1. The Topic of the Month for October is "Make this the Perfect Bugout Location". Please join the discussion in the TOTM forum.

Questioning the Curriculum

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Tracy, Jan 7, 2008.

  1. Tracy

    Tracy Insatiably Curious Moderator Founding Member

    Question on today's lesson:

    "Freedom of The Press has become an American tradition"

    Curriculum says that it's a FACT.

    I say, that the way it's written, it's an Opinion.

    Freedom of The Press is not a tradition, but is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.

    Am I wrong?
  2. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    No. See the First Amendment, just as you say. [coffee2]
  3. MbRodge

    MbRodge Monkey+++

    What are they trying to teach here, english or government? Freedom of the press should be an essay question in government. An english question about fact vs opinion should be more specific ie "Blue is the best color." Bad question but I suppose it is a "fact" since even though it was specified in the Constitution as a right it has also become a tradition.
  4. Evenglischatiest

    Evenglischatiest Monkey+++

    It's even more than that.
    It's a right endowed in us by our creator, and considered so important that it needed to be repeated in the FIRST Amendment.

    To call it a tradition doesn't even rise to the level of opinion. It's a complete lie. They want to call it a tradition because traditions can change. And government granted "rights" can also be changed. That's why Jefferson was so careful in his wording.
  5. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    agree "tradition" is a weak subjective term here.
  6. Tracy

    Tracy Insatiably Curious Moderator Founding Member

    Not one to sit around waiting, I had my son challenge the curriculum and refuse to answer the question as it was written, stating something similar to what I wrote above to his Tutor, so that she would understand that he has a full understanding of what he was doing, and why.

    The Tutor's response was "Read the definition of tradition and you would also see that it is a tradition as well as a right..." Then something about how sometimes things can be more than just a single thing.

    Call me Simple-minded, but I don't see how a right can be minimized to a point that they would consider it merely a tradition.

    thanks for the help! I appreciate your responses! Before I go reiterating the value of the Constitution to my children, I wanted to make sure that I'm not off track.

    I just love challenging curriculums. It makes my day! :D
  7. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    I'd go after that tutor armed for bear. Tutor is WRONGLY using the language, and it should be brought to her attention. It may only be traditional to follow custom, but not to follow the Constitution. If she thinks it is only a tradition, she is short a bit of education. Jeez. Get another tutor, and make sure her referring agency is aware of why.

    (I just get a kick out of messing with English.)
  8. ozarkgoatman

    ozarkgoatman Resident goat herder

    Amendment I

    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.

    Seems pretty straight forward to me.

  9. RVM45

    RVM45 Monkey+++

    .....The right to a free press exists naturally; as a Natural Right.

    .....It was formally RECOGNIZED as a right; by the first ammendmant to the constitution.

    .....Now when freedom of the press is first instituted in a country(never mind that it was always their Natual Right- nonethelesss, it has been forbidden heretofore; and now it's encouraged) it may be something absolutely unprecedented; shocking; noveau; hyper-modern.

    .....Then, after a few years, or maybe a generation- or two, freedom of the press is no longer new; or exciting; or cutting edge. It is simply an accepted fact of life- Standard Operating Procedure. It was always a Natural Right. It took legislation to make it a LEGALLLY RECOGNIZED right. Even then, it took time; and acceptance for it to become a tradition.

    .....However, I would argue that the current TRADITION here in America has become for the first ammendmant to be largely interpreted and frivelled into a mere Bizzarro shadow of it's former self. The supreme court has set all sorts of restrictive conditions on what the press can; or cannot say.

    .....Then there's the press itself- a bunch of money-grubbing; truth-for-sale; lying...And all this is half the issue-here's the other half- In the last couple decades, virtually all the mass media has become shills for a certan statist facist welfare nanny stare point of view. Objectivity is long forgotten.

    .....So my anwer would be that while freedom of the press is both a Natural Right; and a constitutionally recognized right- THAT it is NOT currently a tradition; and it is practiced very little. Currently, it is a counter-tradition.

    .....RVM45 :shock:
  10. Tracy

    Tracy Insatiably Curious Moderator Founding Member

    You know it! :)

    She'll be here next Tuesday, so I'm making sure he's up to the task of debating an adult (with over 20 years of teaching experience) on the issue. I'm allowing him to read this thread so that he sees varying opinions (not just mine or hers) as well as the wording of the specified Amendment. Please feel free to give him as much information as you can! :)

    She should know that we take the Constitution seriously; it's on the wall directly in front of their desk. :)
  11. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    "Congress shall make no law --" Does that open the door for the states to step in and do so? Hm.
  12. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    In Sociology one learns that "traditional authority" is derived through acceptance over time. The great antagonist to every form of law is in fact incrementalism, and something as slight as rephrasing a series of words can have consequences. By naming freedom of the press "traditional", it relates the value of both time and historical relevance into the idea; thus, implying historical records such as the Constitution, even if it is sometimes considered to be a forgotten tome of the past.

    The question then becomes, "what is the topic of discussion in relation to?"

    If this is a legal question, then the phrase "freedom of the press" has significance in relation to the Constitution. If this is a moral issue, then the question becomes truncated. Modern values are not applicable to historic, or traditional authority because it has not gained enough credence or acceptance with time. However, if one were to compare time periods and valued the 30's through the 60's, and then the 70's through today, we will see interesting results in comparison. The upheavals and trials of post-depressionism earmarked the 30's, followed by heavy communist infiltration and trials of the 60's. The media was certainly "free" to discuss various topics of the war, but we find after careful study, that it was quite the opposite. There was heavy censorship, and serious consequences in the past for printing phrases that would send tremors throughout the world. And yet, today we have virtually uncontrolled media, to include corporate propaganda and even unsourced reporting -all of which goes completely unchecked. Where are the hounds of the past in todays media? Well, it is all owned by the same companies and cartels, so what is the sense?

    Naturally, free media, which is cultivated by patriots and freedom fighters, often times cannot gain enough readers or viewers simply because they have been indoctrinated into this modern philosophical enterprise in full technicolor and with all the right angles and voice inflection. And so, once again we see a change within the traditional authority, which has adopted new principles and new doctrine, and it has left the ways of the past forgotten and rejected.

    For as much time we have spent building a free society based on the foundation of a Constitutional noose and common law practice in order to ensure liberty and maintain individual prosperity, we have spent double that time erecting an iron curtain of disguise which only brought about slavery and ignorance, in the futile attempt to keep our complacency and security.

    This certainly is not "my press". I sincerely doubt it is "your press" either. If you do not belong to the members only club, if it is not accepted and sponsored by the elite cartels, then your words may as well fall of deaf ears...because nobody is listening. Welcome to the new world. :) freedom is not only optional, it's become a word of historic reference.
  13. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    To (maybe only) my mind, freedom of the press bears heavily on the process of reporting facts in the "news" and clearly labeling editorializing as such. That is not evident in today's press, either printed or tv'ed. There in lays the rub for me. In the grand old days, IMHO, the press was a more or less honored profession due to the integrity of the writers of the time. I don't see that so often these days.

    The other thing under my skin is that headline stories seldom tell the whole story, the press and it's reporting facilities are so fast that they get it on the street without both sides presented. Then, when the actual story is fully told, it winds up on page B30.

    But all that is off topic. Tradition, as Brokor and RVM indicate, is established after the fact. One might say in this day and age that the tradition has been slithering toward warping the fact of the right. Too bad, that. Thus spake me, and maybe me only.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary