| josue_lopez__the_crucible__final_draft_essay.pdf |
Crucible Essay
Salem, Massachusetts obtained fame for the mass witch hysteria that broke out in 1692. Salem was populated by Puritans who believed witchcraft was present. These Puritans fell into the hysteria because witches are connected to the devil and Puritans curse evil. The Puritans banished those who work for the devil by hanging them. Arthur Miller wrote a play titled “The Crucible” that includes fictional events that happened in Salem, Massachusetts. The play consisted mainly of false accusations and hangings but remains targeted towards the witch hunt hysteria. A handful of characters are manipulated into thinking that there are witches among them. These characters falsely accused others to protect themselves or to gain power. Due to the false accusations, some characters are willing to protect their identity and keep their pride. Arthur Miller explores the identity of the Puritans of Salem, Massachusetts through their origins and conflicts; he reveals how some Puritans who have less power than others fight for their identity when there is power over another, through conflicts between individuals, and when someone is forced to tell the truth.
Throughout “The Crucible", the act of power over another is being shown. A character from the play, Abigail Williams, has power because of popularity and manipulates Mary Warren plus other girls. In Act III of “The Crucible”, a court trial remains held to determine whether an accused signifies innocent or guilty. Mary Warren is summoned and is asked by the judge a series of questions that caught Abigail lying but faked seeing the devil in Mary. Assuming that Abigail is using Mary to escape, she defends herself. Towards the end of the trial, Mary demonstrates, “No, I love God. I go your way no more I love God I bless God. Abby Abby, I’ll never hurt you more!’’ (Miller 36). In other words, this means that Mary Warren does not want to follow Abigail anymore and keep her identity as a Puritan. More evidence that concludes Mary Warren is keeping her pride when she exclaims, “I’ll not hang you! I love God, I love God!” (Miller 36). She clearly defends her identity as a Puritan who loves God. In conclusion, Mary does not want to follow Abigail because Abigail commands Mary to lie which is a sin. She loves God and that is her motive. In this scene, conflicts are being brought against Abigail, but Mary is not the only one having problems.
Besides power over another, conflicts between an individual play a part of identity. Giles Corey, a character from the play calls out Mr. Putnam for land lust and has evidence to support his claim, but does not want to reveal it because it will cause attention and more problems. Unraveling his evidence, Giles is brought to prison and is forced to spill out the truth but refuses. In “The Crucible”, a character named Elizabeth points out, “He would not answer aye or nay to his indictment; for if he denied the charge they’d hang him surely, and auction out his property. So he stands mute and died Christian under the law. And so his sons will have his farm. It is the law, for he could not be condemned a wizard without he answer the indictment, aye or nay” (Miller 41).
This quote reveals Giles as a wise person and cares about his family. He died Christian under the law which means this farm would not be taken away by Mr. Putnam and can be kept by his sons. When chatting to a Judge Danforth, a judge in the play, he claims that his wife is innocent and is being falsely accused by someone who hates him. In “The Crucible”, while speaking to Danforth, Giles argues, “My name is Corey, sir, Giles Corey. I have six hundred acres, and timber in addition. It is my wife you be condemning now” (Miller 26). What this means is that Giles is himself. When he mentions his name is Giles Corey, he is trying to reveal himself to just him. In conclusion, conflicts between an individual made Giles have to fight who he is, Giles Corey. He is who he is. In the situation Giles was in, he was forced to tell the truth, but he was not the only one who was forced.
Finally, forced confession plays a role when keeping one's identity. John Proctor, the protagonist in “The Crucible”, is put in bars because he was accused of witchcraft and does not want to confess. Reverend Hale, Judge Danforth's partner has the idea to call his wife Elizabeth and tell John to confess. John accepts to confess due to the sake of his family and talks to Danforth. In this conversation, he is asked to sign a paper so that his name can be put in the church. When confessing, John Proctor rants, “I have confessed myself! Is there no good penitence but it be public? God does not need my name nailed upon the church! God sees my name; God knows how black my sins are! It is enough!” (Miller 43). This means that since John already confessed and that his name should not be up in the church. He argues about this because he does not want the public to see his name. Judge Danforth later asks him why he does not want his name in the church. His response is, “Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!” (Miller 43). Due to his hatred of frauds, he does not want to become one. He lies throughout the play and hates himself for doing that. At the end, John Proctor dies and restores his pride by not lying. In conclusion, forced confession led to the fight for pride. It can take a life to keep your identity.
Though there were many characters with different characteristics, “The Crucible” brought a series of Puritans who fought for their identity. In the play, Mary Warren, Giles Corey, and John Proctor had to fight for their identity. Due to the Salem community, these characters had nothing but to contain their pride. Arthur Miller wrote “The Crucible” to reveal that some of the powerless puritans had to fight for their pride through power over another, conflicts between an individual, and when someone is forced to tell the truth. These characters kept their identity because it shows what kind of person they are. Adding to that, they did not want to follow someone else's instructions including Abigail and Judge Danforth. Keeping your identity is significant because it reveals who you are. Everyone should fight for their pride no matter what situation you are in. In conclusion, Mary, Giles, and John from "The Crucible", revealed their struggle to keep their pride. The Salem, Massachusetts witch hunt hysteria demonstrates how people who were accused had to fight for their identity even if it meant their life being taken away.
Throughout “The Crucible", the act of power over another is being shown. A character from the play, Abigail Williams, has power because of popularity and manipulates Mary Warren plus other girls. In Act III of “The Crucible”, a court trial remains held to determine whether an accused signifies innocent or guilty. Mary Warren is summoned and is asked by the judge a series of questions that caught Abigail lying but faked seeing the devil in Mary. Assuming that Abigail is using Mary to escape, she defends herself. Towards the end of the trial, Mary demonstrates, “No, I love God. I go your way no more I love God I bless God. Abby Abby, I’ll never hurt you more!’’ (Miller 36). In other words, this means that Mary Warren does not want to follow Abigail anymore and keep her identity as a Puritan. More evidence that concludes Mary Warren is keeping her pride when she exclaims, “I’ll not hang you! I love God, I love God!” (Miller 36). She clearly defends her identity as a Puritan who loves God. In conclusion, Mary does not want to follow Abigail because Abigail commands Mary to lie which is a sin. She loves God and that is her motive. In this scene, conflicts are being brought against Abigail, but Mary is not the only one having problems.
Besides power over another, conflicts between an individual play a part of identity. Giles Corey, a character from the play calls out Mr. Putnam for land lust and has evidence to support his claim, but does not want to reveal it because it will cause attention and more problems. Unraveling his evidence, Giles is brought to prison and is forced to spill out the truth but refuses. In “The Crucible”, a character named Elizabeth points out, “He would not answer aye or nay to his indictment; for if he denied the charge they’d hang him surely, and auction out his property. So he stands mute and died Christian under the law. And so his sons will have his farm. It is the law, for he could not be condemned a wizard without he answer the indictment, aye or nay” (Miller 41).
This quote reveals Giles as a wise person and cares about his family. He died Christian under the law which means this farm would not be taken away by Mr. Putnam and can be kept by his sons. When chatting to a Judge Danforth, a judge in the play, he claims that his wife is innocent and is being falsely accused by someone who hates him. In “The Crucible”, while speaking to Danforth, Giles argues, “My name is Corey, sir, Giles Corey. I have six hundred acres, and timber in addition. It is my wife you be condemning now” (Miller 26). What this means is that Giles is himself. When he mentions his name is Giles Corey, he is trying to reveal himself to just him. In conclusion, conflicts between an individual made Giles have to fight who he is, Giles Corey. He is who he is. In the situation Giles was in, he was forced to tell the truth, but he was not the only one who was forced.
Finally, forced confession plays a role when keeping one's identity. John Proctor, the protagonist in “The Crucible”, is put in bars because he was accused of witchcraft and does not want to confess. Reverend Hale, Judge Danforth's partner has the idea to call his wife Elizabeth and tell John to confess. John accepts to confess due to the sake of his family and talks to Danforth. In this conversation, he is asked to sign a paper so that his name can be put in the church. When confessing, John Proctor rants, “I have confessed myself! Is there no good penitence but it be public? God does not need my name nailed upon the church! God sees my name; God knows how black my sins are! It is enough!” (Miller 43). This means that since John already confessed and that his name should not be up in the church. He argues about this because he does not want the public to see his name. Judge Danforth later asks him why he does not want his name in the church. His response is, “Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!” (Miller 43). Due to his hatred of frauds, he does not want to become one. He lies throughout the play and hates himself for doing that. At the end, John Proctor dies and restores his pride by not lying. In conclusion, forced confession led to the fight for pride. It can take a life to keep your identity.
Though there were many characters with different characteristics, “The Crucible” brought a series of Puritans who fought for their identity. In the play, Mary Warren, Giles Corey, and John Proctor had to fight for their identity. Due to the Salem community, these characters had nothing but to contain their pride. Arthur Miller wrote “The Crucible” to reveal that some of the powerless puritans had to fight for their pride through power over another, conflicts between an individual, and when someone is forced to tell the truth. These characters kept their identity because it shows what kind of person they are. Adding to that, they did not want to follow someone else's instructions including Abigail and Judge Danforth. Keeping your identity is significant because it reveals who you are. Everyone should fight for their pride no matter what situation you are in. In conclusion, Mary, Giles, and John from "The Crucible", revealed their struggle to keep their pride. The Salem, Massachusetts witch hunt hysteria demonstrates how people who were accused had to fight for their identity even if it meant their life being taken away.
| josue_lopez_google_essay_per_1-2.gdoc |
Google Essay
Google is the most loved search engine due to its capability to look information. Although Google is the easiest way to find anything, many people believe it is making us less intelligent. Throughout many articles written by researchers, they debate whether Google is negatively affecting our intelligence or not. There are many reasons for why Google is negatively affecting our intelligence, but I believe Google is not doing this. Google is not negatively affecting our intelligence because it helps us think smarter, live smarter, and can be extremely useful.
First of all, Google is making us smarter. Currently, many schools use technology simply because it teaches us more. With Google, anyone can look up anything and learn. Mentioned by the author in Source A, he asserts, "Just as a car allows us to move faster, and telescope lets us see farther, access to the internet's information lest we think better and faster." This information is true because many students enjoy using technology. Many people would argue that the Internet creates distractions which are true, yet not always true. In Source A, the author states, "81 percents of experts polled by the Pew Internet Research Project say the opportunities outweigh the distractions." This statement alone suggests that most people that use the internet do not get distracted. Although there are many ads in multiple websites that can easily distract you, the majority of people would ignore them. Therefore, people who use Google learn more and think smarter.
Secondly, people who use Google get to live smarter. Technology can help us by telling us the weather, the time, cooking methods, the temperature, and many more! People who use Google not only live better but have an easier lifestyle. According to Source B, the author states, "This isn't making us consumers dumber, instead it's helping them to think smarter." Google is useful in situations when you are stuck with something. Without Google, life would be a lot harder. Many people can not live without the Internet access. Although people may believe Google is making us lose our memory, one statement concludes that it is not. According to Source C the infographic shows, "The next time the same information isn't available, we're most likely to remember it since we took the time to enhance the information in our minds." This suggests that we tend to remember things when the information is limited. This trend that we do can impact our future so that we can live better. Google is very helpful and makes our lives easier.
Lastly, Google can access anything. Say there is a limited supply of information, Google can help you with that. Google provides many answers to what you are looking for. According to Source A, the author states, "I could hunt through those or turn to Google, which returns 45,000 pages, including a definitive encyclopedia article and instructions for a building unit." Google alone provides answers to anything. It can be useful when you want to look up more into a subject. Many people say that Google is making our memory weaker but it is not. The infographic in Source C shows, "Accessible information doesn't necessarily weaken memories. It can reinforce them and be a great source for innovation." This concludes that we do not lose our memory. Google is kind of like a reminder. If I forget something really important, Google can back me up and remind me and I will never forget it again. In conclusion, Google is not negatively affecting our intelligence because it can be extremely useful.
In perspective, Google is not negatively affecting our intelligence because it helps us think smarter, helps us live smarter, and can be extremely useful. Google is not making us less intelligent because it is the modern-day teaching tool. Teachers use Google to teach simply because it holds better. It is also helping our lives go easier by storing useful information one can forget. Google can be used when giving information that can be limited in the outside range of the Internet. People believe that we rely on Google too much, but it is how we make things happen. Without Google, we would not be where we are today. The most loved search engine is not making our brains into gloomy mush but actually leading our brains into unbreakable thinking machines.
First of all, Google is making us smarter. Currently, many schools use technology simply because it teaches us more. With Google, anyone can look up anything and learn. Mentioned by the author in Source A, he asserts, "Just as a car allows us to move faster, and telescope lets us see farther, access to the internet's information lest we think better and faster." This information is true because many students enjoy using technology. Many people would argue that the Internet creates distractions which are true, yet not always true. In Source A, the author states, "81 percents of experts polled by the Pew Internet Research Project say the opportunities outweigh the distractions." This statement alone suggests that most people that use the internet do not get distracted. Although there are many ads in multiple websites that can easily distract you, the majority of people would ignore them. Therefore, people who use Google learn more and think smarter.
Secondly, people who use Google get to live smarter. Technology can help us by telling us the weather, the time, cooking methods, the temperature, and many more! People who use Google not only live better but have an easier lifestyle. According to Source B, the author states, "This isn't making us consumers dumber, instead it's helping them to think smarter." Google is useful in situations when you are stuck with something. Without Google, life would be a lot harder. Many people can not live without the Internet access. Although people may believe Google is making us lose our memory, one statement concludes that it is not. According to Source C the infographic shows, "The next time the same information isn't available, we're most likely to remember it since we took the time to enhance the information in our minds." This suggests that we tend to remember things when the information is limited. This trend that we do can impact our future so that we can live better. Google is very helpful and makes our lives easier.
Lastly, Google can access anything. Say there is a limited supply of information, Google can help you with that. Google provides many answers to what you are looking for. According to Source A, the author states, "I could hunt through those or turn to Google, which returns 45,000 pages, including a definitive encyclopedia article and instructions for a building unit." Google alone provides answers to anything. It can be useful when you want to look up more into a subject. Many people say that Google is making our memory weaker but it is not. The infographic in Source C shows, "Accessible information doesn't necessarily weaken memories. It can reinforce them and be a great source for innovation." This concludes that we do not lose our memory. Google is kind of like a reminder. If I forget something really important, Google can back me up and remind me and I will never forget it again. In conclusion, Google is not negatively affecting our intelligence because it can be extremely useful.
In perspective, Google is not negatively affecting our intelligence because it helps us think smarter, helps us live smarter, and can be extremely useful. Google is not making us less intelligent because it is the modern-day teaching tool. Teachers use Google to teach simply because it holds better. It is also helping our lives go easier by storing useful information one can forget. Google can be used when giving information that can be limited in the outside range of the Internet. People believe that we rely on Google too much, but it is how we make things happen. Without Google, we would not be where we are today. The most loved search engine is not making our brains into gloomy mush but actually leading our brains into unbreakable thinking machines.
| junkfood_in_school_cafeterias.gdoc |
Junk Food Essay
America is suffering from an obesity epidemic, which in return is yielding negative outcomes for many Americans. Junk Food may be prohibited In School Lunches this Fall; Pending Federal Law Sparks Obesity debate by Erica Robinson, Norton Center Infographic, and Should states ban junk food in schools? All support that junk food should not be sold in school cafeterias. Therefore, the idea of junk food is greatly discussed about by either parents or even the food administration. Many people in America, particularly, parents worry junk food sold in school cafeterias may yield negative factors to their child’s health care. These negative factors are obesity and food addictions. Junk food should not be sold in school cafeterias because junk food causes kids to gain food addictions, consuming junk food requires expensive health care, and junk food causes health care in kids.
To begin, junk food causes kids to gain food addictions. Junk food both looks and tastes amazing, you can’t blame kids for wanting to eat it but over time kids start to develop unhealthy habits of constantly eating junk food and wanting more of it. According to “Kids Addicted to Junk Food?” by Erica Robinson, it shows when Michael Moss, “told Mental Floss that some foods are purposely made with bland ingredients so that you crave more food or you just add enough sugar or salt until your mouth explodes with flavor”. This reveals and exposes the fact that junk food won’t fill you up. For example, let’s say that you buy a bag of Cheetos (150 calories), while your friend gets an apple or two for the same amount of calories, most likely your friend will be full and fine while you on the other hand will remain hungry and buy another bag or two. This would just build your fast food addiction, cause you to gain weight , and get more money for the company. Erica Robinson also writes, “As far as sugary snacks, new research shows sugar may be just as addicting as crack”. If this is true as time goes on, kids will just be adding on to their addiction. As we all know, drug addicts struggle throughout their lives just trying to break out of their addiction. If sugar addiction is bad enough to relate to a drug addiction like “crack”, it must cause problems to both the kids and their parents. Although junk food sold in cafeterias causes food addiction, kids also consuming junk food requires expensive health care.
Secondly, consuming junk food requires expensive health care. Junk food causes one of every three kids throughout the United States to be overweight. Due to this cause, many parents have to rely on healthcare, but unwealthy families cannot pay for it. According to the Norton Center Infographic, it shows, “Children treated for obesity are 300% more expensive for our health care system that kids of a healthy weight.” Healthcare will cost more if a child is overweight. Restricting junk food in schools means that fewer parents have to worry about paying a large amount for healthcare. Also, the total cost of healthcare paid is insanely high! In the Norton Center Infographic it shows, “ By 2018, the Is will spend 344,000,000 on obesity-related healthcare costs.” All the money used for health care could have been used for other causes. Forbidding junk in schools means less money spent on healthcare and families have less to worry about. If a family who spends all their money on healthcare, it would decrease their limit of what they can buy or pay and can negatively impact them. In conclusion, states should ban junk food in schools because it requires more money on healthcare. Not only is healthcare a problem, obesity is another reason why junk food should be banned.
Lastly, junk food should not be sold in school cafeterias because junk food causes health problems in kids. Some health problems caused by junk food are obesity, which makes children have a higher risk factor for heart disease. In an article titled “Should states ban junk food in schools?”, the author states,”Poor eating habits developed at an early age lead to a lifetime of real health consequences”. If a child has bad eating habits and it does not seem like a big deal, eventually as they grow up, they will develop some kind of health consequence. Children have to start watching what they eat from an early age or there will be damaging health consequences later on in their life span. According to an infographic titled “Norton Center Infographic”, the researcher states that “70% of obese children have at least one risk factor for heart disease… 39% have at least two or more risk factors”. It is easier for obese children to get heart disease than someone who is not obese. However, obesity and heart disease can also be caused by maternal health or genetics. But, one of the main causes of obesity and heart disease is junk food since childhood obesity rates increased by 500% from 1970 to now. Therefore, junk food should not be sold in school cafeterias because junk food causes health problems in kids.
To conclude, school cafeterias should not sell junk food in schools because junk food yields serious health problems in kids. Junk food should not be sold in school cafeterias because junk food causes kids to gain food addictions, consuming junk food requires expensive health care, and junk food causes health problems in kids. The big idea of banning junk food in school cafeterias is to prevent expensive health care for obese kids and prevent many deaths in America caused and food addictions.
To begin, junk food causes kids to gain food addictions. Junk food both looks and tastes amazing, you can’t blame kids for wanting to eat it but over time kids start to develop unhealthy habits of constantly eating junk food and wanting more of it. According to “Kids Addicted to Junk Food?” by Erica Robinson, it shows when Michael Moss, “told Mental Floss that some foods are purposely made with bland ingredients so that you crave more food or you just add enough sugar or salt until your mouth explodes with flavor”. This reveals and exposes the fact that junk food won’t fill you up. For example, let’s say that you buy a bag of Cheetos (150 calories), while your friend gets an apple or two for the same amount of calories, most likely your friend will be full and fine while you on the other hand will remain hungry and buy another bag or two. This would just build your fast food addiction, cause you to gain weight , and get more money for the company. Erica Robinson also writes, “As far as sugary snacks, new research shows sugar may be just as addicting as crack”. If this is true as time goes on, kids will just be adding on to their addiction. As we all know, drug addicts struggle throughout their lives just trying to break out of their addiction. If sugar addiction is bad enough to relate to a drug addiction like “crack”, it must cause problems to both the kids and their parents. Although junk food sold in cafeterias causes food addiction, kids also consuming junk food requires expensive health care.
Secondly, consuming junk food requires expensive health care. Junk food causes one of every three kids throughout the United States to be overweight. Due to this cause, many parents have to rely on healthcare, but unwealthy families cannot pay for it. According to the Norton Center Infographic, it shows, “Children treated for obesity are 300% more expensive for our health care system that kids of a healthy weight.” Healthcare will cost more if a child is overweight. Restricting junk food in schools means that fewer parents have to worry about paying a large amount for healthcare. Also, the total cost of healthcare paid is insanely high! In the Norton Center Infographic it shows, “ By 2018, the Is will spend 344,000,000 on obesity-related healthcare costs.” All the money used for health care could have been used for other causes. Forbidding junk in schools means less money spent on healthcare and families have less to worry about. If a family who spends all their money on healthcare, it would decrease their limit of what they can buy or pay and can negatively impact them. In conclusion, states should ban junk food in schools because it requires more money on healthcare. Not only is healthcare a problem, obesity is another reason why junk food should be banned.
Lastly, junk food should not be sold in school cafeterias because junk food causes health problems in kids. Some health problems caused by junk food are obesity, which makes children have a higher risk factor for heart disease. In an article titled “Should states ban junk food in schools?”, the author states,”Poor eating habits developed at an early age lead to a lifetime of real health consequences”. If a child has bad eating habits and it does not seem like a big deal, eventually as they grow up, they will develop some kind of health consequence. Children have to start watching what they eat from an early age or there will be damaging health consequences later on in their life span. According to an infographic titled “Norton Center Infographic”, the researcher states that “70% of obese children have at least one risk factor for heart disease… 39% have at least two or more risk factors”. It is easier for obese children to get heart disease than someone who is not obese. However, obesity and heart disease can also be caused by maternal health or genetics. But, one of the main causes of obesity and heart disease is junk food since childhood obesity rates increased by 500% from 1970 to now. Therefore, junk food should not be sold in school cafeterias because junk food causes health problems in kids.
To conclude, school cafeterias should not sell junk food in schools because junk food yields serious health problems in kids. Junk food should not be sold in school cafeterias because junk food causes kids to gain food addictions, consuming junk food requires expensive health care, and junk food causes health problems in kids. The big idea of banning junk food in school cafeterias is to prevent expensive health care for obese kids and prevent many deaths in America caused and food addictions.
| josue_lopez_freedom_essay_per_1-2.gdoc |
Freedom Essay
The reason why the United States of America is so popular is that of the first amendment. Them amendment gives everyone the freedom of religion, the freedom of the press, the freedom to assemble peaceably, the freedom to petition the government, and the freedom of speech. You may not realize it but the first amendment is being used every day, and is used by you! In fact, the freedom of speech was infringed upon a very debatable court case; in 2007, that has been reported throughout many websites. This court case is named Morse v. Frederick which involves Joseph Frederick and Deborah Morse. At Juneau- Douglas High School, Frederick held up a banner saying “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” Deborah Morse being the principle of that school, she took the banner and immediately suspended him for ten days. The position Frederick took is that he was constitutionally protected by the first amendment and the position Deborah stands for is that the message is inappropriate and can be viewed as a way to promote illegal drug use. Joseph Frederick’s freedom of speech should not be taken away because it is appropriate, is constitutional, and can impact schools.
Particularly, Joseph Frederick’s freedom should not be taken away because his actions are appropriate. At the time, the Olympic Torch relay was close and his excitement grew stronger. The students at Juneau-Douglas High School were brought to a mini-field where the game was held. There were many television cameras and reporters so Joseph unfurled his banner and held it up hoping he would get noticed. Although people might say his actions were disturbing, the billofrightsinstitude.org stated, “The banner did not create any disturbance but Principal Deborah Morse told the students to take it down.” The message in his banner “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” may be viewed as promoting drug use, but he did not intend that. According to the billofrightsinstitute.org, it states. “ Frederick denied that the banner promoted drug use. He explained, ‘the words were just nonsense meant to attract television cameras.” Frederick’s cause of the disturbance was not intentional, but rather to get noticed by the cameras. In conclusion, Joseph Frederick’s banner did not cause disturbance therefore appropriate.
Secondly, Joseph Frederick’s freedom should not be taken away because his actions are constitutional. The freedom of speech means the right to express any options without censorship or restraint. The actions that Deborah took were violating this law. Suspending Frederick was the wrong thing to do as he was protected by the first amendment. According to billorrightsitstitude.org, it states, “Joseph believed the First Amendment protected his right to display this banner at a public school event. The Circuit Court agreed with Frederick and ruled that because he has been punished for the content of his speech, and the school's actions were constitutional.” Although people may believe the schools had the right to take away his banner due to their rules, the place it was held at denies that. According to uscourts.gov, it states, “During the Olympic Torch Relay through Juneau, Alaska on January 24, 2002.” This location illustrates that it was not on school campus, but at a public sportings event. The location did not have any rules saying it was restricted to express your options, therefore, he had the right to hold up his banner.
Finally, Joseph Frederick‘s freedom should not be taken away because it holds a valuable lesson. His banner does not show the message but the right to express his message shows it. His freedom being infringed upon can show other schools to take reduce the punishments. In the website law.cornell.edu, the text states, “When one of the students who had brought the banner to the event—respondent Frederick—refused, Morse confiscated the banner and later suspended him.” There should always be thinking before acting. Deborah Morse suspended him before she could think if it was breaking the first amendment. Although Deborah had the right to suspend him, she did not look at the positive side of the case. In the website law.cornell.edu, the text reads, “ At least two interpretations of the banner’s words—that they constitute an imperative encouraging viewers to smoke marijuana or, alternatively, that they celebrate drug use—demonstrate that the sign promoted such use.” No where did she think outside the box. Deborah only looked at it from a principal's perspective and only following the schools rules. In conclusion this case can impact other schools because it can teach them to think outside the box when deciding a consequence.
All together, Joseph Frederick’s freedom of speech should not be taken away because it is appropriate, is constitutional, and can impact schools. His actions were appropriate due to the place it was held at. It is constitutional because he has to right to express his opinions by using words. This can impact schools because it can teach them to think outside the box. Principles may be the leaders at school, but the constitutional is far more above them.
Particularly, Joseph Frederick’s freedom should not be taken away because his actions are appropriate. At the time, the Olympic Torch relay was close and his excitement grew stronger. The students at Juneau-Douglas High School were brought to a mini-field where the game was held. There were many television cameras and reporters so Joseph unfurled his banner and held it up hoping he would get noticed. Although people might say his actions were disturbing, the billofrightsinstitude.org stated, “The banner did not create any disturbance but Principal Deborah Morse told the students to take it down.” The message in his banner “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” may be viewed as promoting drug use, but he did not intend that. According to the billofrightsinstitute.org, it states. “ Frederick denied that the banner promoted drug use. He explained, ‘the words were just nonsense meant to attract television cameras.” Frederick’s cause of the disturbance was not intentional, but rather to get noticed by the cameras. In conclusion, Joseph Frederick’s banner did not cause disturbance therefore appropriate.
Secondly, Joseph Frederick’s freedom should not be taken away because his actions are constitutional. The freedom of speech means the right to express any options without censorship or restraint. The actions that Deborah took were violating this law. Suspending Frederick was the wrong thing to do as he was protected by the first amendment. According to billorrightsitstitude.org, it states, “Joseph believed the First Amendment protected his right to display this banner at a public school event. The Circuit Court agreed with Frederick and ruled that because he has been punished for the content of his speech, and the school's actions were constitutional.” Although people may believe the schools had the right to take away his banner due to their rules, the place it was held at denies that. According to uscourts.gov, it states, “During the Olympic Torch Relay through Juneau, Alaska on January 24, 2002.” This location illustrates that it was not on school campus, but at a public sportings event. The location did not have any rules saying it was restricted to express your options, therefore, he had the right to hold up his banner.
Finally, Joseph Frederick‘s freedom should not be taken away because it holds a valuable lesson. His banner does not show the message but the right to express his message shows it. His freedom being infringed upon can show other schools to take reduce the punishments. In the website law.cornell.edu, the text states, “When one of the students who had brought the banner to the event—respondent Frederick—refused, Morse confiscated the banner and later suspended him.” There should always be thinking before acting. Deborah Morse suspended him before she could think if it was breaking the first amendment. Although Deborah had the right to suspend him, she did not look at the positive side of the case. In the website law.cornell.edu, the text reads, “ At least two interpretations of the banner’s words—that they constitute an imperative encouraging viewers to smoke marijuana or, alternatively, that they celebrate drug use—demonstrate that the sign promoted such use.” No where did she think outside the box. Deborah only looked at it from a principal's perspective and only following the schools rules. In conclusion this case can impact other schools because it can teach them to think outside the box when deciding a consequence.
All together, Joseph Frederick’s freedom of speech should not be taken away because it is appropriate, is constitutional, and can impact schools. His actions were appropriate due to the place it was held at. It is constitutional because he has to right to express his opinions by using words. This can impact schools because it can teach them to think outside the box. Principles may be the leaders at school, but the constitutional is far more above them.
| dwa_star_spangled_banner_.pdf |
DWA Star Spangled Banner
"The Star-Spangled Banner” is the national anthem for the United States of America. Although you are supposed to stand and take you right hand over your heart. NFL football players kneel which causes major conflicts. Throughout many articles, writers debate whether football players including Colin Kaepernick are disrespecting the flag when kneeling or not. There are many reasons why people find the NFL players disrespecting for NFL players at taking a knee during the national anthem as a sign of protest because they have the right to protest, are protected by the First Amendment, and they are not disturbing anyone. First of all, the NFL players are not disrespecting the flag because they have the right to protest. This trend of kneeling majorly grew because of the famous NFL player Colin Kaepernick. Kneeling during the national anthem shows a sign of protest against racial injustice and police brutality. These football players have the right to protest against this. According to Document A, the writer states, "President Obama said Kaepernick was exercising his constitutional right to make a statement." Exercising his totally fine. If you wanted something to stop, would you want it to spread so people can see the message you are giving out? Many people find kneeling disrespecting the people who have served in the military which is true, but they are not doing so. According to Document A, the writer states, “We just decided to take a knee and pray for the people who have been affected and just pray for the people in general.” The football players are not disrespecting the people who have served in the military. Also, NFL football players have the right to kneel simply because they can. In conclusion, the NFL football players have the right to protest. Secondly, the NFL players are not disrespecting the flag because it does not cause a disturbance. People find that kneeling can be disturbing, they do not intend it to be disturbing. Kneeling spreads protesting against racial injustice and police brutality. This message, in general, does not disturb anyone, In Document A, the author writes, "We are not trying to disrespect the flag or be a distraction to the team, but as men, we thought we had the right to stand up for what we believe in, and I demonstrated it. ”These football players are not disrespecting anyone. If they were, why would they? Many people say that their for is off which is true according to Document C, But what another form will they conduct. I just think that kneeling is a perfect way to perform silence protest. If you look in deeper. The people who support the kneeling are the same race as the NFL players. In the survey poll in Document C, the infographic shows, “Only 24% of white Americans support the 49ers quarterback and his protest.”If you really think about it, the military is mixed in race. Why would the majority of white Americans find kneeling disrespectful towards the people who have served the military In other words, why do they not support the football players silent protest? In short, the NFL players are not causing disturbance towards anyone. Lastly, the NFL players are not disrespecting the flag because they are constitutionally protected. The football players have the right to pray. They are protected by the first amendment. According to Document A, the author states, “Not standing for the national anthem is a legal form of peaceful protest, which is a First Amendment right.” There is no one that can stop these football players from praying or kneeling. There are limits to the freedom that they possess, but they are not passing it. Also, they are not only protected by the freedom of religion but are protected by all five rights. According to Document B, the writer states, “It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting and individuals religions practice.” Promoting your thoughts is breaking the First Amendment. These football players are not breaking the rule. In conclusion, the NFL football players are not disrespecting the flag because they are constitutionally protected. To sum it up, the NFL players are not disrespecting the flag because they have the right to protest, are not causing any disturbance, and because they are constitutionally protected. They have the right to protest mainly because they do not cause harm and because they are protected by the law. People find disturbance within them but do not disturb anyone. They are constitutionally protected because of the First Amendment. The NFL players are not disrespecting the flag.
