A woman is led away during the protests Monday, Jan. 20, 2020, in downtown Las Vegas, after activists gathered on Fremont Street to protest two controversial city policies that ban camping downtown. The activists blocked Casino Center Blvd. through the Fremont Experience following a rally at Las Vegas City Hall
On November 6, 2019, the City of Law Vegas’ city government created an ordinance that essentially criminalized ‘willful homelessness’. The law made it punishable by up to six months in jail and up to a $1,000 fine for people to camp or sleep in Downtown Las Vegas, public areas near residential housing (like sidewalks near homes), or near businesses that deal with food like restaurants or convenience stores.
Camping in those areas was made illegal – but only when homeless shelters have beds available. If the homeless people in Las Vegas have beds being offered to them, they can accept them or face penalties that may include a fine of up to $1,000 and up to 6 months in jail. This is why supporters argue the ban is only on ‘willful homelessness’. If the shelters don’t have enough beds,
On January 15, 2020 Las Vegas’ city government passed a second ordinance that expands upon the November 2019 ban on willful homelessness. This expansion ordinance makes it illegal for homeless individuals to camp on any sidewalk when it is scheduled to be cleaned up using city resources.
In response to the expansion-ordinance, over 100 activists swelled the Freemont Street Experience (The FSE) area of Downtown on Monday, January 20, 2020 – Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and a national day of service. In acts of protest, at least 12 individuals out of the 100 attending the protests were arrested for blocking one of the streets along The FSE by setting up tents or laying down on the sidewalk – a clear and intentional violation of the original ordinance (since The FSE is in the heart of downtown).
Today both ordinances are still in place, however the protests drew national and international attention to Las Vegas including coverage by major news outlets like CNN, NPR, USA Today, FOX News, and AP News among others. That coverage also led to members of Las Vegas’ city government receiving criticism and condemnation from nearly all 2020 presidential candidates.
————————– Questions:
1) Why do you agree or disagree with the cause?
2) Why do you agree or disagree with the action?
3) Why do you agree or disagree with the punishment / consequences?
4) What cause – if any – would make you want to knowingly break the law, and why?
5) What are some better courses of action you can think of besides breaking the law in support of a cause you care about, or if you feel there aren’t any, what obstacles would prevent your from engaging in lawful resistance?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
Teachers Fight For Their Rights Meanwhile: Senators on the Run…
because they didn’t want to go to work?!
Protesters including teachers and police officers swell the halls of
the Wisconsin State Capitol building in a 2011 multi-day protest.
One of the largest protest movements of the 2000’s occurred in February 2011 in the state of Wisconsin, and that movement led to some pretty interesting stories including the one you’re going to learn about in this piece: When the state’s democratic senators went on the run from the law… and their own state’s police! That story actually begins in 1959 (don’t worry it’s not too deep a history lesson)…
Basically, in 1959 Wisconsin was the first state in the US to allow public employees (people that are paid for their jobs with money from the state government) to ‘collectively bargain’ – that means they could team up and talk about how much they’d get paid as a group, rather than asking for raises or healthcare from their managers as individuals representing themselves. Ok, now let’s fast-forward to 2008 (yes, it’s still a few years before 2011 , but once again it’s not all that much historical backstory that you’ll need)….
In America during the fall of 2008 , two notable things happened: America elected Barack Obama…and it did it just as the economy was beginning to collapse – an event that would lead to a roughly decade-long period that would come to be known as The Great Recession. That time period was extremely economically challenging for nearly everyone, including government agencies: they had made financial commitments to their employees, but by 2010 they would be running out of money to maintain those commitments because of how the investments they had made were failing.
Ok, so that brings us to Wisconsin in February of 2011. At the time, the state was dealing with some massive budget issues: Without any changes being made, the state government would have more than $1.2 Billion-with-a-B in expenses over several years that it would not have money to pay for. In fact, projections from the office of newly-elected-at-the-time Governor Scott Walker suggested the state would run out of money and be in debt by $137 Million-with-an-M by June of that year!
With just over a month in office, the governor (a republican – which is important to the event) – proposed taking away the government employees’ rights to collectively bargain and insisted that those employees would have to begin receiving less compensation (payment in the form of cash or benefits like health care or retirement savings) immediately. He also said that if his proposal wasn’t approved, thousands of state workers would be fired because there wasn’t enough money to pay them (not because they weren’t good at their jobs). Protests and demonstrations began at the Wisconsin Capitol Building on February 14, 2011 – just as Governor Walker submitted his budget proposal for a vote… By February 20th, 2011 the protests had blown up into a full-blown 24-hours-7-days-a-week occupation! That though.. that is a story for another time.
What concerns this conversation are the events that took place shortly after the occupation began, around February 15: The Wisconsin State Senate had 19 Republicans that supported the Governor’s budget proposal, and 14 Democrats that were completely against it. The Democrats knew they would lose a vote, so they had a better idea: Wisconsin state law did not allow for votes to be held unless 20 state senators were present. Rather than participate in a vote on an issue that deeply concerned them which they knew they would lose, the state senators fled to Illinois! They remained on the run for weeks until March 12, when they finally returned after their absence caused the Republican majority to carve-out the cancellation of collective bargaining rights from the budget proposal. Though the senators couldn’t have been charged with a crime, the state police would have had the right to arrest and detain the senators until the vote had initially taken place.
————————– Questions:
1) Why do you agree or disagree with the cause?
2) Why do you agree or disagree with the action?
3) Why do you agree or disagree with the punishment / consequences?
4) What cause – if any – would make you want to knowingly break the law, and why?
5) What are some better courses of action you can think of besides breaking the law in support of a cause you care about, or if you feel there aren’t any, what obstacles would prevent your from engaging in lawful resistance?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
Freedom for Furry Critters Comes At the
Cost of Convictions for Animal Activists
Mink are tiny little rodent creatures that people murder so they can make clothing out of them.
In October 1997, a roughly-estimated 3,000 mink (tiny rodent creatures with fur that is used for high-end fashion) escaped from a mink ranch. They survived their fate as future fur coats thanks to a 20-foot hole cut in one of the mink-proofed fences around the ranch. The mink didn’t run through that hole though – their liberator, a man named Peter Daniel Young – used it to get to the gates that held the mink in pens. He then opened the gates, freeing the mink to run amok… and to freedom.
Part-owner in the ranch Kelly Turbak explained “We don’t know how many will die, maybe as many as 1,000… Generally they’ll stay pretty close around. They’re domesticated and can’t fend for themselves.”. Less than 24 hours later, more than 1,000 of the furry escapees had been recaptured and once again destined to die on the path to becoming fur coats rather than starving to death outside of the ranch.
A few weeks later, Peter and his co-conspirator Justin Samuel had their car impounded while driving between other farms they were hoping to ‘raid’ (break into and free the animals from). They had been pulled over after their car was called in by other suspicious mink farmers in the area, who had been on high alert.
Eventually in September of 1998, charges would be filed against both Peter Daniel Young and Justin Samuel… but just like the mink they freed, the two of them went on the run….for years! In fact, Peter Young wouldn’t be captured until 2005. After being captured, he was sentenced to serve two years in federal prison, more than $254,000 in fines, and 360 hours of community service benefiting – as the judge said at the time of sentencing- “humans and no other species.”
The trouble wasn’t over for Young even by late 2007 when he was released. Since the act of releasing all the mink racked up a number of state crimes, Young was also faced with a number of state charges before his own ordeal was over including third degree burglary, intentional damage to property and animal enterprise trespass!
————————– Questions:
1. Why do you agree or disagree with the cause?
2. Why do you agree or disagree with the action?
3. Why do you agree or disagree with the punishment / consequences?
4. What cause – if any – would make you want to knowingly break the law, and why?
5. What are some better courses of action you can think of besides breaking the law in support of a cause you care about, or if you feel there aren’t any, what obstacles would prevent your from engaging in lawful resistance?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
U.S. Lawmakers Seek to Criminalize
Boycott Campaign Against Israel
Within the last year, there has been a rise in political speech and activism towards many momentous events, such as North Korean conflict, same-sex marriage, to Twitter going beyond 140 characters! In relation to this article, a group of senators wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the boycott against Israel, resulting in a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.
Why is there a boycott on Israel and why is it becoming an international movement?
According to a Time article, the boycott movement was started by the Israelis-Zionist (a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation, Israel) liberals who support Israel’s existence on land it won in the 1948 war, but with Israel’s occupation in Palestinian territory in 1967, the Israelis wanted to boycott goods produced by Israeli companies (that operate on Palestinian land). Over time, this situation gained different opinions from other countries. Some felt sympathetic towards the Palestinians while others were in favor of Israel.
For more information regarding the history of the Boycott campaign, click here!
Which leads us to the boycott movement today. Around the world, people are expressing their avoidance of Israel and are getting punished for it. For instance, in France, activists have been arrested and prosecuted for wearing T-shirts advocating a boycott of Israel. In the U.K., has enacted a series of measures designed to outlaw such activism. Leading into the United States, U.S. governors are trying to impose strict regulations of any boycotts aimed even at Israeli settlements. In July 2017, a group of senators wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel. But, people have questioned that penalizing boycotting may infringe upon the first amendment’s freedom of speech and protest.
————————– Questions:
1) How does this violate or how does this not violate the right to freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment?
2) How does this violate or how does this not violate the right to freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment?
3) Why do you think boycotting as a form of activism should or should not be a felony offense?
4) Some critics of the attempted boycott ban argued that this type of ban would not be attempted if it was any other nation allied with the United States, and that Jewish and Christian lawmakers have suggested the ban because of religious beliefs rather than out of national security concerns. Remember: the First Amendment suggests there should be some separation of church and state, but how that separation should look has led to many legal battles throughout American history.
With those observations in mind Why do you feel that it is acceptable or unacceptable for lawmakers to make decisions based on their own personal beliefs when serving in government, and
5) How are your feelings (as explained in response to Question 4) supported or not supported by the wording of the First Amendment, and what precedent-setting legal decisions support your response?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
Volunteers Feed The Homeless,
Get Arrested By Police
On January 14th of 2018, 12 people from a volunteer group were arrested for handing out food to the homeless.
To provide some backstory to this situation, a community group called “Break The Ban” were distributing food and other items to the homeless population at a park in California. According to the police officers that arrived, they were violating a ban on sharing food in city-owned public areas, which was recently passed by the City of El Cajon in 2017. The reason for this ban was to stop the spread of Hepatitis A. the police cited some of the volunteers to jail but did not take them. But, for the two volunteers they arrested are scheduled to appear in court. The group was outraged by the act and is planning to fight the citations and the food-sharing ban.
There was another case in which this incident has occurred. According to Forbes, in Fort Lauderdale, police arrested a 90-year old man and two ministers in 2014 for trying to share their food with the homeless. In October of 2014, the city enacted an ordinance that bans sharing food in public parks, unless they have a permit from the city. As a result of this situation, the organization arrested (Food Not Bombs) sued the city of Fort Lauderdale on the basis of the ordinance violated their right to free speech and free association, and the ordinance was “unconstitutionally vague.” At first, a federal district court dismissed the case since food sharing events were outside the scope of the First Amendment since it did not convey a “particularized message.”
But, under that line of reasoning, that sounds like the First Amendment is confined to expressions conveying a particularized message. So, as a result, the case was ruled that Food Not Bombs does have a First Amendment right to share food. The case was sent back down to the lower courts to determine if the city’s ordinance was in violation of those rights. The city of Lauderdale has not responded to the request yet.
————————– Questions:
1) How does the First Amendment apply to these news stories?
2) Why do you feel the ordinance being issued to prevent the spread of Hepatitis A was or was not justified?
3) Are there laws in your community restricting feeding the homeless, if so what are they, how do you feel about there being or not being laws about this activity in your community, and what can you do to support/change those local laws/policies?
4) (High School Students only) Even if you disagree with the policy in this case, imagine that there are some activities that people volunteer for or donate to that are meant to ‘make the world a better place’, but which should be managed or limited by local laws. How should local governments and law makers decide if an activity requires them to get involved in those activities (ex: Should sheltering homeless animals and feeding the homeless face the same kinds of restriction)?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
The First Amendment gives Americans the right to free speech, stating “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.”
The phrase ‘the right of people to peaceably assemble’ may not bring the same heated debates on interpretation as the language in the Second Amendment (the right to ‘bear arms’), however the lack of clarity has been the source of many a legal battle throughout American history. From the students of Kent University being shot at in 1970 to the recent protests over the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), protesters and law enforcement have faced off in situations that have resulted in contested (though often times upheld) arrests.
When protesters turn violent or simply begin to destroy property, law enforcement agencies clearly have a mandate to control the situation. What about when protesters conduct ‘sit-ins’ or temporarily block roads during a protest? On one hand they are interfering with tax-paying citizens’ ability to use the resources they contribute to – What if one of those citizens was you and you were running late to work? On the other hand, they are being peaceful and attempting to exercise their constitutional rights to free speech and assembly to draw attention to a cause that is important to them…and maybe to you!
States across the country are currently putting laws in place to more clearly define these situations on what does and does not fit within the definition of the right to peaceably assemble. These pending laws might be inspiring you to ask a wide variety of great questions!
————————– Questions:
1) If ‘Congress shall make no law’, when states pass these laws restricting / limiting protests, are they legal? Should that be left to the Supreme Court to decide? What should the definition of ‘peaceably assemble’ be?
2) What are three examples of what you believe are reasonable and legal methods of protest?
3) What are three examples of what you believe are unreasonable and illegal methods of protest?
Be sure to provide full explanations for each of your answers. For more details, you can read the article this piece was sourced from here:
My favorite part of the fieldtrip to the courthouse is when I got to play the part of Ron. I got to go on the witness chair and speaking. I helped Potter to be not guilty. Thank you for the great opportunity.
- Johnathan M [Harmon Elementary - Grade 4]
Project Real
2020-12-16T21:47:04+00:00
My favorite part of the fieldtrip to the courthouse is when I got to play the part of Ron. I got to go on the witness chair and speaking. I helped Potter to be not guilty. Thank you for the great opportunity. - Johnathan M [Harmon Elementary - Grade 4]
Thank you for letting us experience court for the first time. It was the best experience ever, thank you for everything. You really made me think about being a judge. Thank you
-Mina L [ Twitchell Elementary - Grade 5]
Project Real
2020-12-16T22:04:09+00:00
Thank you for letting us experience court for the first time. It was the best experience ever, thank you for everything. You really made me think about being a judge. Thank you -Mina L [ Twitchell Elementary - Grade 5]
Thank you for letting us watch the civil case! It was cool because it was a real case and not one played out. I had a lot of fun watching the other kids act out a session. Thank you for your time.
- Kaylie [Hewetson Elementary - Grade 5]
Project Real
2020-12-11T20:39:35+00:00
Thank you for letting us watch the civil case! It was cool because it was a real case and not one played out. I had a lot of fun watching the other kids act out a session. Thank you for your time. - Kaylie [Hewetson Elementary - Grade 5]
