Recent Changes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-scheer/facebook-under-attack-for-choosing-trending-stories_b_9900114.html
This article is about Facebook being under attack for choosing trending stories and embracing the First Amendment for this. Facebook wants U.S. citizens-including the Federal Government to believe their "trending stories" have nothing to do with human judgement. Senator of South Dakota, John Thune, wrote a letter to Facebook the other day warning them about their level of subjectivity in their news stories and how he disapproves of them. Facebook does not want Congress to get involved with this situation but it might have to happen in order for Facebook and its users to get away. Although, Congress has no power in Facebook's decisions and the first amendment (freedom of speech) is on their side. Facebook's fear is to have the government treat it as a "public utility" rather than a high tech innovator. This is the same scenario that Microsoft had in 1988 with the Justice Department. Many people think that Facebook should embrace the protections of the first amendment and use it for their good but Facebook thinks other wise. As you can see, Facebook is having some trouble with this amendment and it has been causing them trouble.- KM
especially involving technology.-technology It can save us as well as harm us.- KM
http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-05-17/new-60-million-project-to-fight-for-1st-amendment
This article is manly about how Columbia University wants to start a program to fight for freedom of expression in our high-tech digital era. Many court cases have occurred in which the first amendment was pushed and tested but new technologies. Columbia wants to start this program sooner than later because the technology will only get better. They also want to start this earlier because many students and other people can greatly benefit from this program. The article also states that big voices favor freedom of speech and it would likely lead to a "societal attitude" towards it. The program will also include research classes in how the freedom of expression should be protected. This program is mainly being made to protect the freedom of expression and ensure that technology will not greatly effect it. -KM
involving technology. -KMIt can save us as well as harm us.-KM

The Government should raise the taxes for the rich and keep the taxes pretty low for the poor. This is because many people may not be able to get good jobs and some may not get half the payment than some other people in the same job. Some people may disagree, and some may agree. But if you weren't as rich as some people, and if you don't have the best job, you may be having a lot of trouble paying your taxes and also for other supplies you may need. Also, if you have a larger family than normal, and you don't have a very good job, it would be very hard to keep them alive just with a small job that may not even give you a lot of money. Plus if your working hard, those people should get some respect and have to only pay a little bit of tax and not a lot. But on the other hand, some rich people may have been rich from the start and have done nothing. These rich people should pay more than the lower class men. This is because the rich people have more money, and tend to be more successful, and should pay more than the lower class men because they can probably afford it and that they probably didn't work as much to get a lot of money.
2nd Current Event: 1st Amendment
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
-Kazuha Nakajima
https://www.aclu.org/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-student-expression
This article is about 13 year old and her friends/brothers wanting to protest the war in Vietnam. So they wore black armbands, and were said to take them off and were suspended until they took them off when they went to school. Although they were suspended, and were forced to take their armbands off when went to school, they still somehow protested in a way. This way was to wear black clothing for the rest of the school year. This was to protest and not be suspended at the same time. In court, the judges decided that this act (the act of the principal banning armbands to stop protest), an act of saying the opposite of the 1st Amendment and had said that they were allowed to say or protest something they believe in unless it affects their education. Also, because just wearing a black armband was not disruptive or anything, the courts decided that wearing one was fine. They also stated that the 1st Amendment would protect the rights of wearing a black armband to school or anywhere.
I think that the 1st Amendment is useful today and needed because many people have their own opinions and that they have their own rights to talk about it or protest about it. Although, some have caused to wars or maybe in an accident among people, but believing in what you believe is probably a good thing to do. This is because if you are forced to believe in something you don’t believe, it wouldn’t feel great to be told to believe something that you don’t want to. Also, letting all your feelings out or letting your opinions out can also feel great. Another thing is that if you had a religion you believed in, and if you weren’t allowed to believe it, there would probably be a big protest on that causing many people to get thrown into jail if the 1st Amendment didn’t exist. This is because some people have strong wills to believe in what they want to and they would probably show that by creating a fuss or a protest on what they believe. The 1st Amendment helps people believe in what they want to, and allows them to protest. Also, without it, we would probably be protesting on to letting us protest and have our own beliefs and petition.

citizens living abroad in a country where a tax treaty exists with the United States (Internal Revenue Code Sections 1441-1443). The man also states that he does not fit into the sections of IR Code 1441,1442, and 1461. He also sent the IRS letters asking if he was required to pay the income taxes and he also sent letters saying that he had no licenses or privileges issued to him from the Federal Government. But the IRS avoided answering his letters the best they can. But these letters were also used in trial, and 2 IRS witnesses were called in, and were forced to answer the jury's question after frustrating him. Later, the trial continued but the man was found not guilty.
The Government should raise the taxes for the rich and keep the taxes pretty low for the poor. This is because many people may not be able to get good jobs and some may not get half the payment than some other people in the same job. Some people may disagree, and some may agree. But if you weren't as rich as some people, and if you don't have the best job, you may be having a lot of trouble paying your taxes and also for other supplies you may need. Also, if you have a larger family than normal, and you don't have a very good job, it would be very hard to keep them alive just with a small job that may not even give you a lot of money. Plus if your working hard, those people should get some respect and have to only pay a little bit of tax and not a lot. But on the other hand, some rich people may have been rich from the start and have done nothing. These rich people should pay more than the lower class men. This is because the rich people have more money, and tend to be more successful, and should pay more than the lower class men because they can probably afford it and that they probably didn't work as much to get a lot of money.
2nd Current Event: 1st Amendment

http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/why-we-shouldnt-repeal-the-second-amendment/6668
I agree and disagree with this persons opinion. I agree because it is true that waiting for the police to come when their is an intruder is not always the best option. This is something totally dependent on where someone lives though. If someone lived in a rural area the police is not likely to show up in time. But if the person lived in a populated area it would be somewhat safe to call the police. This also is changed because in the 1790's rural areas were much more common than they are today. I disagree because it is not always true that people are not motivated to do bad things with them owning a gun. While most of the time this statement is true there are times where people get little or a good amount of motivation to do something violent when they possess a gun. (Jack)
Donald Trump. (Jack Blute)(Jack)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-pier-shooting-suspect-to-stand-trial/
to this. (Jack Blute)(Jack)
California Democrats are releasing a wave of gun control. The California Government is planning to release ten anti-gun laws. This act is being called by the rebels Gunmegeddon. This New anti-gun law will be banning ammunition magazines, banned grandfather fire arms and also adding restrictions on homemade guns. The FVRC or Firearms Violence Research Center wanted to change how California used assault weapons and ammunition and how we reported stolen guns. But the opponents have a different idea. Opponent: National Rifle Association, California Rifle and Pistol Association and the Firearms Policy Coalition. This amendment is relevant today because Many People still own guns in the world today (2nd Amendment) By Daniel Eugenin
Link: http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/21/gunmeggedon-opponents-new-california-gun-control-measures

The impact the second amendment has on society is avery bad impact of wars and fighting.Mostly murders and homicides
this is all because the government gave the people the right to own a gun.A good impact on society is that people can protect them selves from each other.For example when some one is trespassing on your land you can't protect your self with out the second amendment.So the second amendment mostly had a negative affect more than a positive effect.(Dan)
The Second Amendment And Gun Rights
The second amendment is bad right now, Ken Womble says it should be banned but is it really necessary to that? The answer is no, while it may cause a bunch of problems there are other ways to fix it than the lazy option to just get of it. One big way is to make people happier and healthier in life. This is because owning a gun doesn't change peoples motivation. For example, when someone wants to harm people, it wouldn't be owning a gun that would make people want to do something. We also need to know why it was created. It was created because people in America in the 1790's needed something to protect themselves. That is also why it should not be banned because people need to defend their lives if their is an intruder, waiting for the police is not always gonna work. (Jack)
http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/why-we-shouldnt-repeal-the-second-amendment/6668
I agree and disagree with this persons opinion. I agree because it is true that waiting for the police to come when their is an intruder is not always the best option. This is something totally dependent on where someone lives though. If someone lived in a rural area the police is not likely to show up in time. But if the person lived in a populated area it would be somewhat safe to call the police. This also is changed because in the 1790's rural areas were much more common than they are today. I disagree because it is not always true that people are not motivated to do bad things with them owning a gun. While most of the time this statement is true there are times where people get little or a good amount of motivation to do something violent when they possess a gun. (Jack)
In July 2015 at a San Francisco pier a women was shot by a Mexican immigrant. Her name was Kate Steinle, and she was with her father that day as well. The Mexican immigrant named Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez who had been deported five times had said his gun fired accidentally. He was arrested shortly after this. It became so famous that a law is trying to be made from this. This had caused arguments on a bunch of things one of them being gun possession. Another thing argued from this was immigration. He had been an illegal immigrant and did something totally unacceptable. One person especially enraged from this was Donald Trump. (Jack Blute)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-pier-shooting-suspect-to-stand-trial/
While nothing was said about the second amendment in this it still has some effect to the arguments today. One of the things some people say is that usually people who were not born in the United States are more likely to do something violent with firearms. As we see here a Mexican immigrant had been the person with a gun. Not saying that its likely from people not born in the U.S to do something violent with firearms its just something some people say. A lot of the People running for president in 2016 and Obama are discussing this amendment and will try to do something with this amendment. Obama wants to get rid of guns but is unsuccessful. The law people are trying to make from the shooting at the San Francisco pier make it so that the peoples rights to bear arms might not be like it was when the amendment was first introduced into the Constitution. I think that peoples rights to bear arms should not be taken away, it should just be changed so that the U.S government will pay less attention to this. (Jack Blute)
California Democrats are releasing a wave of gun control. The California Government is planning to release ten anti-gun laws. This act is being called by the rebels Gunmegeddon. This New anti-gun law will be banning ammunition magazines, banned grandfather fire arms and also adding restrictions on homemade guns. The FVRC or Firearms Violence Research Center wanted to change how California used assault weapons and ammunition and how we reported stolen guns. But the opponents have a different idea. Opponent: National Rifle Association, California Rifle and Pistol Association and the Firearms Policy Coalition. This amendment is relevant today because Many People still own guns in the world today (2nd Amendment) By Daniel Eugenin
Link: http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/21/gunmeggedon-opponents-new-california-gun-control-measures

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-scheer/facebook-under-attack-for-choosing-trending-stories_b_9900114.html
This article is about Facebook being under attack for choosing trending stories and embracing the First Amendment for this. Facebook wants U.S. citizens-including the Federal Government to believe their "trending stories" have nothing to do with human judgement. Senator of South Dakota, John Thune, wrote a letter to Facebook the other day warning them about their level of subjectivity in their news stories and how he disapproves of them. Facebook does not want Congress to get involved with this situation but it might have to happen in order for Facebook and its users to get away. Although, Congress has no power in Facebook's decisions and the first amendment (freedom of speech) is on their side. Facebook's fear is to have the government treat it as a "public utility" rather than a high tech innovator. This is the same scenario that Microsoft had in 1988 with the Justice Department. Many people think that Facebook should embrace the protections of the first amendment and use it for their good but Facebook thinks other wise. As you can see, Facebook is having some trouble with this amendment and it has been causing them trouble.- KM
It has been proven that the first amendment is still vital in civilization today. In this case, it has been used in modern way through new technology that we have today. The first amendment relates to being involved today's society because Facebook is a very widely known social media but the first amendment is getting involved with it. Although it is people's right to have the freedom of speech, press, and religion, we should still be careful in how we use it. In this case, Facebook doesn't want to use the protections of the first amendment for their good and they are making a big mistake in doing this. Facebook does have the right of freedom of speech but since their trending stories are not approved by senators and since they do not want Congress to be involved with it, they should get in trouble and suffer consequences. However, the amendment does not have anything in it denying the protections of it, it should be a given that everyone would accept it. As you can see, the first amendment has a very big impact on today's society and will also have a big impact on the future; especially involving technology.- KM
http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-05-17/new-60-million-project-to-fight-for-1st-amendment
This article is manly about how Columbia University wants to start a program to fight for freedom of expression in our high-tech digital era. Many court cases have occurred in which the first amendment was pushed and tested but new technologies. Columbia wants to start this program sooner than later because the technology will only get better. They also want to start this earlier because many students and other people can greatly benefit from this program. The article also states that big voices favor freedom of speech and it would likely lead to a "societal attitude" towards it. The program will also include research classes in how the freedom of expression should be protected. This program is mainly being made to protect the freedom of expression and ensure that technology will not greatly effect it. -KM
This is another example of how the first amendment is still an important part of our society today. It is getting involved in college courses and court cases and people are working on ways to strengthen it and ensure protection from it. This is proof of the amendment becoming involved with society today because it is being discussed with new technologies of the era. They are "editing" this amendment which was made a long time ago and getting it involved with the new technologies of this century and finding ways to put it to better use. More an more technology will eventually be invented so the colleges are just preparing for when the expression for the first amendment will really need attention. As you can see, the first amendment has a very big impact on today's society and will also have a big impact on the future; especially involving technology. -KM

http://www.wsj.com/articles/rifles-used-in-san-bernardino-shooting-illegal-under-state-law-1449201057
The article I read discusses how the guns used in the San Bernardino shooting were used illegally under state law. The Wall Street Journal states that "The rifles used in the San Bernardino mass shooting were illegal under California law because they were modified and violated the state's ban on assault weapons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives". The modified guns broke the state law because it it violated the state's ban on assault weapons. The guns used were originally sold legally but, the rifles were altered to make them more powerful and dangerous to others. The alteration that were used made the weapons unlawful, therefore making it a more serious case. After the shooting, detectives investigated upon whether the guns were illegal or not and were able to take something out of what they learned. Under federal law, these guns were purchased legally but, under state law they were not. It has been proven that the guns used in the San Bernardino shooting were in fact illegal and legal depending on points of view.
guns illegally. ManySadly, there are a lot of people who buy their guns illegally and use them for no good. Surprisingly enough, there is a reasonable percentage of guns that were bought legally and used illegally. On the other hand, many people believe that the guns lawssecond amendment should remain on the Bill of Rights and should be strongermade stronger. A large amount of the population believes that by making gun laws stronger, less crime will occur and we will be able to form a safer country. However, if this happens there is still nothing to prevent illegal gun usage. In my opinion I believe that we shouldn't change the second amendment at all because iteither way there is nothing we can leaddo to stop illegal gun usage for good.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/rifles-used-in-san-bernardino-shooting-illegal-under-state-law-1449201057
The article I read discusses how the guns used in the San Bernardino shooting were used illegally under state law. The Wall Street Journal states that "The rifles used in the San Bernardino mass shooting were illegal under California law because they were modified and violated the state's ban on assault weapons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives". The modified guns broke the state law because it it violated the state's ban on assault weapons. The guns used were originally sold legally but, the rifles were altered to make them more powerful and dangerous to others. The alteration that were used made the weapons unlawful, therefore making it a more serious case. After the shooting, detectives investigated upon whether the guns were illegal or not and were able to take something out of what they learned. Under federal law, these guns were purchased legally but, under state law they were not. It has been proven that the guns used in the San Bernardino shooting were in fact illegal and legal depending on points of view.
were illegally boughtused and if the second from purchasing and using guns illegally. Many people believe that the guns laws should be stronger because it can lead

Article 2 :
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/baltimore_judge_guts_the_5th_amendment.html
Caesar R. Goodson.Goodson and the second Baltimore City policeman to be tried criminally in the allegedly accidental death of small-time hood Freddie Gray. They both went to court, Porter the first officer brought to the case, they set up a trial because the prosecution believe the case against him to be the strongest. But instead of the strongest it was gossamer thin. With the state unable to prove how Gray suffered his fatal injury. A doctor took a look at Gary and found out that there was an absence of evidence that Porter ever did anything to harm Gray. Porter got a new trial date in June, meaning that he is in jeopardy until then and entitled to the 5th Amendment's protections against self-incrimination.
Paragraph 2; This article relates to the meaning of what the 5th Amendment. It relates because the 5th amendment protects someone from being accused of something with out the person having evidence on what they say. In this article there was no evidence that Porter injured or harmed Gary. This shows that Porter is innocent till proven guilty with evidence of what he has done. The 5th Amendment also protected him from going through self-incrimination. Self-incrimination is an act of exposing yourself or to involve oneself or another person in a criminal prosecution or danger whatsoever. Without evidence of the crime the other side of the case has nothing to prove their cause. This is how the 5th Amendment relates to a real world case.
Holly:
Article 1: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/02/04/Martin-Shkreli-invokes-Fifth-Amendment-five-times-during-drug-price-hearing/2901454600661/
named Martin Shkreli.TheShkreli. The date of protect them selfself.
Article 2 :
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/lois-lerner-pleads-fifth-again-house-hearing-irs-scandal