23 views | +0 today
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Mel Mountain Du!

BY 4/16 -- Do Students Still Have Free Speech in School?

BY 4/16 -- Do Students Still Have Free Speech in School? | Mel's BHS GOPO |
Social media has eroded young people's privacy—and advocates are trying to win it back.
Mel Mountain Du's insight:

Personally, I would argue that this is an infringement upon 1st amendment rights. Even if there is a contract. Because of course, contracts with minors are null and void, if not usually illegal. Tinker v.s. Des Moines should be upheld. The technology has changed. Civil rights have not. Instead, there should be "Cyber Education" from a young age, teaching how to have a healthy relationship with technology and online media.

Connor Carter's curator insight, April 16, 2014 2:05 AM

I believe that students still have freedom of speech, and there are only instances that may impact one's freedom of speech in cases where school officials/administrators are impacted. When student's protest their right to speech and also try to receive discipline and instruction from teachers and parents, it is difficult to pair the two. Kids should not be able to say anything they want, therefore I think it is the school's responsibility to censor some occurrences of harsh behavior as part of their role to teach children to be respectable. It is a difficult case nonetheless. 

Andy Nguyen's curator insight, April 16, 2014 4:26 AM

With students becoming more active nowadays on social media, the school administration obviously cannot control what they can't or can post online. While I agree that students should be able to freely express themselves online, I also believe that students cannot post comments that could be considered bullying of people especially teachers and students. But the question still remains: who should regulate these comments? This puts us in an awful predicament. We must find a middle ground in order for this technology age to successfully propagate.. 

Weiyi Wang's curator insight, April 16, 2014 11:57 PM

I think students should be able to say whatever they want as long as it's within reasonable bounds. This is what the first amendment says after all. No one has the right to limit or take away this privilege. The internet has extended free speech far beyond anything that can be controlled anyways. Imagine how much manpower and money would go into censoring the billions of student online interactions. It is up to the students to determine how to properly and safely exercise their first amendment rights.

Rescooped by Mel Mountain Du from AP Government & Politics!

BY 4/3 -- At 49 Percent Support, Obamacare Hits a High (Includes PDF with full poll results, charts and tables)

BY 4/3 -- At 49 Percent Support, Obamacare Hits a High (Includes PDF with full poll results, charts and tables) | Mel's BHS GOPO |

 Public support for the Affordable Care Act narrowly notched a new high in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, while criticism of Barack Obama’s handling of the law’s rollout – although still substantial – has eased from its peak last fall. Views hardly are enthusiastic: With the year’s sign-up deadline upon us, Americans split on Obamacare, 49 percent in support, 48 percent opposed. But that compares with a 40-57 percent negative rating after the initial failure of the federal enrollment website last November. See PDF with full results, charts and tables here. While still shy of a majority, 49 percent…

Via Teresa Herrin
Mel Mountain Du's insight:
Recovering from a low of 40% following the failure, the Affordable Care Act has reached a new high of 49%, just above the 48% opposed. Even Republicans and Conservatives have decreased their opposition. However, with a sample of only 1000, and an error of 3.5 points, I would question the accuracy of this poll.
Matt Philipps's curator insight, April 4, 2014 12:36 AM

This article talks about the growth for support of obamacare. It shows the shift since after the website crashed. While there may be polls that show growth, I don't believe there has been much change. 

Kevin Suazo's curator insight, April 4, 2014 12:51 AM

1. 49% of Americans are in support of Obamacare while 48% remained opposed to it make this rating the highest one to date. Obama continues to receive criticism for the laws implementation.Views on the law have shifted disproportionately among conservatives.

2.The shift within the conservatives is very surprising to me especially the 10 points among strong conservatives and the  8 points among conservative Republicans. I think this shift is a definite plus for Obama and that he's making decent progress. 

Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 10:23 AM

President Obama is making a very good move in trying to create more support for the "Affordable Care Act" by trying to gain young support. By going to shows like "Between Two Ferns" President Obama gained the support he would need to reach the 7 million Americans he would need. 

Scooped by Mel Mountain Du!

BY 4/3 -- Obama's Tuesday's Address about ACA Enrollments (NBC News Video)

BY 4/3 -- Obama's Tuesday's Address about ACA Enrollments (NBC News Video) | Mel's BHS GOPO |
Watch the latest news videos and episodes of the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. - NBC News
Mel Mountain Du's insight:

With 7.1 million sign-ups at, it appears that Obama is recovering from his disastrous opening. It is still unclear if enough young, healthy people have signed up, in order to balance the healthcare budget. What he really needs now, though, is Democratic support.

Henry's curator insight, April 4, 2014 5:02 PM

There are still questionable issues to be addressed concerning Obamacare and bashing at the Republicans will not solve anything, but instead make more enemies. I think it's too early to conclude whether or not Obamacare is a success.

Colin Shi's curator insight, April 4, 2014 11:34 PM

At this moment, president Obama is extremely pleased about the progress in the Affordability Care Act since last October. More than 7 million have signed up, and many problems, both technical and logistical, have been diagnosed since the launch. Obama sees this progress positively and accuses Republicans for obstructing progress, that history only remembers those who promote progress. Obama, like any politician, but remain confident in his own agenda, even though he may know the program is overly complicated, and has a huge potential for chaos in the coming years.

Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 10:32 AM

Healthcare is a basic human right guaranteed by the United Nation's Deceleration of Human Rights. At the point that the United States is one of the only developed nations in the world that doesn't have a universal healthcare system, the 3 million people that got Medicare through Obamacare allows the US to reach this goal.

Scooped by Mel Mountain Du!

BY 4/3 -- READ SCOOP INSTRUCTIONS BELOW -- Death of the White House Press Corps

BY 4/3 -- READ SCOOP INSTRUCTIONS BELOW -- Death of the White House Press Corps | Mel's BHS GOPO |
With a Twitter-savvy president and their own ailing media companies, Lloyd Grove finds the boys in the briefing room more depressed than ever.
Mel Mountain Du's insight:

1. 4/3/14

2. Media correspondents and journalists deployed in the White House who's job is to cover events and announcements by the POTUS.

3. A filterless Presidency is when the Whitehouse can directly communicate with the public without a 3rd party in media.

4. Obama currently has 42.3 million Twitter followers, and 39 Million Facebook Followers.

5.The Author's concern is that the Press Corp's niche is dissapearing due to social Media such as Twitter and Facebook. This means that the President can dictate the direction of the conversation, instead of being asked questions by the media. The author fears that this will lead to the President becoming too favorably viewed and unquestioned.

6. I am a (2), only somewhat concerned. A very large part of Obama's appeal is his charisma. The Press Corp will be the most upset about it, and that is fine by me. I believe this will at least be positive in the sense that the President will have a more personal dialogue with the American Public. This is an adaptation of the Obama Administration to keep up with the times.

Henry's comment, April 4, 2014 11:03 PM
1. 4/3/2010<br>2. The press corps are the media correspondents of the White House.<br>3. The media can have access to the President and nothing is filtered to the citizens.<br>4. 39 million twitter, 19 million facebook followers.<br>5. He seems shocked by the impact of technology. The citizens use phones to get updated on current political issues. The author is worried that jouralism is going on a downfall due to the advanced technology nowadays.<br>6. I think the easier the access, the better and more efficient it will be for the people. Technology is advancing day by day and there is no problem with using simple technology for people to access information more easily.<br>
Colin Shi's curator insight, April 4, 2014 11:09 PM

1. April 3, 2010

2. The white house press corps is the group in charge of media coverage of the president, that interprets and presents the president's image to the public.

3. The president can directly present himself to the public without a middleman that filters and interprets the information.

4. 42.4 million followers on Twitter, 39 million likes on facebook

5. The author is concerned that the job of the white house press corps is going obsolete. This trend may have significant consequences because the president will likely present himself with a personal bias, sometimes even called a "hagiography". Not having press conferences also presents a problem because it will no longer give the public a clear picture of the president.

6. I am pretty concerned about an age in which the president is able to present himself freely to the public. I feel that the president's use of social media outlets to communicate often gives us an attitude of insincerity. With this lack of professionalism, traditional values unravel, and the general public loses trust in the president. One may argue that the media filter distorts his message, but provided that they have reliable expertise, they should still be able to do the job better than the president himself. Although bias is prevalent regardless of who presents the president in the media, having an outside source should mitigate bias to some extent. Score: 3.

Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 11:10 AM

1. 04.03.10

2. Members of President Obama's staff that would typically cover his actions and deal with public relations

3. A Presidency where there is an unprecedented level of transparency

4. Facebook: 39,767,002

Twitter: 42.4M

5. President Obama is a unique President in how he addressed social media. Not only does he want to a lot of PR himself, but this puts his Press Corps  in danger. He strays away from the norm of other presidents.

6. (1) President Obama was elected for his first term for his connection that he made with the youth. Not only was he able to have the youth come out and vote, although they typically wouldn't, but he also gained the support of African Americans to vote as well. This is extremely strategic in how he was first elected. This trait if being personable is a trait that wouldn't necessarily be something needed by other Presidents, thus the need for the Press Corps to exist. However just because they roles and jobs may be in danger doesn't mean that any concern should exist. 

Rescooped by Mel Mountain Du from AP Government & Politics!

Feinstein Is Right. The CIA’s Out of Control.

Feinstein Is Right. The CIA’s Out of Control. | Mel's BHS GOPO |
Five years of frustration boiled over when Sen. Dianne Feinstein flayed the CIA on the Senate floor Tuesday. She accused the agency of lying, cheating and stealing to block a 6,300-page report on the CIA’s secret prisons and torture from seeing the light of day. In essence, she said, the CIA was spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s...

Via Teresa Herrin
Mel Mountain Du's insight:
Dianne Feinstein is a Democrat, and the senior United States Senator from the state of California. Feinstein has accused the CIA of spying on the US Congress' electronic data, and lying about it. It is newsworthy because Feinstein is a strong supporter of the CIA, and is also partly responsible for oversight of it. My opinion is that she is being hypocritical because she supports the CIA spying on other citizens, just not her or other politicians.
Laura Ojinnaka's curator insight, March 18, 2014 10:13 PM

Senator Feinstein is a democratic senator from California and the head of the intelligence committee. She is accusing the CIA of criminal activity in improperly searching a computer network set up for lawmakers investigating allegations that the agency used torture in terror investigations.

This is newsworthy because the CIA is over stepping their boundaries, and engaging in illegal behavior.

I agree with the senator and believe that Senate committee should have access to the CIA's files, if they are indeed committing crimes, and should be monitored. 

carly johnson's curator insight, March 22, 2014 10:47 PM

Feinstein is a senator to California and has led the intelligence committee for 5 years. She claims that CIA agents have been spying on hearings and going through their files. She believes they are using this to cover up things that they have done. Accusing the CIA of this is a big accusation, so the media is widely covering this. This could cause a big investigation, and regulations to be changed. I think when the government starts spying on itself to cover things up that the deceit and spying has gone too far. The CIA should be investigated and be held accountable.

Tiffany Sabbaghi's curator insight, March 23, 2014 3:47 PM

(Absent on 3/13 and 3/14)

Senator Feinstein is the senior United States Senator from California and member of the democratic party, she is also head of the intelligence committee. 

She has accused the CIA of lying, cheating, and also stealing to block 6300 page report on the CIA's secret prisons and torture. She has said that the agency is guilty of spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee's staff in order to cover it's own misdeeds.

This information is newsworthy because of the fact that President Barack Obama banned the prisons due to the torture. According to her, they are essentially breaking the law and working on their own agenda.

I think that Senator Feinstein is doing the right thing by exploiting the actions of the CIA, since their tactics of getting information has always been controversial due to all the senseless torturing and spying. I think she is doing her part in trying to protect her constituents. 

Scooped by Mel Mountain Du!

BY 4/3 -- Supreme Court strikes down limits on campaign donations

BY 4/3 -- Supreme Court strikes down limits on campaign donations | Mel's BHS GOPO |
A split Supreme Court Wednesday strikes down limits on the total amount of money an individual may spend on political candidates, parties and political action committees but keeps limits per candidate and per committee.
Henry's comment, April 2, 2014 5:01 PM
I would agree with McCutcheon because an individual should have the right to donate as much money as they want to candidates that they support and shouldn't be limited to it. Limiting them to a certain amount of donation violates the first amendment of freedom of speech and I totally hella against that.
Colin Shi's curator insight, April 2, 2014 7:26 PM

I agree with McCutcheon's decision to donate as much as he wants because this is a completely legitimate way to show support for a candidate. The donation amounts are all public information, so it's not like this is illegal activity. The amount you give is proportional to the amount of support you have, although there could be given limitations of financial resources for some candidates. 

Benjamin Dischinger's curator insight, April 3, 2014 10:28 PM

I feel that there should not be any limits set on the amount of money one person can give because when it comes down to it, money plays an important part in the game of politics, but in the end it's not the money that wins elections. What wins elections is the drive of the candidates to make a better place for their constituents and their non-constituents alike. 

Scooped by Mel Mountain Du!

BY 4/3 -- Everything you need to know about McCutcheon v. FEC

BY 4/3 -- Everything you need to know about McCutcheon v. FEC | Mel's BHS GOPO |
A giant campaign finance case gets decided.
Mel Mountain Du's insight:

McCutcheon says laws setting donation limits are a violation of the First Amendment: Free Speech and Expression. Backed by the Republican National Committee, he opposes the notion the FEC argues, that the laws are there to protect against corruption. This may very well be the next Citizens United.

Benjamin Dischinger's curator insight, April 3, 2014 10:36 PM

If the Supreme Court abolishes limits set on campaign contributions, essentially everyone who has the funds to do so will be part of a giant Super-PAC. That PAC being themselves alone because they can donate as much as they want to whomever they want, thus making Super-PAC's obsolete and making more candidates happy. 

Liang Xiao's curator insight, April 4, 2014 12:12 AM

The case is about the Campaign donation limitation. People can only donate limit amount of money for certain candidate right now, which around $2500. McCutcheon, a business man stated that the limitation of campaign donation was violation to the first Amendment, which about the free expression. He said that donation was part of people's right of expressing. For my own opnions, I don't support the idea which take out the limitation of donation. It will increase the power of rich, which they can be more influential than weak. I think it break the balance between people.

Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 10:28 AM

After having a debate topic on the implications of Citizens United v FCC last January on the impacts of political process, a similar court case intrigues me. While I feel like the implications of Citizens United v FCC gave more ground and power in regards to the wealthy having power.

Rescooped by Mel Mountain Du from AP Government & Politics!

BY 4/3 -- 5 celebs who sold Obamacare best

BY 4/3 -- 5 celebs who sold Obamacare best | Mel's BHS GOPO |
The White House has recruited more than 40 celebrities, and some of their moms, to encourage Americans to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. These celebs sold it best.

Via Teresa Herrin
Mel Mountain Du's insight:

This is a very intelligent and effective way for the President to endorse and the Affordable Care Act, as well as gain the public's admiration. This reaches out to the young demographic, especially.

Paul Nguyen's curator insight, April 4, 2014 1:46 AM

Advertising his website by interacting celebrities which makes Obamacare act more relatable to the public. The general public finds much interest in celebrities and famous people in the entertainment business, so conversing with these celebrities will help make the website more appealing.  

Colin Shi's curator insight, April 5, 2014 4:23 PM

These five celebrities have successfully promoted the Affordable Care Act. While effective, these means are often frowned upon because they seem more like doing a commercial for a piece of government legislation, and should be counted as propaganda. You should be going for the product, not the celebrity name.

Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 10:53 AM

President Obama's attempt to gain support for the ACA by having famous celebrities like Ellen and Jennifer Hudson support it, help the ACA reach its goal. As the younger generation would be the population that would pay the most in the system for the proportion that they take out, then President Obama aiming to have the younger generation join with the support of celebrities is very strategic.

Rescooped by Mel Mountain Du from AP Government & Politics!

Edward Snowden looms over Pulitzer Prizes

Edward Snowden looms over Pulitzer Prizes | Mel's BHS GOPO |
Next month, the trustees who oversee America’s most distinguished journalistic award could face their toughest decision in at least four decades. The issue before the Pulitzer Prize Board: Does it honor reporting by The Washington Post and The Guardian based on stolen government documents that are arguably detrimental to the national security...

Via Teresa Herrin
Mel Mountain Du's insight:
In my opinion, Edward Snowden the whistleblower is something of an American hero. He raised concerns through the proper channels and to the administration numerous times, always being ignored. I also find it very cool that he spoke at South X Southwest, one of the biggest festivals in the world, right here in Texas. It is also interesting that he is still stuck taking asylum in Russia, with all of the Ukraine and Crimea controversy. In any case, I believe that Snowden deserves the Pulitzer prize.
Laura Ojinnaka's curator insight, March 18, 2014 9:59 PM

Edward Snowden is a government contractor that worked at an NSA center. He was a three-month employee of a government consulting firm, Booz Allen Hamilton. His controversy was that he leaked information regarding top-secret government surveillance programs. He leaked National Security Agency (NSA) documents to The Guardian and The Washington Post regarding top-secret government surveillance programs.

carly johnson's curator insight, March 21, 2014 5:04 PM

Snowden revealed many of the NSA's documents to the media and other countries. He was charged with stealing government property and basically treason, because he revealed information to other countries. He was in another country when he was found out and has been in Russia on a one year asylum. Many americans view him as a traitor while others view him as a hero. Some think that the people had a right to know what he has disclosed and the government shouldn't of hid it. 

Tiffany Sabbaghi's curator insight, March 23, 2014 3:29 PM

(Absent on 3/13 and 3/14)

Edward Snowden is known for being an American computer specialist and the former employee of the CIA, as well as a former contractor for the NSA. He became "famous" for disclosing extremely classified documents to other media outlets. The documents he leaked revealed classified details of global surveillance programs run by the NSA. The controversy surrounding Edward Snowden concerns whether what he did was right or wrong and whether the issue of national security vs. information privacy is taken into account and if he should get punished, even though he has been charged.