Gov. 1A-50: The Lens is Mightier than the Gavel

In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, including the freedom of the press. However, the extent of this right is often contested by the state. One important instance of this right is the ability to lawfull document and record the activities of state officials, such as school boards. This case has been particularly important over the last few years, with some public schools attempting to restrict the recording of open meetings. In such cases, should the police be allowed to enforce a verbal restriction against making a video at an open meeting? This question has sparked debates among legal scholars and policymakers, but the consensus is clear.This essay contends that any attempts to enforce a restriction against recording public meetings are clear violations of the First Amendment and compromise the rights of citizens and their inherent right to access information.

Firstly, enforcing verbal restrictions would violate the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, including the right to record public officials in the performance of their duties. In Glik v. Cunniffe, the First Circuit held that the right to record the police in public is a "clearly established" First Amendment right. Enforcing a verbal restriction against recording an open meeting would amount to a violation of constitutional rights.

Secondly, the public has a right to access information. Open meetings are designed to ensure transparency and accountability in government. By restricting the recording of open meetings, politicians would be limiting the public's ability to scrutinize their actions and hold them accountable for their decisions. In some cases, the recording of open meetings has even been instrumental in exposing corruption and abuse of power. Therefore, allowing politicians to restrict the recording of open meetings would undermine the very purpose of open meetings.

Thirdly, the restriction of recording open meetings would set a dangerous precedent. If politicians are allowed to restrict recording at open meetings, it could lead to further attempts to restrict the freedom of the press in other contexts. This could have harmful effects on journalism and limit the ability of reporters to hold those in power accountable. Additionally, it could lead to selective enforcement, where politicians only allow favorable media coverage and suppress any unfavorable coverage. This would be a violation of the First Amendment and could lead to a decline in the (inherently poor) quality of democratic governance.

Finally, there are few legitimate reason for politicians to restrict recording at open meetings. The argument that recording could be disruptive or distracting is not compelling, as recording technology is now ubiquitous and unobtrusive. Additionally, politicians who are uncomfortable with being recorded can choose not to run for public office. The public has a right to know what their elected officials are doing and saying in the course of their duties.

There are few justifications for politicians to impose limitations on recording during open meetings. According to Government Code Section 54953.5, individuals have the right to record an open and public meeting without disruption, and a school district does not have the right to prohibit recording unless there is a reasonable finding of disruption. The reasoning that recording may cause interference or disturbance is not convincing since recording devices are widely available and inconspicuous. Moreover, elected officials who feel uneasy about being recorded can opt not to pursue public office. The community has a legitimate entitlement to be informed of the actions and statements of their elected representatives while they are carrying out their responsibilities.

In conclusion, the police should not be allowed to enforce a politician's verbal restriction against making a video of him at an open meeting. Doing so would violate First Amendment rights, limit the public's right to access information, set a dangerous precedent, and have no legitimate reason. In a open society, the public has the right to know what their elected officials are doing, and any attempt to restrict that right should be met with resistance. As the famous American philosopher and abolitionist Lysander Spooner once said, "The only just governments are those that are based upon the ([real]) consent of the governed." Therefore, any attempt to restrict the public's access to information should be viewed as an assault on the fundamental principles of a free society.

Sources:

Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/10-1764/10-1764-2011-08-26.html

LaRue v. DeWolff, 590 F.3d 263, 272 (3d Cir. 2009). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/app

One Instance: https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2009/06/aa-right-to-videotape-school-board-meetings/

Western Civ. 1-45:

Tiberius Gracchus was a tribune of the plebs who served during the late 2nd century BC in Rome. He is known for his radical proposals for land reform and his campaign against the powerful senatorial class. Gracchus' policies were viewed with suspicion by the Roman Senate for several reasons. Firstly, Gracchus' proposed land reforms would have redistributed public land that had been occupied by wealthy patricians to poor farmers. This would have weakened the power of the wealthy aristocracy and potentially shifted the balance of power in favor of the plebeians. Such a shift in power would have been perceived as a threat by the Senate. Secondly, Gracchus' tactics were seen as aggressive and provocative by the Senate. He used his position as tribune to bypass traditional channels of power and propose laws directly to the Assembly of the People. This disregard for the established power structures was viewed as a threat to the stability of the Republic.

Finally, Gracchus was accused of seeking to make himself king or dictator by bypassing the traditional channels of power and enacting laws that would weaken the Senate's authority. The Senate viewed Gracchus as a dangerous demagogue who was seeking to undermine the established order and seize power for himself.

Tiberius Gracchus was a man who fought against the political establishment in Rome, and for that, he deserves praise. However, his motives and methods leave much to be desired. His land reform proposals, while noble in intention, were a form of wealth redistribution that would have weakened the power of the wealthy aristocracy and shifted the balance of power in favor of the plebeians. This approach is inherently socialist and is not consistent with the principles of a free society.

Gracchus' aggressive tactics, bypassing traditional channels of power, were indeed provocative and destabilizing to the Republic. It is true that the established power structures needed to be challenged, but doing so in a confrontational and reckless manner is not the way to achieve meaningful change. His perceived desire to make himself king or dictator also demonstrates a dangerous ambition for personal power and is not consistent with the values of a true statesman. In the end, Tiberius Gracchus serves as a cautionary tale of the dangers of pursuing radical change without proper political support and through socialist means.

Western Civ. 1-45: Class Struggle in Rome: The Eternal (Political) Conflict

The formation of the Roman Republic saw the patricians, (the wealthy aristocrats), assume considerable political power. By the early 5th century BC, however, the plebeians, (or the common people), demanded a greater say in the political sphere. This sparked the Struggle of the Orders, a protracted period of socio-political conflict, which ultimately resulted in the plebeians securing increased representation and rights in an (at least theoretically) egalitarian system. Nevertheless, the changes to the Roman Republic were far from ideal often doing as much harm as good, leaving a profound impact on the course of Roman history. The class struggle, populism, and state expansion that followed are best understood as natural byproducts of the Republican state. Today, these issues remain pertinent as we confront challenges concerning political equality and the limits of state power.

The equestrians were part of an emerging social class in Rome who achieved a certain level of wealth and social status. However, they were not members of the traditional aristocracy. This development allowed for increased social mobility, as individuals could rise based on wealth rather than noble birth. However, combined with the political complex, this advance bred resentment and dissatisfaction. Thanks to their wealth, equestrians could manipulate laws to favor themselves. Over the years, they hoarded land and used their wealth to entrench themselves, often by granting special privileges, high offices, and nepotism. This created distinct class conflicts based on wealth rather than lineage. While the equestrians manipulated the political process to their advantage, the Palestinians continued to struggle for political representation and meaningful change. Ultimately, this created an opportunity for unsavory figures to exploit. In this case, it was the state that made this possible, not economic liberty. Unfortunately, the same narrative is used today by populists to promote the same kinds of reforms. Political solutions to inequality are the problem, not the solution.

While the Struggle of the Orders in Ancient Rome allowed for increased social mobility and egalitarian politics, it also created a breeding ground for demagogues who manipulated the system for their own benefit. One such example was the Gracchi brothers, Tiberius and Gaius, who rose to power as tribunes of the plebs in the late 2nd century BC. They sought to address the growing wealth gap between patricians and plebeians by pushing for populist redistribution. Those goals were understandably met with fierce opposition from the patricians and their allies. The Gracchi's rise to power and downfall illustrate the dangers of demagoguery and the limitations of political solutions. While their intentions may have seemed noble, their methods and rhetoric only deepened the divide between the classes. A divide that led to a century of civil wars and ended with imperial rule. Not only does the state fail to address inequality, but also generates it with endemic abuses of power. This should inform us that while political solutions may seem attractive, they have unintended consequences that ultimately lead to more conflict and upheaval.

The development of new laws played a crucial role in shaping Ancient Rome's political landscape. The introduction of the law table, with its emphasis on political equality and representation, marked a significant shift towards a more egalitarian system. However, the unintended consequences of many of these laws demonstrated the limitations of political solutions. For instance, the Lex Claudia was initially passed as a popular reform aimed at curbing the commercial activities of the patrician class. By limiting patricians' commercial activities, the law restricted economic growth, reducing economic opportunities for the public as a whole. It may have also led to further resentment and conflict between the patrician and plebeian classes, as the wealthy sought to maintain their power and influence through political plunder. This serves to remind us that ideas that focus on fairness in principle turn out to be far less so in practice. Therefore, it is essential to approach political reforms with caution, ensuring that such changes truly serve the interests of the people, rather than perpetuating the interests of the ruling class. It is doubtful that they ever can

The growth of the Roman state during its Republic period may have expanded the influence of Rome, but it also had negative effects on Roman society. The state's imperial ambitions and the tyranny of laws it imposed on its citizens created an environment that promoted corruption and nepotism. Officials and governors often put their interests ahead of those they were supposed to serve, taking advantage of their positions of power for their own benefit. This self-perpetuating system only served to exacerbate the divide between the wealthy and the rest of society. In addition, the state's need for a large standing army to quell rebellions against its taxation policies further added to the corruption and abuses of power. As Rome expanded its territory, the problems it faced within its own society only worsened. These issues are a reminder that the state, while it may seem to offer stability and order, can also become a breeding ground for abuses of power and corruption if left unchecked.

In modern times, we have seen similar struggles and conflicts arising from the abuse of power and social inequality. The quest for political and economic freedom has been a constant challenge throughout history, and it is clear that the lessons learned from the Struggle of the Orders still resonate today. The concentration of power in the hands of a select few often leads to corruption, nepotism, and social unrest. This has been evident in many contemporary societies, where the concentration of wealth and power has led to increasing polarization and inequality. If we fail to address the root cause of these problems and instead rely on superficial political solutions, we risk perpetuating the very same problems that have plagued societies for centuries. It is therefore essential that we learn from the lessons of history and work towards creating a more just and equitable society, one that promotes individual liberty and human dignity for all.

As we reflect on the history of the Roman Republic, it becomes clear that the struggle for freedom and equality is an ongoing battle. The Romans learned that political solutions, while attractive on the surface, are ultimately a Faustian bargain that leads to corruption, tyranny, and oppression. The patricians, plebeians, and equestrians alike all fell victim to the perils of state power, and we must not forget the lessons learned from their experiences.

Today, as we face our own struggles for freedom and equality, we must not repeat the same mistakes. We must reject the false promises of politicians who promise us utopia if only we surrender our freedom to them. We must be wary of demagogues who seek to manipulate us with promises of populist reform. We must recognize that the root cause of social inequality and class conflict is not economic freedom, but the abuse of power by those who seek to control us.

In our quest for a free society, we must embrace the principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, and voluntary cooperation. We must reject the notion that the state is the solution to all our problems, and instead, recognize that it is often the source of our troubles. Only by embracing these principles can we hope to build a society where all individuals are free to pursue their dreams and aspirations, where the rule of law is respected, and where the abuses of power are kept in check.

In the end, the history of the Roman Republic serves as a warning to us all. Let us learn from their mistakes and embrace the principles of freedom and individual liberty. For only by doing so can we hope to build a society that truly values human flourishing and the pursuit of happiness.

Western Civ. 1-50:

The Aeneid is an epic poem written by Virgil that is widely considered one of the greatest literary works in Western literature. It tells the story of Aeneas, a Trojan hero, and his journey to establish a home in Italy. However, the Aeneid is not only a literary masterpiece, but also a work of political propaganda from the Augustan era. Commissioned by Augustus Caesar, the first Roman emperor, it served to legitimize his reign and promote an idealistic vision for the new Empire. This essay explores the basic story of the Aeneid and examines what makes it such a remarkable work of literature. In addition, it must consider how the poem's civic message reflects the ideals of the Augustan settlement, including the emphasis on piety, duty, and the ideal ruler. By understanding the historical context in which The Aeneid was written, we can gain a deeper appreciation of its literary and historical significance.

The Aeneid begins after the Trojan War, with Aeneas and his fellow Trojans fleeing the destroyed city. They embark on a long journey across the Mediterranean seeking their own home. Throughout the journey, they face various trials and tribulations, including run-ins with gods and goddesses, battles with monsters, and unexpected setbacks. Finally, Aeneas and his followers land in Italy, where they face off against the native inhabitants. Aeneas emerges victorious and is ultimately recognized as the rightful ruler of the land. The poem ends with a prophetic vision of Rome's future, portraying Aeneas as a crucial figure in the city's founding.

To truly understand the Aeneid, it is crucial to both acknowledge its impressive plot and its role as political propaganda. Written during the Augustan settlement, the emperor sought to cement his reign and legitimize the balance of power in the Roman government. Following years of civil war and political turmoil, the poem aimed to re-establish a sense of national pride and unity among the people. Through Aeneas's journey, Virgil crafted a narrative of a hero seeking his new home and bringing peace and prosperity to the land. This message reflects Augustus's desire to create a more stable, prosperous Rome after years of chaos. All throughout, Octavian is cast as the new Aneas. Even the trials and tribulations he faces are meant to reflect the epic life story of his acclaimed descendant.

Aeneas's selflessness is also evident in his commitment to fulfilling his mission, even when it requires personal sacrifice. He is willing to endure physical pain, emotional trauma, and spiritual struggle to fulfill his destiny and establish the Romans in their own home. This portrayal of Aeneas as a dedicated, resolute leader was correlted with Augustus' own commitment to his vision for Rome. It mirrors the Roman journey and search for an empire abroad. Like Aeneas, Augustus was determined to endure hardships and challenges to achieve his goals. Unwavering commitment to his mission symbolizes the Roman people's resolve to overcome their challenges.

Moreover, Aeneas's portrayal as a virtuous leader highlights the importance of duty and loyalty in Roman society. Aeneas's loyalty to his mission and his people is a key element of his character. It is through this loyalty that he overcomes the many obstacles he faces on his journey. This emphasis on loyalty and duty was a significant part of Augustus' vision for a new Rome that was unified and strong. By emphasizing loyalty and duty, Augustus encouraged the Roman people to put the community's needs above their own desires. In this way, the Aeneid served as a powerful tool for political propaganda. It promoted the values Augustus believed were essential to his regime's success.

The character of Aeneas in The Aeneid is not only a reflection of Augustus' ideals of virtuous leadership. It also presents Augustus himself as the successor to Aeneas. Just as Aeneas was a selfless leader who put the needs of his people above his own desires, Augustus claimed to be a leader who only sought the good of the Roman people above all. This message is further reinforced through artistic depictions of Augustus, such as the statue 'Augustus of Prima Porta'. In this statue, Augustus is portrayed as a heroic figure, wearing armor and standing with one arm raised. This suggests that he is an outstanding warrior and leader. The figure of Cupid at his feet, holding a dolphin, represents Augustus' divine lineage. The depiction of Aeneas in his armor refers to the idea that Augustus is the new Aeneas leading Rome into the next era of greatness. Through both literature and art, Augustus interpreted Virgil's story to legitimize his own rule. Overall, he presented himself as a leader worthy of the Roman people's admiration and loyalty.

In summary, Virgil's The Aeneid is an epic poem that combines literary excellence with political propaganda. It tells the story of Aeneas, a Trojan hero who overcomes great struggles in pursuit of his people's destiny. In doing so, it reflects the political message of the Augustan settlement. The poem legitimized Augustus's reign and presented him as a worthy ruler of Rome. By portraying Aeneas as a virtuous and selfless leader, the poem sought to create a sense of national pride and unity among Rome's people. The Aeneid's legacy extends beyond it's own time; it is a seminal work in western literature even up to the modern day. As the key work in epic Latin poetry, it helped shape Rome's image as an impressive empire. Despite any alternitive motives is essential to recognize the poem's historical influence and significant contribution to Rome's legacy.