or killed. And then there are the kinds of societal dangers noted in a just-declassified report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), which found evidence that Russia and Iran both attempted through online tactics to influence public opinion during the 2020 presidential election.
What to do? Some solutions are relatively benign and hold great promise. Fostering competition in the social media sphere – either by funding startups or use of anti-trust laws – will reduce the power and impact of a few dominant Big Tech firms. Some social media companies already have taken steps to eliminate the financial rewards for posting blatant misinformation designed to produce as many “clicks” as possible.
Public pressure, even if it’s after-the-fact, also produced results more quickly than would moves by government regulators – and can serve as an instant barometer of public opinion. Racially-rooted jokes largely are absent in open society today not because a law was passed, but because the jokester finds quick disapproval – and for some, commercial, social or political consequences.
We have found ways in laws openly arrived at and tested openly in the courts to prevent – or at least punish – speech deemed harmful. We can file lawsuits over defamatory remarks and the authorities can prosecute conduct spurred by “fighting words” that are outside First Amendment protection.
There are ways to draw the fine First Amendment lines between repugnant ideas and illegal conduct: The Supreme Court has ruled that cross-burning can serve as an emblem of racist views and thus be protected speech but becomes criminal conduct when the intent is to intimidate a person or group.
Hard to make such decisions, create such laws or draw such lines? Yes. Likely to be stop-start, one-step-forward-at-a-time path to a workable system? Again yes. Likely to fall short at times and be frustratingly slow even in success? Almost assuredly. And in the end will we need to simply take personal responsibility to question what we read, hear and see? Absolutely.
It will take that kind of creative approach, deep engagement, constant vigilance and frequent revision and revisiting if we wish to stop short of some kind of proposed instant cure like a national speech czar – an impossible job, but with the real power of the government to rule for a time over what we say or post.
Gene Policinski is a trustee of the First Amendment Museum and a First Amendment scholar. He can be reached at genepolicinski@gmail.com.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFcYRh99ngo
RelatedContent
Watch our One on 1 interview with Gene Policinski.
Check out the rest of our One on 1 series: short, in-depth interviews reveal how Americans practice and value their First Amendment freedoms, and will encourage you to do the same.
Share this story:
Keep reading...
Black History Month 2021
Black History Month in 2021 While the Museum recognizes black history every month, in February we […]
Note: this is a guest blog post co-authored by Bryan Austin & Christian Cotz.
Two hundred and seventy years ago, a colossus of critical thinking was born.
James Madison, regarded by history as the Father of the Constitution and architect of the Bill of Rights, usually sits happily in the shadow of the other figures that make up the pantheon of Founding Fathers. Though he never desired the spotlight, Madison ensured he was in the room for most of early America’s important political debates and, more often than not, engineered the winning arguments.
James Madison portrait by Gilbert Stuart ~ 1805-1807
Indeed, the political accomplishments of James Madison are enough to fill volumes, and they have, but on this particular birthday, I want to highlight one goal he never deviated from achieving in his forty-year career: the liberation of the human mind.
James Madison, Class of 1771 statue at Princeton University
From a young age, Madison had a ravenous appetite for knowledge. By eleven, he had read the entirety of his father’s small library, and he spent his adolescence in a small and demanding private boarding school.
By the age of twenty-one, he could read in seven languages, and he had completed a five-year education at the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) in just three short years. He was an eager student of revolutionary new ways of thinking – a rapt creature of the enlightenment.
After college, Madison moved back in with Mom and Dad and struggled to decide what to do with his life. Ironically, a life in politics was something he never envisioned himself pursuing. He was depressed. He was ill. He wrestled with how to apply the diverse lessons he learned in college to a life he could derive worth from. Complicating matters, his view of his native home of Virginia and its economy had grown jaded. He wrote about “the dreadful fruitfulness of the original sin of the African trade,” though, even later, he never put much political effort into ending slavery, nor freeing himself, personally, from its profits, or the people he owned from their enslavement. Still, as a young man, Madison struggled to square his Revolutionary and Enlightenment values with the institution of slavery and found only hypocrisy.
James Madison’s Montpelier plantation house, home to ~100 enslaved people at any one time during Madison’s lifetime
Eventually, Madison was compelled to action by the pervasive religious bigotry that existed in the colony of Virginia. “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect” he wrote. As Revolution against England threatened the horizon, Madison penned a note to his classmate from Pennsylvania, William Bradford:
“I want again to breathe your free Air. I expect it will mend my Constitution & confirm my principles….but have nothing to brag of as to the State and Liberty of my Country. Poverty and Luxury prevail among all sorts: Pride ignorance and Knavery among the Priesthood and Vice and Wickedness among the Laity….There are at this time in the adjacent County not less than 5 or 6 well meaning men in close Gaol for publishing their religious Sentiments which in the main are very orthodox….I leave you to pity me and pray for Liberty of Conscience to revive among us.”
Religious liberty – the liberty of conscience, as Madison called it – became the battleground that young Madison planted his flag on, and, in 1776, while the Revolutionary War began in earnest, Madison’s personal campaign for the liberation of man’s mind began simultaneously.
Madison was appointed to be one of the youngest delegates to the 5th Virginia Convention. In the spring of 1776, along with resolving for independency and crafting a new constitution for the Commonwealth of Virginia, Madison scored his first political win and carved a path for the eventual separation of church and state in Virginia. He drafted an amendment to the Virginia Declaration of Rights and changed the “toleration” of religious opinion into the “free exercise” of it “according to the dictates of conscience.” This small victory echoed far louder in the ensuing years with Jefferson’s famous Statute for Religious Freedom. While that particular bill was tabled for over a decade, fierce debates raged over the role of government in managing people’s minds and beliefs. And through it all was Madison, championing the cause of the free mind. Finally, in 1786 he orchestrated the passage of his friend’s bill and upon its success, wrote to Jefferson in France, “I flatter myself we have in this country extinguished forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind.”
Madison as a 32-year-old Congressional delegate, 1782 portrait by Charles Willson Peale
For Madison, the mind was sacrosanct because it is only through free and independent thought that society evolves. So, when it was time to limit the powers of the federal government by providing a bill of rights that would protect those unalienable rights that Jefferson had written about a decade earlier, Madison believed that paramount among them were the right to think, and to act on our thoughts. It is no wonder, then, that his First Amendment, which protects the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition, can all be distilled into his firm and resolute belief, that “Conscience is the most sacred of all property.”
Madison reading his Bill of Rights to Congress. Courtesy: University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.
Two hundred and seventy years after his birth, the legacy of Madison’s ideas can be seen throughout the world. What began as a fight against religious oppression has transformed into something far more beautiful: the freedom to think, to imagine, to create, to innovate, and to express. It has allowed the voiceless to speak, the downtrodden to stand. It has ennobled the cause of education and reared a society that takes alarm at any attempt to censure mankind’s capacity to think.
On this, his 270th birthday, there can be no finer gift to give Madison than our commitment to a nation where the freedom of thought is one of the most nurtured and essential qualities of an American citizen.
Bryan Austin is a writer, actor and storyteller with over fifteen years of professional experience in the world of performing arts. He is the resident James Madison scholar for the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and his portrayal of Madison has been seen across the country by audiences of students, judges and statesmen.
Christian Cotz is the CEO of the First Amendment Museum.
Related
“The Other Madisons” with a Q&A afterward with author Bettye Kearse and filmmaker Eduardo Montes-Bradley.
This documentary film by Montes-Bradley is based on the memoir The Other Madisons: The Lost History of a President’s Black Family by Kearse. Learn more >
Share this story:
Keep reading...
Black History Month 2021
Black History Month in 2021 While the Museum recognizes black history every month, in February we […]
A crew from Ganneston Construction began interior demolition work on the historic garage structure at the First Amendment Museum this month.
The first goal for the construction crew is to prepare the 1911 structure to be lifted off its crumbling and unsound foundation later this year. Once the foundation is rebuilt and the Swiss Chalet-style building restored, it will be reset on its new foundation and become the welcome center for the new museum.
To accomplish the move, new bracing members have been sistered to the existing roof rafters (seen above), collar ties, and wall studs to make the building more structurally sound. The floorboards in the attic space, as well as the beadboard wall and ceiling paneling, have also been removed and will be restored offsite.
Eventually, when the building is ready to be lifted, the historic 12 over 12 windows, sliding garage doors and columns will also be removed and undergo offsite restoration. While the garage is off its foundation, the exterior will be stripped and repainted, and a new roof installed.
We are hopeful that the garage will be lifted off its foundation in the fall of 2021. The garage restoration is a great naming opportunity for a Maine family or business with connections to the auto industry. Please contact our CEO, Christian Cotz, if you are interested: connect@firstamendmentmuseum.org
The crew has made some interesting discoveries in the garage’s nooks and crannies – some you might expect in a garage, and others that leave us scratching our heads…
Enamel renewal – which was likely used on the metal parts of Guy’s 1917 Locomobile, seen in this picture from Armistice Day 1918
Oil can still partially filled with oil, probably ~100 years old
This photo of an unknown, unnamed gentleman is dated 1937 on the back, and the notation includes the words ‘Portland Press Herald.’ Anyone recognize him?
This undated image of an unnamed six-masted schooner (likely built in Bath, Maine)
This green croquet ball – a popular lawn sport since the mid-nineteenth century
Keep tuned for more updates to our “What’s Happening at the FAM” series by signing up for our e-news list here!
Share this story:
Keep reading...
First Amendment Museum gifted $150,000 by Kennebec Savings Bank
First Amendment Museum, 5,000-square-foot historic 1911 home near the State House, has been gifted $150,000 by […]
While the Museum recognizes black history every month, in February we especially highlight the lives and actions of African Americans who used their First Amendment freedoms to contribute to our American fabric.
Throughout this month, we will be posting activities and events that will amplify black voices and experiences, and increase your knowledge of our nation’s history.
Black History Month’s origins
Black History Month began as Negro History Week in 1926 and was initiated by Dr. Carter G. Woodson, founder of what is today known as the Association for the Study of African American Life and History (ASALH), as a way to teach about African Americans’ contributions to society.
Over the following decades, the tradition grew and in 1970 the first Black History Month celebration officially took place at Kent State. Fifty years after it began, during the bicentennial celebration of 1976, President Gerald Ford announced that Black History Month was an officially recognized holiday, stating that Americans should “seize the opportunity to honor the too-often neglected accomplishments of Black Americans in every area of endeavor throughout our history.”
2/1/1960 – Lunch counter Sit-In
2/1/1960 – On this day in First Amendment History, the first sit-in at Woolworth’s lunch counter took place in Greensboro, N.C. when four black college students took seats at an all-white lunch counter in the segregated department store. After being refused service, the four students refused to leave, and police and media were called to the scene. Over the next few days, the students returned with an ever-increasing number of protestors; less than a week later, 1,000 students packed into the Woolworth’s.
While their sit-in was not the first (nor the last) of its kind during the Civil Rights movement, it certainly gained traction and media attention, and variations occurred in cities throughout the south. The Greensboro Woolworth’s finally desegregated 5 months later after incurring massive financial losses, but it took another 5 years of protest before the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was passed, mandating desegregation.
Test your knowledge of African American history by taking our short quiz. Don’t forget to share your results!
2/4/1913 – Rosa Parks is born
2/4/1913 – On this day in First Amendment History, Rosa Parks was born.
Perhaps one of the most famous figures from the Civil Rights Movement, Rosa Parks made national headlines in 1955 when she refused to give up her seat to a white man on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama.
Rosa was arrested for – and later convicted of – breaking Montgomery city code, which stated that the front rows on a bus were reserved for white passengers, while black passengers had to sit in the back. In reaction to her arrest, the black community initiated the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
More than a year later, the Supreme Court ruled that bus segregation was unconstitutional.
In her 1992 autobiography, Rosa wrote: “People always say that I didn’t give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn’t true. I was not tired physically… No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in.”
Video: “To Make a Poet Black: Notes from a Literary-Musician“
https://youtu.be/7Wj_-Nu0o_I
Regie Gibson hosts brings the audience into the creative power of speech in the modern Black spoken-word tradition in an engaging, educational online performance that took place on Thursday, February 4th, 2021.
Noelle Trent is the Director of Interpretation, Collections & Education at National Civil Rights Museum. She talks to us about the movement in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, differences between the protests of today and in the ’60s, and how the First Amendment is Americans’ “superpower”.
Test your knowledge of African American history by taking our medium quiz. Don’t forget to share your results!
2/17/1942 – Huey P. Newton is born
2/17/1942 – On this day in First Amendment history, activist Huey P. Newton was born.
Disappointed with what he saw as failures in the nonviolent civil rights movement, Newton co-founded the Black Panther Party in 1966 in Oakland, CA. Originally called the Black Panther Party for Self Defense, the organization originally provided armed patrols to “copwatch” in black neighborhoods to deter police brutality.
Over time, the Black Panther Party gained chapters throughout the United States, combining the values and ideals of Black nationalism and socialism, and including a strong militant emphasis. Often led by women, the chapters advocated for community reforms and provided free food for children, health clinics for the sick, legal aid, and other services for disenfranchised communities suffering from economic and social inequality.
Throughout the ‘70s and into the early ‘80s, the Black Panther Party’s power diminished after being targeted by the FBI, party in-fighting, and negative public perceptions of party violence. Newton was assassinated in 1989 by a member of the Black Guerilla Family.
If you’d like to learn more about the Black Panther Party – including how the FBI COINTELPRO’s program contributed to its demise – watch “Judas and the Black Messiah” – a new release on HBO. The film is based on the true story of an FBI informant who infiltrated the Chicago chapter of the Black Panther Party led by Fred Hampton.
2/18/1934 – Audre Lorde is born
2/18/1934 – On this day in First Amendment history, Audre Lorde was born.
A self-described “black, lesbian, mother, warrior, poet”, Lorde was an iconic civil rights activist, feminist, and writer whose work helped promote the idea of intersectionality – the idea that social categories and identities are interlinked in an individual and result in that person experiencing differing levels of discrimination or privilege. While intersectionality often focuses on gender and race, it can involve other identities such as class, religion, sexuality, disability, and age, as well.
Lorde pushed back against the second-wave feminism of the 1960s, which she viewed as a white, middle-class movement. Though she died in 1992 after an extensive battle with breast cancer, Lorde’s ideas and writings significantly influenced the third-wave feminism of the 1990s which promoted inclusivity and intersectionality and connected gender to issues with broader social concerns.
Professor Hasan Jeffries presents on the struggle African Americans have faced in trying to live their five First Amendment freedoms in this online presentation that took place on Thursday, February 18th, 2021.
2/21/1940 – On this day in First Amendment history, monumental civil rights activist and politician John Lewis was born.
Lewis was a young man when he first got involved in the Civil Rights Movement. As a student in Nashville, he organized sit-ins at segregated lunch counters and bus boycotts. At the age of 21, he was one of the original 13 Freedom Riders, and took a bus ride through the South to test a 1960 Supreme Court decision that declared segregated facilities for interstate passengers illegal. The Freedom Riders faced serious danger for their rides – they were met with mob violence in cities throughout the South and arrested for ‘unlawful assembly.’
In 1960, Lewis helped form the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and took over as chairman in 1963. SNCC was the biggest organizer of student-led Civil Rights-focused activism and managed voter registration drives, sit-ins, marches, and boycotts. Lewis was one of the “Big Six” civil rights leaders who organized the March on Washington and gave his own speech from the dais right before MLK’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech.
On “Bloody Sunday” in 1965, Lewis led the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama. He and other marchers were met with extreme police violence on the other side; Lewis sustained injuries including a skull fracture.
With more than 40 arrests, as well as multiple severe injuries, Lewis remained committed to the nonviolent approach and continued to support the civil rights movement through various organizations in the ‘70s and ‘80s. In 1986, Lewis was elected to Congress, representing Georgia’s Fifth Congressional District. Between 1988 and 2018, he was re-elected 16 times.
Up until his death, he was still committed to fighting for injustice – speaking out against police brutality and supporting the BLM movement. Included is an image of Lewis standing on BLM Plaza in DC, just a month before his death. Lewis passed away last year on July 17th.
We are still accepting applications for YOUR artwork to be featured in our exhibit. Does John Lewis’ story inspire you? Would you like to illustrate him? Learn more about how to participate and submit your artwork here – https://firstamendmentmuseum.org/call-for-artists/
To learn more, check out the biography of John Lewis released last year by Jon Meacham ‘His Truth Is Marching On: John Lewis and the Power of Hope.’
Gee’s Bend Quilting Craft
Learn about the African American Gee’s Bend quilting tradition while making a beautiful ‘quilt’ of your own! Check out this fun, easy, and educational First Amendment and Black History Month-themed craft for you and your kids here.
2/23/1868 – W.E.B. Du Bois is born
2/23/1868 – On this day in First Amendment history, W.E.B. Du Bois was born.
W.E.B. (William Edward Burghardt) Du Bois was a civil rights activist, sociologist, educator, historian, writer, and scholar.
In 1895, Du Bois became the first African American to earn a Ph.D. from Harvard. He went on to teach sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, then economics and history at the historically black Atlanta University, where he hosted the annual Atlanta Conference of Negro Problems.
In 1905, Du Bois co-founded the Niagara Movement, a civil rights organization that opposed racial segregation. To promote the Niagara Movement, Du Bois used his freedom of the press to establish two periodicals, the Moon Illustrated Weekly and The Horizon: A Journal of the Color Line.
In 1909, Du Bois co-founded the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The civil rights organization was founded in the aftermath of the devastating Springfield Race Riot of 1908, during a period when lynchings of African Americans were at an all-time high. Du Bois served as the NAACP’s Director of Publicity and Research, as a board member, and as the founder-editor of The Crisis, the NAACP’s monthly publication.
A firm believer in Pan-Africanism, Du Bois organized a series of Pan-African Congresses around the world – in 1919, 1921, 1923, and 1927 – to battle colonialism in Africa. Du Bois moved to Ghana towards the end of his life and received Ghanese citizenship; he died in Ghana the night before the historic March on Washington in 1963.
Test your knowledge of African American history by taking our longest quiz. Don’t forget to share your results!
2/26/1877 – Wallace Fard Muhammad born
2/26/1877 – On this day in First Amendment history, religious and political activist Wallace Fard Muhammad was born.
Originally born in Mecca in what is today Saudi Arabia, Fard immigrated to the US sometime prior to 1930. He arrived in Detroit and sold silks door to door in African American neighborhoods, regaling customers with stories of his homeland. Fard described it as a utopia, largely due to the Islamic faith the people practiced.
That same year, Fard founded the Nation of Islam (NOI), a new African American political and religious movement. The goal of the NOI was to “teach the downtrodden and defenseless Black people a thorough Knowledge of God and of themselves, and to put them on the road to Self-Independence with a superior culture and higher civilization than they had previously experienced.” Fard’s teachings appealed to a disenfranchised community suffering from the Great Depression, and within three years the movement grew to include nearly 9,000 members, mostly in Detroit and Chicago.
Fard disappeared in 1934; while his leadership was short-lived, his legacy lives on. Today, the NOI’s membership is estimated to be between 20,000 – 50,000 people. Past adherents have included Malcolm X, Muhammed Ali, and Huey P. Newton.
The NOI is criticized for its anti-Semitic, racist, and anti-LGBTQ attitudes, and is designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
In the Nation of Islam, today is called Saviour’s Day in honor of Fard.
Share this story:
Keep reading...
First Amendment Museum gifted $150,000 by Kennebec Savings Bank
First Amendment Museum, 5,000-square-foot historic 1911 home near the State House, has been gifted $150,000 by […]
First Amendment Museum, 5,000-square-foot historic 1911 home near the State House, has been gifted $150,000 by Kennebec Savings Bank.
Andrew Silsby, the bank’s president and CEO, said, “I genuinely believe that the First Amendment Museum will help people of all ages know and understand their First Amendment rights. It will also help our city grow economically and culturally. The museum will draw more tourists to Augusta and will be a community hub that will be a great source of pride for the citizens of central Maine,” according to a news release from the museum.
“The First Amendment protects the core freedoms that enable us to act on our ideas, and to make our society what we want it to be. It is, without a doubt, the cornerstone of our democracy, and a how-to guide for creating ‘a more perfect Union,’” said Christian Cotz, CEO of the museum, according to the release.
“We are developing a world-class museum right here in Augusta, with innovative, interactive exhibits and engaging and relevant programming. And while we’ll be partnering with other non-profit organizations around the country, we will also be an active member of the Augusta community. Our mission is to inspire people to live their freedoms. We will help our visitors understand, and support their practice of, the five freedoms in the First Amendment — religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition — so they can be informed and engaged citizens in our democracy. We are a private, nonprofit institution, and sincerely appreciate every gift that helps us to thrive. This generous gift from Kennebec Savings Bank is a great way to kick off our capital campaign and will be a catalyst that begins to turn our vision into reality.”
The rights protected by the First Amendment are crucial to the democratic process. Here are ten things we think you should know about the First Amendment and elections!
Fact 1: The First Amendment protects the actions that allow debate, discussion, conversation, political action, protest, and more. It ensures our most fundamental rights that allow us to think for ourselves and share our opinions. The First Amendment enables us to participate in our democracy, and the most essential way everyone can do that is by voting!
Fact 2: The right to vote is NOT listed in the First Amendment. In fact, it’s nowhere to be found in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Prior to the Civil War people’s eligibility to vote was largely left up to the individual states to determine. After the war, language concerning the “right to vote” became quite popular and is found in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments. Through the amendment process, the right to vote has expanded exponentially, bringing the vote to more and more people.
Fact 3: Academics and lawyers still debate whether voting is a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment. Some people argue that it is a privilege or a responsibility, rather than a right. The issue remains largely unresolved with a lot of grey areas.
Fact 4: A candidate must meet a variety of requirements and deadlines before their name appears on a ballot. These ballot access laws are determined locally, resulting in eligibility requirements that vary widely across the United States. Many people think ballot access restrictions infringe on candidates’ First Amendment rights and are a way for the government to stifle the democratic process. Recently, Kanye West was denied ballot access in many states and has subsequently sued five states for not including him.
Photo: Robyn Beck / AFP / Getty Images
Fact 5: In Citizens United vs. Federal Election the Supreme Court decided that unlimited political spending is a form of free speech that’s protected under the First Amendment. This case has opened the door for corporations and unions to spend as much money as they want to support their chosen political candidates.
Fact 6: The boundaries of voting districts are redrawn from time to time as communities grow or shrink in order to keep legislative representation in fair proportions. But sometimes, voting districts are gerrymandered, or redrawn to manipulate election outcomes, which many people feel is an infringement on free speech. Academically, the Supreme Court has found gerrymandering “incompatible with democratic principles,” but has taken no action to prevent it, claiming the various issues behind gerrymandering are “beyond the reach” of the Court.
Fact 7: Numerous on-going investigations of purported voter intimidation have happened during this election. Many of these perceived instances are described by defendants as “free speech” and “free expression,” however. For example, one case involves an off-duty police officer in Miami who was photographed in full uniform at a polling place wearing a mask that read “Trump 2020” and “No more bulls—t”. Does this constitute voter intimidation, or is it free speech?
Photo: Steve Simeonidis via Twitter
Fact 8: Some states and communities have enacted “campaign buffer-zones” around polling places. These buffers keep campaign signs and supporters some distance away from polling sites. Courts have upheld the legality of these buffer-zones but critics claim they are an unjust restriction on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
Photo: WLOS.com
Fact 9: Recently, social media sites have been accused by all sides of the political spectrum for blocking campaign ads, censoring free speech, and endorsing candidates. But the First Amendment does not have to be applied equally across social media platforms. Because such sites are owned by private companies, they are not public forums, and the sites themselves are free to censor the content they choose to allow.
Fact 10: HOWEVER, in a recent ruling, a district court found that because President Trump uses his private Twitter account for official business, his Twitter feed does constitute a designated public forum. The suit was brought against Trump because he blocked the plaintiffs on Twitter, which the court ruled was an infringement of free speech. President Trump appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. If the original ruling stands it could open up more government regulation over private social media companies and affect future elections.
