The Alestle Vol. 77, No. 25

THE FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE

“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.”

CHLOE WOLFElifestyles editor

These words are the foun- dation of America, but why were theyThechosen?Americans who decided our country’s laws didn’t decide to do so on a whim. Before the Rev- olution, Americans did not have a lot of the rights that were present in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments. But they were most concerned with the ideals present in the First Amendment — religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. The lack of these rights was one of the reasons America went to war. When America was under Brit- ish rule, they were not protected by the British version of the Constitu- tion — the Magna Carta. This lack of rights, while still being taxed, played a role in the uprising. After the war, the framers — those who wrote the Constitution and formed our government — set out

to codify the rights they distinc- tively lacked, such as the ability to assemble and practice their chosen religion without govern- mentButinterference. the First Amendment as we know it today didn’t be- gin to be interpreted that way until 1919.

The Supreme Court’s job is to interpret laws, and there wasn’t a case involving the First Amendment un- til Schenck v. United States, which established that there were restrictions on free speech if it posed a danger to the public. For example, you are not allowed to yell “fire” in a public setting if there is not one.

Today the First Amend- ment is more important than ever. However, what’s even more crucial is understanding the rights that the First Amend- ment actually grants you.

The ultimate beginners gude to freedom of the press

AVA GALBAN reporter

Freedom of the press ensures the right of journalists and media organizations to publish and distribute information without government censorship or interference.

Without this right, investigative matters of public interest would be nonexistent. This would result in the inability to hold those in power accountable and provide citizens with the information they need to make informed decisions.

While the press and their work are protected by the enumerated laws of the First Amendment, the U.S. is still not completely safe for journalists and reporters. On the Reporters without Borders index, the U.S. ranks “Problematic” on their global scale.

The index ranks countries based on safety for journalists. Factors such as social, economic, and political contexts are the key factors in the evaluation of rankings.

The U.S. has fallen three places on its 2023 Freedom of Press global index. The index cites the murders of Jeff Ger-

man (2022) and Dylan Lyons (2023) as contributing factors in the drop, as well as the legal framework on local levels of press. Both German and Lyons were killed because of their reporting work.

Historically, freedom of the press was established in the Constitution under the authority of James Madison, who said, “This security of the freedom of the press requires that it should be exempt not only from previous restraint by the executive but from legislative restraint.”

In many countries, including the U.S., there are legal protections in place to safeguard journalists from harassment, defamation suits or other forms of retaliation for their reporting. Shield laws, Freedom Of Information Acts and anti-strategic lawsuits against public publication legislation all serve as defenses of this right.

The inclusion of protections against prior restraint in the First Amendment serves to protect the press and their content before publication.

It additionally serves as a safeguard to government officials and individuals if false information is published, giving them the right to sue for libel. This regulation implements barriers to prevent the distribution of false information.

While this liberty is outlined in the Constitution, much like freedom of speech, it is not absolute. Concern for national security serves as one form of regulation on the press.

This restriction limits the press from publishing classified government information, providing material support to designated terrorist organizations, as well as reporting on specific topics such as the location of military troops during wartime or international conflicts.

As a free press encourages a diverse

Letter from the Editor:

Why the First Amendment Issue is necessary

The First Amendment is incredibly important. That’s why it’s the first.

The First Amendment consists of 46 words ratified back in 1791. Just 46 words protect your right to practice whichever religion you please, say and publish (almost) whatever you want and let the government know when they’re doing something wrong.

In this time of mass social and political turmoil, it can be easy to forget just how important those 46 words are.

As student journalists, we take

it upon ourselves to be advocates for the First Amendment. The press is the watchdog of the government, and it is our job to bring attention to these sorts of issues.

Every year, The Alestle teams up with the Department of Mass Communications to host the First Amendment Free Food Festival, where a small segment of the Quad is cordoned off and students give up their First Amendment rights for free pizza.

While we roleplay as agents of a

totalitarian government for a couple of hours, millions of people around the world are unable to express their thoughts freely, sometimes at the penalty of death. Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that these basic rights have to be maintained. A government by the people requires the people to know their rights. As Americans, we’ve been able to do this for over two centuries. Let’s keep that trend going.

range of media outlets, there is an increased representation of various perspectives and interests within society. Diversity of press allows for the representation of marginalized voices, cultural enrichment, and resilience against misinformation.

While press outlets and organizations have greatly evolved from their historical roots into what they are today, their core purpose remains the same: to inform and educate the public and share diverse perspectives — free from government interference.

OPINION: Paparazzi practices undermine journalistic integrity

AVA GALBAN reporter

In the realm of journal ism, the paparazzi often blur the lines between legitimate reporting and intrusive inva sion. While they may assert their role as truth-seekers and protectors of public in terest, their actions often paint a different picture. The relentless chase for sensationalism and the exploitation of private lives by the paparazzi fundamen tally undermine the integrity of the press.

Journalism is, at its core, about informing the public, holding individuals in power ac countable and promoting open dialogue. It is a profession that forms a cornerstone of democracy and allows for the promotion of expression and speech.

It is the media’s duty to provide the general public with accurate, meaningful and truthful information. In the modern

day, with the emphasis of ‘quick’ media coverage that grabs an individual’s attention, there has been a shift in topic coverage, as well as in the overall substance of the coverage.

Movies I like about the press

OLIVIA WHITLOCK copy editor

From the pursuit of truth through painstaking hours of investigation to sensational headlines like “Celebrity breakdown: Violent public meltdown caught on camera,” the press, whether focused on serious topics or gossip, is the backbone of democracy.

Here are some of my favorite movies that show the nitty-gritty of journalism!

Please check out websites such as “Does the Dog Die?” to check for potential triggers and sensitive topics before viewing any movie on this list.

‘Almost Famous’ (2000)

Director Cameron Crowe

Set in the ‘70s, 15-yearold music lover and aspiring journalist William (Patrick Fugit) embarks on the journey of a lifetime when he lands an assignment to interview an emerging band for Rolling Stone.

‘All the President’s Men’ (1976)

Director Alan J. Pakula

Based on a true story, journalists Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman) and Bob Woodward (Robert Redford) of The Washington Post uncover a trail of political corruption in the Nixon administration while investigating the Watergate scandal with the help of a mysterious source.

This is seen within the paparazzi’s pursuit of celebrities, often at the expense of their privacy and dignity, which serves little purpose beyond satisfying the public’s intrusive tendencies.

One of the largest issues with the paparazzi is their disregard for consent and boundaries. Celebrities, like anyone else, deserve a reasonable expectation of privacy. Paparazzi often operate under the guise that celebrities, as public figures, forfeit their right to privacy, making what they do ethical.

This can be seen with actress Emma Watson, known most notably for her role as Hermione Granger in the “Harry Potter” series. The day Watson turned 18, paparazzi gathered outside of her birthday party, laid down on the ground and took pictures up her skirt. Those photographs were published on the front page of British tabloids the next morning.

The paparazzi often operate under the belief that fame negates this right entirely. They stalk, harass and invade the personal space of celebrities, sometimes resorting to aggressive tactics to capture a desired photograph.

This lack of respect for basic human dignity harms not only the subjects of their scrutiny, but damages the reputation of the entire journalistic profession as well.

‘Citizen Kane’ (1941)

Director Orson Welles Wealthy newspaper publisher Charles Kane (Orson Welles) utters the word “Rosebud” before taking his dying breath. This sparks a reporter to investigate not only the meaning of this cryptic word, but Kane’s life as a whole.

‘Nightcrawler’ (2014)

Director Dan Gilroy

Lou (Jake Gyllenhaal) makes a living by committing petty crimes. After seeing stringers — freelance photojournalists — record the scene of a car accident, Lou becomes inspired after learning they sell their footage to news stations. The lines quickly become blurred between flming the scenes of existing crimes and committing crimes in order to capture more thrilling footage.

‘Get a Clue’ (2002)

Director

Maggie Greenwald

Lexy (Lindsay Lohan) prides herself on getting the hottest gossip for her school newspaper’s advice column. However, when one of the teachers she publishes an article about goes missing, Lexy and her peers investigate his disappearance.

ger Perez Hilton’s website. This sparked conversation on privacy within the circulation of media.

While the liberties outlined in the First Amendment allow for the privilege of freedom in the media, it also opens the door to the exploitation of individual rights, especially celebrities’ rights to protection of privacy and emotional security.

Moreover, the publication industry’s fixation on scandal perpetuates harmful stereotypes and narratives. Instead of focusing on substantive issues or meaningful discourse, they prioritize sensationalist headlines and gossip.

As paparazzi are paid to get these shots, the tabloids and media publications increase their pay based on the shot the paparazzi capture. The crazier the photo, the crazier the headline, meaning more attention to the media, effectively increasing their profits.

fect shot, paparazzi have been known to trespass, eavesdrop and engage in reckless driving, endangering lives in the process. This reckless disregard for the law and ethical standards undermines the credibility of the entire journalistic profession.

Furthermore, the overwhelming media surveillance can have tangible consequences for the mental and emotional well-being of their subjects. Constant surveillance and invasion of privacy can have a severe impact on an individual’s mental health, possibly resulting in anxiety, paranoia and depression. The paparazzi’s relentless pursuit often extends to celebrities’ families and loved ones, subjecting them to unwarranted scrutiny and harassment.

Children of celebrities, in particular, are thrusted into the spotlight from a young age, depriving them of a normal childhood and exposing them to intense public scrutiny, often without their consent.

It additionally reinforces the perception that journalists exploit the misfortune and vulnerabilities of others for profit.

In 2014, photographs of actress Jennifer Lawrence, among other celebrities, were leaked and swiftly posted on celebrity blog-

This not only diminishes the role of the press, but also distracts the public from more significant matters.

Additionally, the relentless pursuit of celebrities often leads to unethical behavior and breaches of journalistic ethics.

In their pursuit of the per-

If the press is to fulfill its crucial role in society, it must uphold higher standards and reject the invasive tactics employed by the paparazzi. Only when paparazzi are respectful of the privacy of individuals can journalism progress toward its status as a profession dedicated to serving the public good.

SPEECH

First Amendment test, according to experts FAIL Some SIUE policies

Decibel policy up to constitutional standards

DYLAN HEMBROUGH

editor-in-chief

In a year full of street preachers, anti-war protests and potential hate speech, the constitutionality of some of SIUE’s policies have been called into question.

In early February, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, better known as FIRE, issued SIUE a “red light” rating for policies that violate First Amendment rights.

The “red light” is their worst rating and means that the university has at least one policy that “clearly and substantially restricts the freedom of speech of students.”

SIUE was among just 15.2 percent of surveyed public schools that earned this rating. Interim Vice Chancellor for Administration Bill Retzlaff and Chancellor James T. Minor did not respond for comment on SIUE’s free speech rating.

Some policies don’t stack up

According to Laura Beltz, director of policy reform at FIRE, SIUE’s Responsible Use Policy fails First Amendment tests by banning pornographic or sexually explicit material.

“Impermissible uses (some of which may also constitute il-

legal uses) include, but are not limited to … posting or sending obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit or offensive material,” the policy states.

“Much of what could be called pornographic, sexually explicit or offensive is constitutionally protected,” Beltz wrote in an email. “I would say about half of Twitter could be called offensive, but the government can’t limit speech on that basis alone.”

Beltz said the policy should be revised to only ban unlawful obscenity as defined by Miller v. California. This 1973 Supreme Court case ruled that if a work “taken as a whole, does not have serious literary,

artistic, political or scientific value,” then it is considered unlawful obscenity.

FIRE also flagged the University Housing Living Guide for violating the First Amendment by mandating that students “act in a kind, mature and civil manner.” While a civil environment is desirable in on-campus housing, it is not something that can be constitutionally required.

Beltz said the 2007 case of College Republicans at San Francisco State University v. Reed illustrates the problems with a “civility mandate.” The opinion, written by U.S. Magistrate Judge Wayne D. Brazil, said such a policy could bar a speaker from conveying how strongly they feel about a situation. In other words, a civility mandate could interfere with how effectively students communicate with each other. This is not to say that certain forms of speech cannot be banned or regu-

lated. FIRE’s Unprotected Speech Synopsis specifies that “fighting words” and “true threats” are not protected by the First Amendment.

True threats, as defined by the 2003 case of Virginia v. Black, are “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”

Similarly, fighting words are not protected due to their tendency toward violence. This definition is a very narrow one, however, and is distinct from hate speech.

Hate speech is constitutional so long as it does not incite violence, at which point it would become fighting words or true threats.

The Supreme Court has also offered a very narrow definition of harassment, specifically as it applies to students. Harassment must be “so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive … that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities.”

In other words, to be considered harassment in an educational context, the student on the receiving end must be unable to access or receive their education in the way they would otherwise be able to.

quad megaphones not protected

One SIUE policy that came under fire from community members was SIUE’s Policy on Expressive Activity, originally issued Nov. 6, 2023. This was around the time street preacher Chris Svochak was visiting campus.

After a Nov. 7 incident in which SIUE Police asked Svochak to stop using his speaker, Svochak posted a video of the protest on Facebook and asked for help contacting a First Amendment lawyer. As of publication, there have been no further developments.

“They told me to turn off the speaker, which is against the law because they don’t apply it to everyone else. They only applied it to me,” Svochak said. “There’s somebody that comes every Wednesday [Pastor Tom Rayborn] that does this, and they told me specifically to turn it off or I would be trespassing and arrested.”

Rayborn had not been asked to turn off his speaker because the policy was not in effect yet. The following week, Rayborn returned to campus to preach without a speaker.

According to Beltz, SIUE’s Policy on Expressive Activity seems constitutionally sound.

“These limits on excessive

see POLICIES on page 5

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences

MICHAL KATE CASTLEMAN online editor

AUDREY O’RENIC sports editor

Because of our First Amendment, Americans are given the right to freedom of speech. This means individuals can express themselves without fear of punishment from the government. However, can we really say whatever we want, or are there limitations to this freedom?

According to Britannica, freedom of speech in the Constitution covers the right to “express information, ideas and opinions free of government restrictions based on content.”

Benjamin Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers, had strong opinions regarding the idea of free speech. He said without freedom of speech, there is no such thing as public liberty.

“In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own,” Franklin said. “Whoever would overthrow

the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech; a thing terrible to public traitors.”

According to Constitution

Annotated, James Madison presented the freedom of speech clause in 1789 with little debate.

The clause was added to the Constitution on Dec. 15, 1791.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were among two Founding Fathers who defended the First Amendment in the context of freedom of speech.

The First Amendment Museum said Jefferson and Madison believed criticizing the government was protected by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment not only protects speech by mouth, but also symbolism. According to The History Channel, the Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag was protected under the First Amendment after Gregory Lee Johnson burned the flag to protest Ronald Reagan.

“The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1990, reversed a Texas court’s conviction that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag,”

The History Channel said. “Texas v. Johnson invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag burning.”

The First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause protects the right to speech but is often followed by the misconception that it is absolute. However, freedom of speech wasn’t completely intended that way, with restrictions making some speech unconstitutional.

To incite imminent lawless action

Free speech does not include the right to incite imminent lawless action.

The Schenck v. United States case of 1919 was revolutionary for freedom of speech, as it resulted in the “clear and present danger” standard.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Holmes said the standard would be used on a case-by-case basis.

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man from falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theatre and causing a panic … The question in every case is whether the words are used in such circumstances and

are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent,” Holmes said.

If speech is determined to inflict genuine harm prohibited by Congress, such as defamation, plagiarism of copyrighted material and fighting words, then the speech would be justified as unconstitutional.

The 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio case further specified that this principle could be prohibited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action,” which remains the standard today.

To make or distribute obscene materials

In 1957, the Roth v. United States case determined that obscenity was not “within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press.”

The test to determine obscenity is known as the Miller test and was established over three major cases: Miller v. California (1973), Smith v. Unit-

ed States (1977) and Pope v. Illinois (1987).

The three-pronged test questions whether the average person finds that the matter appeals to prurient interests, whether the average person finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

This prohibits the making and distribution of child pornography and morbid adult pornography.

With technological advances, the Supreme Court further ruled in the Reno v. ACLU case of 1997 that “transmitting obscenity and child pornography, whether via the Internet or other means, is ... illegal under federal law for both adults and juveniles.”

For more information on restrictions, visit the United States Courts website.

noise look reasonable,” Beltz said. “The fact that it puts those decibel levels is good, because it’s not just letting an administrator apply some sort of subjective idea of how noisy they think it is, because then you could run into danger.”

Beltz said public universities limiting “excessive noise” is typical and would likely be upheld in court in the interest of the university’s commitment to education.

“A court would look to the government’s interest in protecting classes from disruption by making sure that various campus activities can take place without being interrupted by that sort of noise,” Beltz said.

The Policy on Expressive Activity states that people or organizations that are not affiliat-

ed with SIUE cannot engage in spontaneous activities. Additionally, it states that outside groups may not use amplification that interferes with the university’s educational mission.

Beltz said this is a constitutional manner in which universities can protect their mission as institutions of higher education.

“When a court is looking at these sorts of regulations, they’re probably going to allow the university to restrict unaffiliated individuals more than affiliated individuals, like students,” Beltz said. “They can’t ban the campus preachers altogether — it’s still a public space — but they may find it reasonable to ask that person to ask for permission to use sound amplification, or to ban it entirely.”

Read the full story online at alestlelive.com.

House votes to over perceived national security threat

CAMELA SHARP reporter

The House of Representatives has passed a bill that marks the first step toward officially banning TikTok to protect the private information of its American users, as the app is owned by Chinese technology firm ByteDance.

The immensely popular app TikTok has evolved from a platform for dance trends to a major source of global information. It has become a source of income for many, a shopping hub and a platform for new talent to be discovered.

Special Issue: The First Amendment

However, it may soon become completely inaccessible in the U.S. due to data concerns.

At the beginning of March, TikTok was flooded with users making videos that featured their reactions to the news and their theories as to why the government really wants to ban TikTok.

The U.S. is not the only

place that has been pondering the restriction of TikTok and battling concerns about exposed data. Europe and Canada have also been considering these issues.

There are concerns that banning TikTok wouldn’t solve the bigger problem causing the exposure of U.S. consumers’ data.

Since the bill that could lead to TikTok’s ban was passed on March 13, the House has presented the owners of TikTok a choice granting them a six-month period to consider their options.

The House’s vote was 35265. Now the bill needs to go through the Senate, and President Joe Biden has agreed to sign it once the bill has passed through Congress.

The night the bill was passed by the House, TikTok’s CEO, Shou Zi Chew, posted a video responding to the news and said that U.S. consumers’ data is safe and that they work hard and with intention to make sure

that everyone’s information is safe. He said that the bill could lead to control being up for grabs for other big companies, users losing billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed Americans.

Some opponents of the law, such as Republican Rep. Tom McClintock, said such an action could lead to “CCP-style oppression” and limit free speech.

Democratic Rep. Jim Himes also said that citizens do not trust their government to decide what media they can and cannot consume.

Users argue that there are multiple other apps that collect important data from U.S. consumers and that data can be sold very easily.

With counter arguments like this surfacing, more question whether the reason behind this ban is truly national security.

Read the full story online at alestlelive.com.

Ava Galban

Audrey O’Renic

RELIGION

OPINION: Separation of church, state is a fundamental right

AUDREY O’RENIC sports editor

Freedom of religion is at the heart of our democracy, and people around the world travel to America to safely practice their religion. However, the lack of clarity in the language of the clause has led to heavy public debate and even damage to society.

Following American independence from Britain in 1776, heavy debate surrounded abolishing the state-established Church of England.

In a 1785 essay, Founding Father James Madison called for church and state to remain separate.

“The religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may

dictate,” Madison said.

Religion cannot be imposed, but rather it is a fundamental human right.

In 1791, the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause was published. The clause states simply, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The clause guarantees freedom by prohibiting the government from establishing a state religion and favoring one religion over any other.

However, the ambiguity of the language used in the first half, known as the Establishment Clause, has led to complex interpretations. While the government cannot endorse a particular religion, questions arise when it comes to government funding of religious institutions

such as schools and hospitals.

In the late 1960s, both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island adopted statutes that provided for the state to pay for aspects of non-secular, non-public education. Alton Lemon, who had a child attending a school in a Pennsylvania district, and other citizens and taxpayers argued that the statutes violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The result was the creation of a three-pronged test called the Lemon Test in 1971. It was used to determine whether or not the government had violated the Establishment Clause. The test says that the statute must have a secular legislative purpose, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither promotes nor inhibits religion and it must not foster “excessive government entangle-

ment with religion.”

Over time, the Lemon Test has been highly criticized and urged for reform in lower courts. Eventually, in the 2022 case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court said it “abandoned Lemon and its endorsement test offshoot” in favor of “an analysis focused on original meaning and history” to ensure the true freedom that the Establishment Clause entails.

However, in November 2023, The Texas Tribune reported that Texas Activist David Barton argued “that the separation between church and state is a myth and that America should be run as a Christian nation.”

The effects of this ideology not only can destroy centuries of work to protect freedoms, but also result in fatal violence, as

seen with the events that transpired in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Following Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 presidential election, a heavily armed mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in frustration. This was not only an attack on the building, but also on democracy itself.

Supporters of a Christian government claimed that “they were engaged in ‘spiritual warfare’ with their political enemies and, thus, extreme and anti-democratic measures were not only necessary, but God-ordained,” The Texas Tribune said.

The violence seen is the very reason why freedom of religion is necessary. It allows pluralism to foster and gives Americans the freedoms they were promised.

Students advocate for religious freedom in schools

MICHAL KATE CASTLEMAN online editor

Freedom of religion is a heavy part of the First Amendment, especially when the country was built on the idea of being free from being told to practice one specific religion. The United States still makes its Christian foundations known with “In God We Trust” on our money and “One nation, under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance.

“The United States was founded on Judeo-Christian values. So, I think it’s fair to have those values expressed in our Constitution,” Squire said. “The separation of church and state is important, though; otherwise there would not be true religious freedom,” SIUE student Evan Squire said.

Squire is a second-year student in the School of Pharmacy. He identifies as a Messianic Jew, someone who practices Judaism but also believes that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

Squire said freedom of religion means that he can practice his religion in a safe manner.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, “The First Amendment undoubtedly protects the rights of houses of worship, homes and businesses to display religious symbols openly and publicly. But when the government erects, funds and displays particular religious monuments, it sends a message that certain faiths are officially preferred over all others. Government-sponsored religious displays thus violate the religious neutrality our Constitution guarantees.”

Along with Christian phrases and values being reflected in the United States, sometimes there is a push for further display. For instance, Oklahoma Rep.

Jim Olsen filed a bill to display the Ten Commandments from the book of Exodus in Oklahoma public schools.

According to the Oklahoma House of Representatives, “House Bill 2962 … would require each classroom to clearly display a poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments, measuring at least 16 inches wide and 20 inches tall, beginning in the 2024-2025 school year.”

Commandments being used as a “code of morality.”

The bill did not pass in Oklahoma. However, the idea of displaying the Ten Commandments or similar religious ideals in public promoted a conversation on if these displays defy the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

The Oklahoma House of Representatives held that Olsen used the Founding Fathers and textbooks from the 1830s to defend the idea of the Ten

Muslim, he is supposed to coexist with people of other religions and faiths.

Odofin-Kamorudeen said placing symbols on walls does not prevent him from practicing his own religion.

Madeline Mintrup, a freshman biology major, said she identifies as a Christian. Mintrup is also a member of Campus Outreach, a Christian organization on campus.

“I don’t think it’s fair [to display the Ten Command-

ments] because a lot of people in a public school aren’t sending their kid to a private school that practices a certain religion. They probably don’t want a certain religion forced upon them,” Mintrup said. “Having something like that displayed is kind of like the public school showing that they support that [religion] in a way, which I don’t necessarily feel is appropriate for a public school.” Abdulsalam Odofin-Kamorudeen is a freshman physics major from Nigeria and a member of the Muslim Student Association. He said that, as a

“I don’t think displaying the Ten Commandments is shoving Christianity down my throat,” he said. “Shoving it down my throat would be telling me I’m not allowed to pray or practice my own religion.”

Michalee Clevenger is a freshman business administration major. She said she identifies as an atheist.

“In a court of law, unless otherwise stated, you swear on a Bible,” Clevenger said. “I think that religious symbolism, and that America was built on the principles of Protestant Christian religions, kind of does seep in today. I see that symbolism more than others, and kind of feel forced on you to have those values be the values to have.”

Clevenger said the country having a “default” religion does suppress other faiths, whether that is the intended side effect or not.

When it comes to public displays of religion, Clevenger said context is important.

“It depends on perspective on what’s going on in the world,” Clevenger said. “If there’s one religion being heavily persecuted, I absolutely understand a building, company or university saying they stand in solidarity with a religious group.”

Clevenger said she appreciates the religious diversity on campus.

“I appreciate religious freedom and letting people explore their options outside of conventional religious beliefs,” she said.

First Amendment on campus:

Does SIUE uphold the right to protest?

AVA GALBAN reporter

Freedom of assembly and protest are fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. On college campuses, freedom of assembly should provide an environment where students can engage in open dialogue, but the rules in place at SIUE can make it difficult to do so.

Protesters use this right to voice their opinions, advocate for social or political change and raise awareness about various issues. It allows citizens to peacefully express dissent, challenge authority and participate in the democratic process.

While the government may impose reasonable restrictions to ensure public safety and order, the essence of freedom of assembly play a prominent role as a cornerstone of democracy, allowing citizens to exercise their rights to free speech and petition the government.

Freedom of assembly on college campuses is often governed by a combination of federal law, state law and university policies. While the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to peacefully assemble, there are certain regulations that may apply to ensure the safety of the campus community.

SIUE’s 2023-2024 Student Code of Conduct says, “Conduct that substantially disrupts or interferes with the orderly functioning of the university, the performance of the duties of university personnel, or other university business or activities, including without limitation, classroom instruction, studying, learning, teaching, research, administration and law enforcement acting in the performance of their duties,” is a violation of the Student Code of Conduct.

While this provision aims to maintain a conducive learning environment, it raises concerns regarding its potential impact on students’ ability to express themselves through protest.

The provision’s language, including terms like “substantially disrupts” and “interferes with,” can be subjectively interpreted, potentially leading to the stifling of legitimate protests based on the discretion of university officials.

Furthermore, students may self-censor or refrain from participating in protests altogether due to fears of disciplinary action, resulting in a chilling effect on free expression.

There’s also the risk that protests could be limited to specific areas or subjected to disproportionate responses by the university, undermining the

principles of free speech and academic freedom.

As such, there’s a growing debate about the balance between maintaining a structured environment and upholding students’ rights to express dissenting viewpoints on campus.

A recent incident in June at the MUC sparked controversy after clerical workers and students were removed ahead of a planned protest. The gathering was prompted by the cancellation of negotiation meetings between the union and the university.

The group was told they were not allowed to protest inside of the MUC. The university cited policies governing expressive activities and building usage, literally highlighting restrictions on actions that interfere with the educational mission.

SIUE’s Policy on Expressive Activity says, “Expressive activities may only be conducted in locations that do not interfere with the educational mission of the university or other university business, as determined by the university.”

The MUC itself states, “The university reserves the right to eject any unruly person or person(s) from the building. This includes but is not limited to: clients, guests, vendors, employees, etc.”

The university additionally implemented a decibel limit in February of this year after instituting a ban on amplification devices in the Quad in November.

Decibel limits refer to the maximum sound levels measured in decibels (dB) that are permitted in a particular area or during a specific activity.

SIUE’s Policy on Expressive Activity says, “To avoid interference with the conduct of University business, the decibel level of the amplification should not exceed 25 dBs (within 10 feet from the source of sound) Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. - 3 p.m., and 50 dBs after 3 p.m. each day of the week.”

These limits are often set by local governments, municipalities or institutions to regulate noise levels and prevent disturbances to the peace and quiet of a community.

As universities navigate these complexities, the principles of the First Amendment remain central to discussions surrounding freedom of assembly and protest on college campuses.

The ongoing dialogue at SIUE reflects broader nationwide conversations about the rights of individuals to express dissenting viewpoints while fostering a safe and inclusive learning environment.

Prepare for the worst when protesting: A list of items and practices to keep you safe

With local, state and federal elections coming up, it is important to understand the risks of protesting and how to deal with them. Below, we have a detailed list of helpful tips, as well as a variety of sources to ensure your safety and success while protesting.

Prepare for law enforcement

Even if the protest you’re attending is low-key, it is important to know your rights and respect everyone present in order to stay safe. While you’re allowed to record police activity, you must leave if you’re ordered to, or else you could be arrested. The National Lawyers Guild has a booklet you can fold up and put in your pocket that details what you should and should not say in case of arrest or police confrontation.

Do your research

Know where you’re going and what you’re supporting. Make sure the leaders prioritize non-violence and practice de-escalation strategies. Before you go, make sure that you feel comfortable complying with the demands that are made of you by protest organizers.

Bring a friend

The buddy system is ingrained in our brains from a young age for a reason. Not only are you safer alongside someone you know, but this person can alert others in case of your arrest, injury or violation of rights.

Be mindful of phone settings

App data and location trackers can lead to later prosecution, so it is advised that you put your phone on airplane mode. Not only do you want to be mindful of your settings, but be aware that even the most peaceful protests can lead to tracking and harassment. Even if you are not involved in violence, keeping your data secure helps continue to keep you safe even after the protest is over.

Pack a bag

Supplies are important in order to keep yourself and others safe. Packing a bag complete with at least three water bottles, various invig- orating snacks and over-the- counter medications, such as ibuprofen, can help sustain the energy of your peers and keep up the energy of the protest. Other important items to include in a bag are extra cash, your own import- ant medications such as inhalers and epipens (as well as period products) and bandages.

Follow an organizer’s lead

Stay vigilant

Respect the leader’s requests and make sure to respect others’ decisions. Be mindful of when to step back and allow others to talk, especially if approached by reporters. When acting or speaking, make sure to keep consequences in mind, as your actions may indirectly cause others harm.

BRUCE DARNELL managing editor

Being able to come together, speak together and protest together is foundational to enact change within the bounds of the law. But what exactly does the First Amendment mean when it says it protects our ability to peacefully assemble?

For starters, the First Amendment makes note of “peaceful assembly” rather than just assembly.

This means that unlawful assembly and rioting, which the Cornell Law School describes as a gathering of three or more that intends to disturb the peace and a gathering that has turned violent respectively, are not protected by the First Amendment.

The most common example of general assembly is a protest.

As long as a protest remains peaceful through means such as marching, picketing or doing sitins, then it is lawful and protected by the First Amendment.

These protections become hazy if the protest is done on private property, so to maintain utmost safety when protesting, it is best to do so on public, state

Dress appropriately

Long sleeves, goggles, gloves and long pants can protect your skin and eyes in case of rubber bullets. Make sure to wear glasses instead of contacts in order to prevent tear gas from getting trapped in your eyes. Dressing appropriately not only keeps you safe from physical harm, but from being identifiable on cam- era and later harassed online.

or federal property, as planned, peaceful protests on these properties are always lawful.

However, if the protest turns violent and becomes a riot, then it is considered unlawful. With that being said, unless you directly participate in violence or are inciting said violence, you are not committing a crime — but this does not entirely protect you from being arrested.

If you are wrongfully arrested during a protest, the American Civil Liberties Union suggests you remain calm, comply for your immediate safety and do not give any details to the police without a lawyer present.

It is important to remember your rights in the event of an arrest, as it can save you from being wrongfully convicted due to statements made or confessions given in a moment of fear.

Rights on assembly also become blurry in times of stress placed on the state.

War often allows rights to be suppressed by using emergency as a justification.

The idea of sedition often presents the strongest threat to the right of assembly. If left undefined or ambiguous, it can result

Even if you’re not escalating the situation, it is important to pay attention to your surroundings. If counter — protestors are frustrating you, make sure to take a moment to breathe and remember that higher emotions equal a higher probability

in the suppression of a country’s entire population — or at least those most desiring of change, such as groups affected by class or racial oppression.

It is also important to remember what was gained through assembly. Most, if not all, labor regulations were gained through labor movements striking and protesting against issues. For each eight-hour work day we experience, workers had to fight for years to guarantee.

Demonstrations and protests played major roles in civil rights movements throughout the 20th century to now, such as the ongoing struggles for women’s suffrage and racial equality.

Assembly can also function on a smaller level. If a town were to ban books, then you could take to the streets with others and voice your discontent until action is taken.

In these times defined by turbulence and uncertainty, it is important to remember one of the most beneficial rights that the First Amendment grants: your right to gather with others and to inform, speak out and demand action against wrongdoings committed by individuals or the state.

Exploring the vital role and limits of freedom of petition in democracy

AVA GALBAN reporter

Freedom of petition is the right to take action against or seek the assistance of the government without fear of punishment. To put it simply, the right to petition is the right to comfortably ask your government to make changes.

This right was born from the grievances outlined against King

Kings Mall v. Wenk

In Kings Mall v. Wenk (2007), Wenk was a veteran who served in the special forces who wanted to speak out against the government’s involvement in Iraq. He did so by protesting in front of a military recruitment base at Kings Mall, which was private property.

George III, some of which included the king not obeying his own laws, preventing the people from establishing their own elected representatives and taxation without consent.

The right to petition allows individuals or special interest groups to advocate for themselves when they feel they have been wronged.

However, there are limitations, such as commercial and

preventing him from exercising his right to speech. However, as Wenk protested on land that was marked private property, the halt to his protest and his arrest was ruled to be constitutional.

McDonald v. Smith

hate speech, protesting on private property and the circulation of false statements.

Despite its importance, this right is one often lost within the First Amendment. As freedom of petition is historically closely related to litigation in court within the Congress, the process of petitioning has almost been forgotten. While its emphasis often lies in court-related matters, it remains integral to the functioning

about Federal Judge David Smith in letters to President Ronald Reagan. Smith sued McDonald for defamation. The courts ruled that though McDonald was complaining to the government, he was not allowed to spread lies and disinformation.

of a healthy democracy and to the concept of freedom of speech. Without it, our ability to advocate and lobby against issues is severely diminished.

Freedom of petition has allowed for advocacy of many complex issues. Here are a few examples.

Meyer v. Grant

After the police received numerous calls from the shopping mall owner and store tenants, Wenk was arrested. It was argued that Wenk was well within his rights to protest and that the court was

In McDonald v. Smith (1985), the Supreme Court established that just because you have the right to complain to the government, doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want without consequences.

Robert McDonald wrote lies

The Supreme Court agreed, arguing that when you slander government official with accusations, you have to be sure it’s true. This case made it clear that your right to complain to the government doesn’t give you a free pass to say whatever you want about officials without proof.

In Meyer v. Grant (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court made a significant ruling against a Colorado law that criminalized paying petition circulators. This law made it a serious offense to compensate individuals who collected signatures for various initiatives, sparking debates about potential violations of First Amendment rights. The Court’s decision underscored the vital role of petition circulation as a form of political speech protected by the Constitution. By

restricting the use of paid circulators, the Colorado law was seen as limiting the reach and impact of political expression.

Despite arguments from the state aimed at ensuring the integrity of the initiative process and preventing fraud, the Court found insufficient grounds for prohibiting paid circulators. This ruling represents a win for advocates of free speech and political engagement, reinforcing the fundamental importance of open public discourse in the American democratic framework.

The petition against injustice that started the Black Lives Matter movement

BRANDI SPANN opinion editor

Following the 2012 murder of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida — and the acquittal of his murderer, George Zimmerman, in 2013 — the Black Lives Matter movement began as a way to organize and show support for the Black community.

Martin was returning home from a convenience store on Feb. 26, 2012 when a volunteer neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman, called 911 to report a “suspicious” person.

The operator urged Zimmerman to stay in his vehicle,

but he disregarded the operator and fatally shot Martin. Claiming self-defense, Zimmerman was released by local police.

A few weeks later, on March 8, Martin’s parents began a petition on Change.org expressing frustration with the Sanford Police’s inaction against Zimmerman, demanding that he be prosecuted. The case garnered national attention. Protests took place all over the country, and the petition accumulated nearly 2.3 million signatures. According to The Guardian, a majority of these signatures were collected within days of the petition’s launch — a record-breaking occurrence for the site.

Where to petition SIUE

Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder on April 11, 2012, but was later found not guilty on July 13 the following year.

In response, Black organizers Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi founded the Black Lives Matter movement. Martin’s murder influenced the intentions of the organization, as the liberation movement is a community-oriented, global platform that works to combat the violence that is weaponized to threaten Black Americans, placing Black joy at the forefront of the mission.

Activist Angela Davis, an advocate for Black liberation, was quoted by The New York Times saying, “I’ve come to the conclusion that our work as activists is always to prepare the next generation … to create new terrains

so that those who come after us will have a better opportunity to get up and engage in even more radical struggles.”

The Pew Research Center conducted a 2023 survey that reported that 51 percent of the American adult population supports Black Lives Matter. The survey found that 7 percent of the population has attended a Black Lives Matter protest.

But the survey also found that “the public is divided on how effective the Black Lives Matter movement has been at bringing attention to racism against Black people in the U.S.”

The results found that Black and Asian adults are most likely to recognize its impact. The organization’s stance against white supremacy resonates with the American people.

The Emeriti Center at the

University of Southern California quoted activist and alum Autumn Gupta, saying, “The Black community cannot do this by themselves. Everyone else has to take it on … This generation cannot do it by ourselves.”

As an intergenerational movement, Black Lives Matter represents the need for systemic changes and reparations that transcend the current moment and are steeped in American history.

By petitioning, Martin’s parents, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, reached an audience of supporters and demanded state action. The evolution of the Black Lives Matter movement continues to honor Trayvon Martin and the innumerable number of Black Americans who have lost their lives to the American justice system.