Monthly Archives: July 2017

Why Did a UCLA Instructor With a Popular Free-Speech Course … – The Chronicle of Higher Education

Posted: July 2, 2017 at 8:58 am

Keith Fink, an adjunct who teaches a UCLA course on campus free speech, says even though his students love him, top administrators couldnt stand the fact that he criticized them in the classroom. His department leaders say hes not as good a teacher as he thinks he is.

But according to Mr. Fink, the tale is far more troubling. Mr. Fink, a conservative, says he was pushed out in large part because of his political beliefs and because one of the courses he taught a popular class on campus free speech dared to criticize UCLAs own actions.

With campus free speech emerging as a hot-button national issue, Mr. Finks continuing struggle with his university has struck a chord. Campus Reform, the conservative news outlet, has championed him in a series of articles; Tucker Carlson, the Fox News host who regularly rails against campus liberalism, has made him a guest.

On Tuesday, June 27, Mr. Fink received a letter from Laura E. Gmez, interim dean of the College Division of Social Sciences, informing him that he would no longer be employed at UCLA once his contract ended, on June 30. "After a thoughtful and comprehensive academic review, it has been determined that your teaching does not meet the standard of excellence," Ms. Gmez wrote. (She did not respond to a request for comment from The Chronicle.)

The letter marked the latest development in a monthslong saga pitting Mr. Fink against several administrators: Ms. Gmez; Kerri L. Johnson, chair of the communication-studies department; and Greg Bryant, the departments vice chair.

Keith A. Fink and Associates

Keith Fink: "The fact that I use current events at UCLA as teaching examples to illustrate free-speech principles likely bothers the administration, often because their campuswide emails run afoul of the First Amendment and directly or indirectly trample on students free-speech rights."

"The fact that I use current events at UCLA as teaching examples to illustrate free-speech principles likely bothers the administration, often because their campuswide emails run afoul of the First Amendment and directly or indirectly trample on students free-speech rights," said Mr. Fink, who was out of the country and responded to questions by email.

He has drawn the ire of administrators in other ways, too, he said. According to Mr. Fink, his conservative political beliefs have always been at odds with those of most other people on the campus. And then there was his lawyerly campus activism: On occasion he has assisted UCLA students who faced campus disciplinary or legal proceedings.

Past department leaders had supported him and "thwarted off attempts by the school to undermine or fire me," Mr. Fink said.

In July 2016, Ms. Johnson became department chair. She said she couldnt speak for her predecessors, but stressed that "in no way has Mr. Finks politics been part of any classroom decision or any academic-personnel decision."

"As a top research university in the United States," she said, "we value and celebrate a diversity of opinion."

The trouble began in January, when Mr. Fink was scheduled to teach his campus free-speech course, a popular class that frequently filled up a large lecture hall. (UCLAs academic calendar is divided into four quarters, and January marked the start of the winter quarter.)

Ms. Johnson also told him his spring-term class had been moved into a smaller lecture hall, with only 170 seats, Mr. Fink said. She "offered no concrete explanation" for the changes, he said.

Ms. Johnson disputes all of that. She said the size of the free-speech class "was not changed from his prior enrollments." Mr. Fink had asked that his course be expanded, she said, but she had decided not to increase the size of any of the departments courses until she could review them individually.

Given that he had only one teaching assistant, 200 students was already more than ideal, Ms. Johnson said, adding that she wasnt involved in the decision to move his spring-quarter course to a different room.

In the meantime, starting during the winter term, Mr. Fink was subject to a review that all lecturers go through after theyve taught for 18 quarters. Faculty members who pass the review which involves an evaluation and a vote by their departments tenure-stream faculty members, and a final decision by the colleges dean are promoted to "continuing lecturer."

Mr. Fink had concerns about the process from the beginning. He said he had been asked to provide a list of people he believed should be excluded from the process because they couldnt objectively evaluate his teaching. He named Ms. Gmez and Ms. Johnson, his own chair, because they had tried "to arbitrarily reduce my class size." He added that Ms. Johnson disliked him and his political views.

He also named Mr. Bryant, the vice chair, as well as several other administrators and "all faculty members" in eight departments and programs across the university, including the departments of African-American studies, Asian-American studies, and gender studies.

The list was advisory, not binding, Ms. Johnson said. Also, she said, she didnt learn of Mr. Finks political affiliation until after she had decided not to increase the course size. Mr. Fink then wrote her an email saying he felt he was being targeted because of his conservative views. "Ive never told him what my politics are," she said.

He's never come to any meeting or any function that we've ever had. Nobody knows him.

Mr. Bryant sat in on Mr. Finks campus free-speech course nevertheless and wrote an evaluation. "I didnt want to write the letter," the professor said, "but a lot of people said no" to the task.

The evaluation "was riddled with lies and misrepresentations," according to Mr. Fink. He said Mr. Bryant had taken issue with his decision to single out particular students, saying that doing so created an unwelcoming learning environment.

Mr. Fink provided The Chronicle with declarations from two students in which they said they had developed close relationships with the faculty member and had no problem being identified one as a member of the campus Republican club, the other as a reporter and columnist for the student newspaper.

But thats not why the class was unwelcoming, Mr. Bryant said. "He makes students uncomfortable to talk because hes pretty aggressive back to them" if he disagrees with their point of view, he said. And Mr. Finks use of the discussion-based Socratic method in a large lecture hall "doesnt really work," Mr. Bryant said.

He was pushing his own views harder than I think he should.

"I believe Mr. Fink clearly has a right to express those views, especially in a class on the topic of free speech," he wrote in the evaluation, "but as a teaching technique, I feel like the more he belabors his points about UCLA in particular, the more he undermines his credibility and objectivity as an instructor."

Mr. Fink acknowledged that his provocative style might feel intimidating to some students. "But a university shouldnt be a safe space," he said.

Student evaluations of the free-speech course Mr. Fink taught this year provided by Andrew Litt, a recent UCLA School of Law graduate who served as Mr. Finks teaching assistant for two years and worked in his law firm mostly paint a picture of Mr. Fink as an engaging teacher and his course as stimulating and interesting.

This class was the best class I have taken at UCLA.

The departments final report, provided by Mr. Litt, stated that the review "skewed toward a favorable view of Mr. Finks teaching effectiveness," but said faculty members had raised concerns "about the climate fostered within the classroom" and the rigor of his assessments.

He's a good speaker, but that's not all it takes.

Ultimately, the nine voting faculty members deadlocked: Three voted to promote him to continuing lecturer, three voted not to, and three abstained. Ms. Gmez, the interim dean, then declined to promote him.

"The bar is incredibly high," Ms. Johnson said of the review. There is another lecturer in the department who is well qualified to teach a course on campus free speech and may do so in the future, she added.

Mr. Litt didnt believe the review process had been fair: "If you look at his record within the department, its very difficult, if not impossible, to make credible arguments that hes not excellent."

Mr. Fink said he may teach at another institution in the future, but in the meantime he is working with the universitys faculty union to file a grievance. He also plans to establish a nonprofit group that will provide free legal services to UCLA students and professors who feel their rights have been violated.

The spat illustrates what Mr. Fink describes as an intolerant culture at the university. "UCLA pays lip service to the notions of academic freedom and viewpoint diversity," he said, "but theres an implied understanding among the schools leaders that this really only applies if your views align with theirs."

That message has spread thanks to a steady stream of reports by Campus Reform, which has chronicled each step of the saga. A sample of the eight articles the website has published about Mr. Finks situation includes "UCLA still targeting conservative profs free speech course," "Conservative prof subject to biased review committee," and now "UCLA fires Fink with little explanation."

UCLAs administrators said the outrage is much ado about nothing. Mr. Finks case was "handled by the book," Mr. Bryant countered, and his views were not an issue. "My personal opinion about free speech is actually similar to his," he said.

"He just cant believe that people would not think hes an excellent teacher based on the reviews of students," Mr. Bryant added. "Theres more to it than what the students think."

Sarah Brown writes about a range of higher-education topics, including sexual assault, race on campus, and Greek life. Follow her on Twitter @Brown_e_Points, or email her at sarah.brown@chronicle.com.

Read more:
Why Did a UCLA Instructor With a Popular Free-Speech Course ... - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Why Did a UCLA Instructor With a Popular Free-Speech Course … – The Chronicle of Higher Education

Freedom of speech includes undesired and offensive – The Bozeman Daily Chronicle

Posted: at 8:58 am

The right to freedom of speech set forth in the First Amendment to the Constitution is being abridged by those who favor restricted speech, which allows one to say only that which they agree with.

We are experiencing a profound shift in our political culture, resulting in more and more persons with this view of the freedom of speech.

Since the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court, which restored free speech rights to millions of Americans by allowing non-profits and corporations to speak freely in the public arena, those who believe in restrictions now find it harder and harder to win policy arguments. Instead, they are beginning to operate under a new strategy, to threaten, harass and intimidate opponents to silence them, and to see that those who exercise their constitutional right to free speech will pay politically and personally.

Some examples are: The IRS targeting conservative non-profits; prosecutors abusing their powers to silence political opponents; activist groups using blackmail in the form of running campaigns against donors, corporations and businesses; and higher learning schools prohibiting conservative speakers.

This new strategy is not only generating a belief that those with a retrograde view have no rights, but is also turning those who exercise it from opponents into oppressors, who are more and more resorting to violence.

Undesired and offensive speech should be confronted with logic and better reasoning, without fear of retaliation or the need for societal sanction.

The liberty of freedom of speech can be better protected by more voices, not fewer.

Read the rest here:
Freedom of speech includes undesired and offensive - The Bozeman Daily Chronicle

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Freedom of speech includes undesired and offensive – The Bozeman Daily Chronicle

Rep. Dave Murphy: Free speech includes right to be heard | Column … – Madison.com

Posted: at 8:58 am

GREENVILLE After a lengthy debate, the state Assembly recently adopted the Campus Free Speech Act. The bill, which I co-authored with Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum, and Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, will defend free speech on University of Wisconsin System campuses, and I hope the state Senate adopts it soon.

Defending free speech requires more of us than letting folks see who can shout the loudest. No freedom exists without responsibility. The freedom of speech is tied to the responsibility of letting others speak freely. Without the ability to be heard, without the ability to communicate, free speech is meaningless. Free speech includes the right to not be silenced not by the state, not by the state university, not by a mob, and not by an individual.

Nowhere is it more important to uphold the right to free speech than at our public universities. Nationally, we are witnessing disruptions in response to disagreeable speech. Some may say free speech isnt threatened here in Wisconsin. I say its never too early to preserve such an important right.

This is Wisconsin after all, and here in Wisconsin we dont wait until after a disaster to act. Wisconsin must continue to be on the forefront of protecting the right to speak, and the right to be heard.

Our public universities were established to discover and disseminate knowledge. This is only possible when controversial ideas can be freely expressed. College is not an extension of high school. A university is where truth is discovered and where decisions have real consequences.

A lot of people refer to college students as kids. But theyre not kids. Theyre adults. They used to be kids, and during that time they werent held responsible the way adults are. But college students are adults, and universities shouldnt coddle them. Its time that universities hold these adults responsible for their actions.

If someone is silenced on one of our campuses, Assembly Bill 299 provides them with clear legal recourse and clarity about how they can uphold their constitutional right to free speech. Everything in the bill is constitutional. In fact, it upholds the values of the First Amendment: allowing individuals to speak in a time, place, and manner where their voices can be heard.

Not only does a speaker have a right to be speak, but an audience has a right to hear the speech they came to see. This is especially true for students and their families who are paying so much for their time at a university.

Disrupting free speech is unconstitutional. Disruption is not speech. Disruption isnt protest. Disruption is theft. Its theft of another persons right to speak and be heard.

Im sure youll hear claims this bill protects so-called provocateurs. Well, this bill does protect them. Who decides who a provocateur is anyway? This bill protects provocateurs, professors, protesters and every other member of the public from being shut down by mob rule.

This bill sends the unmistakable message that Wisconsin values speech. Its a signal to people of all political leanings that they are welcome at our universities. The bill makes clear to students, faculty and visitors alike that silencing others is never an appropriate response to speech you dont like. Shouting down a person isnt the answer to speech you disagree with.

The free exchange of ideas must be at the core of a democratic society and a university education. Sunshine is the only disinfectant of bad ideas not silence, and not disruption. The process for enforcing speech policies on our college campuses will be dragged out into this light, ensuring fair and consistent application of the rules.

At orientation, students will learn about the importance of freedom of expression, which includes the right to speak and the responsibility to not silence others speech. New employees will receive information about freedom of expression. Instructors will receive an annual refresher on how to uphold free speech.

The bill protects the university from the type of mob thinking that has endangered so many other places. I dont know any elected officials who oppose free speech. How could we? Our jobs require us every day to enable speech, exercise speech, and honor free speech.

The UW Board of Regents has shown great leadership in adopting policies to protect freedom of expression. This bill backs up their initiative with the power of the law. It sends an important message that when university administrators take action to protect the free exercise of speech, those administrators will have the law squarely in their corner.

The enactment of this bill will ensure that Wisconsin citizens will never decline to speak up for fear of being shouted down on one of our college campuses.

Murphy, R-Greenville, represents the 56th Assembly District, including parts of Winneconne and Appleton: Rep.Murphy@legis.wisconsin.gov. This column was part of his Assembly floor speech on the Campus Free Speech Act he supports.

See the rest here:
Rep. Dave Murphy: Free speech includes right to be heard | Column ... - Madison.com

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Rep. Dave Murphy: Free speech includes right to be heard | Column … – Madison.com

John Hood: State universities advance free speech – Winston-Salem Journal

Posted: at 8:58 am

RALEIGH A couple of months ago, I wrote a column that outlined emerging threats to freedom of speech on college campuses and noted with alarm that few of North Carolinas public or private universities had taken the necessary steps to ensure even a basic level of protection for students, faculty and visiting speakers.

I am pleased to report that the situation has improved significantly since I wrote that earlier piece. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) assesses the rules and procedures that protect, or fail to protect, free speech on campus. Just a few months ago, only one of the campuses in the University of North Carolina system Chapel Hill was given a green light in FIREs rating system. Most received yellow lights, while four campuses got red lights for failing to provide meaningful protections.

Several UNC campuses contacted FIRE to find out what they needed to do to address the problem, and then took action to remove their intrusive speech codes. As of late June, only one institution in the system, the UNC School of the Arts in Winston-Salem, still has a red-light designation.

Five campuses UNC-Chapel Hill, UNC-Greensboro, UNC-Charlotte, North Carolina Central, and East Carolina now have green lights. Thats fantastic! The other 10 universities are rated yellow, which in a couple of cases is still an improvement.

Among private campuses in North Carolina, the free-speech leader is Duke University, with a green light. On the other end of the spectrum, Wake Forest University and Davidson College are blinking red. While First Amendment protections of freedom of speech, press and assembly dont apply to private campuses, they should champion such practices as forming the core element of a truly liberal education.

North Carolina now leads the nation in the number of higher education institutions receiving FIREs top rating. North Carolinians who treasure free expression should be proud of this progress even as we continue to press other institutions to follow suit.

Why pay so much attention to this issue? Unless you are a professor, a student or a family member of either, you may not see free speech on campus as critical. But its related to a broader phenomenon that youve surely noticed and that may be affecting you more directly the decline of civil, constructive dialogue across political difference.

To recognize the right of someone else to express a controversial point of view is not necessarily to endorse that view. To place a high value on the free exchange of ideas is not necessarily to place a high value on all of the ideas being exchanged, or to place a high level of trust or confidence in the individuals expressing those ideas.

There are at least two core arguments for freedom of speech. One is that we all have inherent rights as human beings to say (and do) whatever we please as long as we dont violate the equal rights of others to say (and do) the same. The other, more consequentialist, argument is that if we allow and foster an unencumbered exchange of views, the marketplace of ideas will sort itself out over time and provide us with better answers to important questions than we could ever get by constraining the debate.

The first argument only applies to government policy. That is, in a free society no politician or bureaucrat has the legitimate power to suppress the views of others through such means as fines or imprisonment. If you come on my property and start yelling at me about Medicaid expansion or whatnot, I can have you ejected. But if you stand on your own property and yell at me, or use private means to communicate your views through spoken or printed word, my only recourses are to answer or ignore you.

The consequentialist argument, however, applies even in non-governmental settings such as private universities where the search for truth is integral to their missions. However messy or uncomfortable it may be in some circumstances, free speech is better than the alternative.

The John Locke Foundation

Original post:
John Hood: State universities advance free speech - Winston-Salem Journal

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on John Hood: State universities advance free speech – Winston-Salem Journal

Atheist group stops coach-led prayer at Kansas schools – Wichita Eagle

Posted: at 8:57 am


Wichita Eagle
Atheist group stops coach-led prayer at Kansas schools
Wichita Eagle
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which describes itself as a voice for atheism, agnosticism and skepticism, sent a letter in mid-June to Cheylin USD 103 and Weskan Schools USD 242 saying it is illegal for public school coaches to lead their teams ...

More:
Atheist group stops coach-led prayer at Kansas schools - Wichita Eagle

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on Atheist group stops coach-led prayer at Kansas schools – Wichita Eagle

U.S. Cyber Warrior Begins NATO Job as Trump Pressures Alliance … – Bloomberg

Posted: at 8:55 am

By

July 1, 2017, 7:00 PM EDT

U.S. President Donald Trump will have less scope to bash the North Atlantic Treaty Organization now that an American is at the helm of the alliances technology and cyber security arm.

Source: NCI Agency

Kevin Scheid, a veteran of the U.S. Department of Defense, became head on July 1 of the NATO Communications and Information Agency, which runs the electronic networks of the 29-nation alliance. NCI Agency spends about 1 billion euros ($1.1 billion) a year to ensure NATOs technological backbone is up to the tasks of fighting terrorism, protecting European airspace, conducting maritime operations and withstanding cyber attacks.

Not only do we think about the future and trying to develop the capabilities that the command needs and the nations need, and develop those capabilities, but at the same time we have to make sure that the existing networks are up and running and secure, Scheid, who is serving a three-year term as general manager of NCI Agency, said in an interview in Brussels. This gets NCI Agency deeply involved in the area of cyber security.

Trump has shaken seven decades of American foreign policy by questioning the relevance of U.S.-led NATO, which he called obsolete during his presidential campaign. Since entering the White House in January, Trump has dropped that label while pressing allies in Europe to foot more of the common defense bill and NATO as a whole to play a bigger role in fighting terrorism.

NCI Agency, with a staff of more than 2,000, was formed in 2012 from the merger of five NATO units. The group contracts out to industries to bolster the alliances land, sea, air and cyber capabilities and will be seeking bids for 3.2 billion euros in orders for satellite communications, air and missile defenses, cyber security and advanced software.

Cyber security has also moved to the top of NATOs agenda, with Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg saying attacks on the alliances electronic infrastructure spiked 60 percent last year to an average of 500 a month. Most of the incidents were state-sponsored, according to NATO.

The worldwide cyber threat was highlighted last week when an attack that started in Ukraine hit businesses, port operators and government systems in the U.S., South America, Asia and elsewhere in Europe.

To read more about Trump and NATO funding, click here

Among Scheids most immediate tasks is to ensure that NATOs new headquarters in the Belgian capital has properly protected information-technology systems. Construction of the 1.1 billion-euro glass-and-steel structure, which Scheid called one of the worlds most complex and largest security systems, is virtually completed while IT work continues.

What has been challenging about the new NATO headquarters is the complexity of a smart building, he said. Its a network surrounded by glass, steel and some cement.

NATO intends to start moving 4,500 staff members to the site, located across the street from the current headquarters, later this year. Scheid said the new building is more complex than what was estimated early on.

At a May 25 meeting where the alliances leaders inaugurated the complex, Trump, after hectoring fellow leaders to increase military spending, said: I never asked once what the new NATO headquarters cost. I refused to do that. But it is beautiful.

Read the rest here:
U.S. Cyber Warrior Begins NATO Job as Trump Pressures Alliance ... - Bloomberg

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on U.S. Cyber Warrior Begins NATO Job as Trump Pressures Alliance … – Bloomberg

Russia and NATO War Games in Europe See New Player: China – Newsweek

Posted: at 8:55 am


Newsweek
Russia and NATO War Games in Europe See New Player: China
Newsweek
Russia and China have begun naval exercises in the Baltic Sea, the most significant sign of military cooperation between the two major powers in a region seen as a flashpoint for Moscow's rivalry with Western military alliance NATO. Russia's ambassador ...

and more »

More here:
Russia and NATO War Games in Europe See New Player: China - Newsweek

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Russia and NATO War Games in Europe See New Player: China – Newsweek

Ex-NATO leader: Meeting is Trump’s chance to ‘confront’ Putin on hacking – The Hill (blog)

Posted: at 8:55 am

Former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO John Stavridis said Sunday that President Trump's upcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin is his best chance to confront him about meddling int he 2016 election and start peace talks.

"[The] meeting is a good thing," Stavridis told radio host John Catsimatidis inan interview that aired Sunday on AM 970 in New York.

"It is an opportunity for President Trump to confront President Putin about his interference in our election."

Trump plans to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin next week at the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, their first face-to-face encounter since Trumps inauguration in January.

National security adviser H.R. McMaster told reportersThursdaythe two leaders plan to meet. A spokesperson for Putin previously said the meeting would take place on the sidelines of the summit.

McMaster said there is no set agenda for the meeting, butStavridis suggested Sunday that it would also be a good opportunity to discuss ending war in Syria.

"We ought to be exploring with President Putin how we can cooperate to end this terrible war in Syria. This is not going to be solved on the battlefield. It is going to require a diplomatic resolution. And only the United States and Russia working together can resolve it,"Stavridis said.

"Today I think it is clear frankly with the Russian assistance to Assad that Assad is not going anywhere. So, rather than end up in a situation where another 500,000 people die, I think it is time to have a political accommodation."

Trump has been signaling a more aggressive and antagonistic approach to Syria and Russia, Assads primary backer, since the chemical attack moving away from his campaign promises to forge better ties with Moscow and to avoid U.S. military interventions in the Middle East.

There have been conflicting signals from administration officials over what actions by Syria might provoke another U.S. response, and the administration has yet to offer support for other forms of intervention, such as setting up a safe zone for civilians.

More here:
Ex-NATO leader: Meeting is Trump's chance to 'confront' Putin on hacking - The Hill (blog)

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Ex-NATO leader: Meeting is Trump’s chance to ‘confront’ Putin on hacking – The Hill (blog)

Snowden Leak Reveals NSA Traffic Shaping Tech That Diverts US Internet Routing For Spying – Hot Hardware

Posted: at 8:55 am


Hot Hardware
Snowden Leak Reveals NSA Traffic Shaping Tech That Diverts US Internet Routing For Spying
Hot Hardware
A NSA document from 2007 leaked by Edward Snowden, used Yemen as an example for traffic shaping. Yemen is often regarded as a gathering place for extremist activity. There are few ways for the NSA to inconspicuously monitor the Internet traffic ...

Read more:
Snowden Leak Reveals NSA Traffic Shaping Tech That Diverts US Internet Routing For Spying - Hot Hardware

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on Snowden Leak Reveals NSA Traffic Shaping Tech That Diverts US Internet Routing For Spying – Hot Hardware

Analysis: How the Constitution Limits Government Power – OzarksFirst.com

Posted: at 8:55 am

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. -- TV courtroom dramas have made the work of lawyers and police part of our culture.

Above all, our founders wanted to keep government power limited and out of the people's lives.

Part of making sure government stays in check is the Fourth Amendment's enshrining the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

The idea was that the founders wanted to prevent political enemies from using the government to punish opponents or others who might just be unpopular in society.

This is why to search you or your property, law enforcement usually has to get a writ of permission, otherwise known as a warrant, from a judge. Involving judges in the process was intended to spread the power to investigate and punish potenial wrongdoers among multiple branches of government.

Of course, the Fourth Amendment's key term is here "unreasonable." where law enforcement can make a case that there is probable cause to believe that someone committed a crime, warrants are quickly issued.

And, it might interest you to know that there are over 20 exceptions to requiring a warrant to do a search. These include the plain sight and exigent circumstances doctrines and they deal with situations in which law enforcement see a crime in progress or believe one is imminent.

The founders also codified rights against self-incrimination, or testitfying against youself, in the Fifth Amendment. This is where the phrase "pleading the fifth" comes from. Meanwhile, the Fifth Amendment also prevents double jeopardy-which is being tried for the same crime twice. And, perhaps most importantly, states clearly that no one shall be denied life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.

Our justice system isn't perfect of course, and people may still fall victim to corruption and incompetence in criminal investigations, but the Fourth and Fifth Amendment go a long way to securing some key safeguards of individual liberties.

(Brian Calfano)

Go here to read the rest:
Analysis: How the Constitution Limits Government Power - OzarksFirst.com

Posted in Fifth Amendment | Comments Off on Analysis: How the Constitution Limits Government Power – OzarksFirst.com