Go topless on the beach

This one is for my little brother who is going on vacation with us and tries not to wear a shirt whenever possible (he learned it from my dad). In the 1920's and 30's it was illegal for men to be shirtless in public. The government officials at the time thought that they had to protect women and children from such an indecent sight. Men disagreed and decided to do it anyway. In 1934, 8 men were fined a dollar each for going topless at Coney Island. This same year the first shirtless man appeared in the movie "It Happened One Night," causing quite a stir. In 1935, New Jersey officials were feeling similarly unhappy. They arrested 42 shirtless men and gained 84$. In 1936, in Winchester, NY, men were finally allowed to go topless, the city rented out swimsuits and realized that the less swimsuit the less money it would cost them, so in the interest of the economy men could now show a little chest. New York was also the first place in the U.S. where it became legal for women to go topless. in 1986, seven topless women were arrested, in 1992 the supreme court took their case and ruled that it was legal for women to go topless in New York. It is legal for men and women to go topless in 33 states but some cities in these states say differently. In Tennessee, Indiana, and Utah it is specifically illegal to show the female breast. The rest of the states have ambiguous laws. Sometimes women are arrested for going topless in places where it is legal and won court cases against the state.

Clark Gable Topless in the 1934 film "It Happened One Night"

No shirts, no shoes, no service

This one is for my sister. Recently their have been a lot of topless protests by women. These women are not only protesting because they want to go topless all the time, they are protesting the underlying assumptions that brought about these laws, and which they continue to promote. In 1986, it was still illegal to be a topless female in NY. When a number of women in Rochester were arrested for being topless in a park they brought it to court. These women ultimately won the case in the supreme court, who ruled that it is legal for women to go topless in NY. But, what were the arguments in a case that continues to be so relevant. Judge Herman Walz argued against making female toplessness legal saying:
             "The statute's objective is to protect the public from invasions of its sensibilities, and merely reflects current community standards as to what constitutes nudity. The objective itself is not based on stereotyped notions, therefore it is not illegitimate... community standards do not deem the exposure of males' breasts offensive, therefore the state does not have an interest in preventing exposure of males' breasts"
              He is arguing that most of the public wants to be protected so the government is protecting them and since the law is based on protection not sexism its fine. Don't buy it? Neither did the court. With this logic you could make oranges illegal because they offended peoples sensibilities, and we would end up with a very silly country. They appealed that their was no good government reason to distinguish between the genders in this case and the courts agreed, The case went on to the supreme court.
             These laws are made because of the reaction of the viewer not the action of the perpetrator. Reena Glazer Wrote in The Duke Law Journal  in 1993 that when you realize that these laws are to please the viewer and also look at the exception in the statute that exempts topless entertainment a glaring issue starts to  emerge. Things that might turn men on are only allowed to be show when men want to be turned on. In other words men's views of women's bodies are the ones that matter. This inherently objectifies women. Both sides argue that they are fighting objectification. One side says that breasts will make people objectify women, this is like the argument that wearing revealing clothing means women are "asking for it", my boobs don't talk and they certainly didn't "make" anyone do anything. The other sides argues for reevaluating preconceived norms about breasts automatically being sexual because those that are attracted to them say so.
         In 1995 Phoenix Feeley  tested out the NY law on toplessness and was arrested for walking down the street topless. She won the court case and $29,000 from the state. In 2011 she was arrested again in New Jersey where the laws are ambiguous and she served nine days in jail, hunger striking for eight of them and was let go. Gotopless protests have taken place in France, Iran, The U.S. and Canada, many resulting in arrests.

Basic rights: What can the police search?

Before you read these this is one of the most important facts: do not be charged with obstruction of justice, you can not challenge an officer on the street. Do not threaten a police officer or threaten to file a complaint. Just write down everything that happens and file a complaint later.

Can the police look in your car?
If a police officer asks to look inside your car, you can refuse to let them search your car. However, if the police think your car contains evidence of a crime they can search it without your consent.

Can the police search your phone?

United States V. Wurie 2013

Court of appeals held that police can not search without a warrant except in specific circumstances where the police officers safety is in jeopardy or their is a chance evidence might be erased/destroyed.

this case is still being debated

Riley v. California 2014

The California Supreme court said that police can search a cellphone without a warrant if the phone is "immediately associated with person." meaning the person who got arrested. 

Do you have to let the police in your house?
Not unless they have a warrant. You have the right to ask them politely to hold the warrant up to the window or slide it under the door so you can read it.

Learn more:
https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you#5

What can I blow up >:) Fireworks Laws

Fireworks season is coming up and you may be wondering what can you blow up on your street without spending a night in jail. This blog post is only about consumer fireworks. The federal regulations involve how much explosives are used in the firework and are rather complicated. This website gives a basic description: https://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-fireworks.html
Within the federal regulations states and towns make their own laws. In green states on the map above, if your area does not have any additional laws, all of the federally legal consumer fireworks are legal without local approval. Which means if you have them you don't have to ask to light them off on your own property. In blue states, if your local area doesn't have any additional regulations, you can light off more than half of the types of federally legal consumer fireworks without asking permission. In yellow states you need to ask permission to light off more than half of the types of consumer fireworks that are federally legal. In the red states you may not light off any fireworks without getting approval from your local area and possibly the state. Fireworks include pretty much anything that is supposed to combust, but they have been conveniently been grouped into categories:
Bottle Rockets
Sky Rockets
Roman Candles
firecrackers
sparklers (that's right, if you live in a red state every child has probably broken this law)
smoke and punk (this includes snakes and smoke bombs)
Fountains
Missiles
Novelties Crackle and Strobe
Parachutes
Wheels and Spinner
Sky Flyers
Display Shells
Aerial Items (cakes)
Laws change constantly so their might be and probably are errors in this list, on top of this I have not included areas smaller than states which often make their own regulations. My map is based off of this website: http://www.usfireworks.biz/legal/legal.htm the best thing you can do is look up your state and towns specific laws, Connecticut's are very clear, sparklers, fountains, and nothing else. http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/public_information_files/brochures/tipsfireworks.pdf

I say what I want? school edition

Students often “cleverly” counter teachers attempts to stop inappropriate comments with “it’s a free country” I can say what I want. Can you really? The answer is no, here is a progression of court cases where you can watch freedom of speech being limited in schools. If you aren’t interested in what happened and just want to know student’s rights read the bold print.

The Bill of Rights: Amendment I

“Congress shall make no law respecting … or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”

1969, Tinker v. Des Moines

The Supreme Court tells us in Tinker vs. Des Moines, students do not "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door."  But, school administrators can restrict student’s speech for educational reasons.

In 1969 a small number of students and their parents decided to wear black armbands for the holiday season to demonstrate their disapproval of the Vietnam War. The school heard about this and was afraid that it would cause disturbance, the school made a rule that anyone wearing an armband would be suspended until they came to school without the armband.  Five students were suspended. Schoolwork was not disrupted. Wearing the armbands did not interfere with other student’s rights.

The Court decided that the First Amendment protected the right of the high school students to wear black armbands in a public high school, as a form of protest and “symbolic speech”.  The Court ruled that school administrators could, only prohibit this form of free speech, if they could show that it would cause a serious disruption of the student’s education.

Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1983

High school student Matthew Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Pierce County, Washington, made a speech nominating a fellow student for student government. Around 600 high school students attended. During the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate using sexual innuendoes.

Two teachers, who knew about the speech before told him that the speech was "inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it," and that his delivery of the speech might have "severe consequences." Fraser admitted to purposely giving a speech with sexual innuendo and was suspended for three days.

The final decision by the Supreme Court sided with the school. “The process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order.” Teachers and older students are role models and must teach by example. Students using vulgar and lewd speech undermine the educational role of public schools so schools may make rules against students using this type of language.

Hazelwood School District V. Kuhlmeier, 1988

The principal of a high school removed two pages of a high school newspaper written by a journalism class before it went to print. The first page contained a story about three pregnant girls who had attended the high school. Even though their names had been changed the principle was afraid they might be identified from the story and that the content may have been inappropriate for the younger students at the school. The second page contained an article about how divorce affected students, one of the students accused her father of not spending enough time with her family among other things, the principal thought that the father should have been allowed a response. It was too close to the end of the school year to make revisions so the pages were removed.

            The students sued the school, the Court ruled in favor of the school. The school could restrict the content because: the newspaper was a supervised learning experience for journalism students not a public forum; including this content in school sanctioned publications might make it seem like the students opinion was the schools opinion; and the articles might have violated other students or parents rights.

Morse v. Frederick, 2007

The Olympic torch was scheduled to pass by Juneau- Douglas High School (JDHS) during school hours. The principal allowed teachers to take students to stand along the road in front of the school to see the torch pass. Frederick, a high school student had not shown up for classes that day, he showed up at the event and stood across the street from the school with his friends. When the camera crews and the torch passed by he unfurled a 14-foot banner with the help of some of his friends. The banner read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” which the principal interpreted as encouraging illegal drug use. The students were asked to hand over the sign which all of them except for Frederick did.  Frederick said that the banner was not a political statement about the legalization of marijuana, and the student could not come up with any explanations for his phrase other than referring to marijuana. Frederick was suspended for 8 days.

The court decided in favor of the school. Schools have the right to discipline students who present messages that conflict with stated anti-drug policies; even without evidence of disruption of school activities.

Some states have additional state laws limiting or protecting students rights, and your student hand book gives even more limitations or protection, while it is debatable if the school handbook is a “legally binding contract” you can get kicked out of private schools and punished in public school for not obeying school rules. If you feel like your schools rules are in conflict with the Supreme Court check out this website. http://www.splc.org/

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/studentspeech.htm