Matching Items (7)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

133193-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is an organization dedicated to defending student and faculty freedom of speech rights on college campuses in the United States. Their work has brought national attention and debate around how unbiased the foundation truly is. This thesis discusses the relevant cases around

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is an organization dedicated to defending student and faculty freedom of speech rights on college campuses in the United States. Their work has brought national attention and debate around how unbiased the foundation truly is. This thesis discusses the relevant cases around the freedom of speech such as United States v. O'Brien and Matal v. Tam in order to develop an understanding of general free speech protection. Free speech cases specifically regarding school campuses were analyzed such as Tinker v. Des Moines, Bethel v. Fraser, and Rosenberger v. University of Virginia to show the limitations of what FIRE can fight on campuses. FIRE's case selection methods were analyzed, and a bias toward conservative cases was found. This bias is disputed by FIRE supporters as natural given the liberal nature of higher education, but data surrounding professors, disinvitation attempts, and student opinions invalidate these claims. Three FIRE cases (Roberts v. Haragan, Smith v. Tarrant County College District, and the Dixie State Incident) were analyzed to show the progression and style of the foundation through the years and how they developed their aggressive and bully reputation. Finally, current large incidents of free speech oppression were analyzed to understand how they skew and affect public perception of the overall struggle for freedom of speech on college campuses. This thesis found that FIRE is in fact biased and that their efforts to make positive change are undermined by this. Keywords: FIRE, free speech, First Amendment
ContributorsRamos-Mata, Joseph Wilfrido (Author) / von Delden, Jayn (Thesis director) / Fradella, Hank (Committee member) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-12
135110-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Arizona’s Dram Shop Statute, specifically ARS 4-311, was enacted in 1986 to hold liquor licensees financially responsible for any injuries or deaths that arise from the service and consumption of alcohol by customers of their establishment. The intent of such policies was to mitigate instances of driving under the influence

Arizona’s Dram Shop Statute, specifically ARS 4-311, was enacted in 1986 to hold liquor licensees financially responsible for any injuries or deaths that arise from the service and consumption of alcohol by customers of their establishment. The intent of such policies was to mitigate instances of driving under the influence of alcohol. However, evidence shows that such statutes have little to no effect on incidents of drunk driving in the State of Arizona, yet are detrimental to the viability of local restaurants and bars. The full liability that businesses in this industry face has an adverse effect on the following:

• The ability of establishments to obtain and maintain insurance coverage
• Limits the number of insurance carriers in Arizona, which increases the cost of such coverage.
• Expensive insurance directly affects business profitability:
o restricting their ability to make capital purchases
o limiting their ability to make local investments
o reduces state income tax revenue
o the need to reduce their staff or close their doors completely
o less money that any local business can bring to their bottom line is less money that they are able to
o reinvest in their community, their city, and in their state

In an effort to reduce the burdens imposed on Arizona’s restaurant and bar industry, I propose legislative changes to Arizona Revised Statute 4-311. These legislative changes would not only aid these small businesses in their efforts to be profitable and serve their communities, but would be beneficial to local cities and the State of Arizona alike. I would propose the following:

• Place a burden of proof on the plaintiff that a customer was served in an “obviously intoxicated” state as defined in A.R.S 4-311 (D), diminishing the ability to file suits based solely on the driver’s BAC of .08 or above.
• Strike all claims with basis on “known or should have known” judge made and judge applied common law standard that has not been incorporated in to the Arizona Dram Shop Statutes through legislation.

With these changes to Arizona Dram Shop Statutes, local restaurants and bars could contribute not only to their local economies, but also to support deterrence of the crime through a .5% tax on liquor sales generated through the sale of such in a liquor licensed establishment. This tax would amount to approximately $27* million dollars annually for the State of Arizona. This additional tax revenue would go directly to their local police departments to specifically fund increased efforts to deter instances of drunk driving. This deterrence could be achieved through increased police presence, hiring and training officers in the specialty of detecting drunk drivers, and/or conducting additional sobriety checkpoints throughout the state. Currently, a few other states (MD 9%, MN 2.5%, ND 7%, D.C 10%) have implemented a small tax on retail sales of liquor in addition to the various excise tax imposed at the wholesale and/or manufacturing level.
ContributorsRutten, Lori Ann (Author) / Novak, Shawn (Thesis director) / Herbert, Anne (Committee member) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
148094-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Americans today face an age of information overload. With the evolution of Media 3.0, the internet, and the rise of Media 3.5—i.e., social media—relatively new communication technologies present pressing challenges for the First Amendment in American society. Twentieth century law defined freedom of expression, but in an information-limited world. By

Americans today face an age of information overload. With the evolution of Media 3.0, the internet, and the rise of Media 3.5—i.e., social media—relatively new communication technologies present pressing challenges for the First Amendment in American society. Twentieth century law defined freedom of expression, but in an information-limited world. By contrast, the twenty-first century is seeing the emergence of a world that is overloaded with information, largely shaped by an “unintentional press”—social media. Americans today rely on just a small concentration of private technology powerhouses exercising both economic and social influence over American society. This raises questions about censorship, access, and misinformation. While the First Amendment protects speech from government censorship only, First Amendment ideology is largely ingrained across American culture, including on social media. Technological advances arguably have made entry into the marketplace of ideas—a fundamental First Amendment doctrine—more accessible, but also more problematic for the average American, increasing his/her potential exposure to misinformation. <br/><br/>This thesis uses political and judicial frameworks to evaluate modern misinformation trends, social media platforms and current misinformation efforts, against the background of two misinformation accelerants in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic and U.S. presidential election. Throughout history, times of hardship and intense fear have contributed to the shaping of First Amendment jurisprudence. Thus, this thesis looks at how fear can intensify the spread of misinformation and influence free speech values. Extensive research was conducted to provide the historical context behind relevant modern literature. This thesis then concludes with three solutions to misinformation that are supported by critical American free speech theory.

ContributorsCochrane, Kylie Marie (Author) / Russomanno, Joseph (Thesis director) / Roschke, Kristy (Committee member) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Comm (Contributor, Contributor) / Watts College of Public Service & Community Solut (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05
Description

There is a serious lack of local news in Arizona, the American Southwest, and the United States at-large. Arizonans are craving quality, factual, no-holds-barred journalism that is easy-to-read, and upfront. Quality, local news that covers the ins and outs of politics, culture, and community has an opportunity to not only

There is a serious lack of local news in Arizona, the American Southwest, and the United States at-large. Arizonans are craving quality, factual, no-holds-barred journalism that is easy-to-read, and upfront. Quality, local news that covers the ins and outs of politics, culture, and community has an opportunity to not only enhance civic life, promote community healing, and expand knowledge made available to the general public (thus serving the communities it calls home), but to also generate revenue. Further, independent and center-right leaning voters in the state of Arizona — be reminded that independents make up the second largest voting bloc among Arizonans — are often crowded out in a media environment that consists of far-left nonprofit-funded news sites like the Arizona Mirror, formerly reputable papers that have bled readership as they veer further left like the Arizona Republic, and far-right online blogs that reach a very limited audience. The Western Tribune is an Arizona-based journalistic publication. This institution is dedicated to providing high-quality, well-sourced news and commentary on statewide, regional, national, and international current affairs through the lens of good government and free enterprise — as well as Southwestern values. We are a free institution that believes in free institutions. We cover stories that go uncovered because of the corporate media’s blind spots (and they’ve got many — they’re a result of news deserts and out-of-touch coastal attitudes) with the stable support of a robust institution dedicated to Truth-seeking behind them. Our storytellers are not just good writers. We seek to recruit and form critical thinkers with skills that span trades, disciplines, and educational backgrounds. We are building an institution committed to excellence.

ContributorsRobinson, Clay (Author) / Byrne, Jared (Thesis director) / Swader, Melissa (Committee member) / Plunkett, Nina (Committee member) / Khalaf, George (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Thunderbird School of Global Management (Contributor) / School for the Future of Innovation in Society (Contributor) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Civic & Economic Thought and Leadership (Contributor)
Created2023-05
132091-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
The Centralia Council, representative of a small Pennsylvania borough, arranged for an illegal controlled burn of the Centralia landfill in late May 1962. It happened the same way every year. As Memorial Day drew closer, the Council contracted volunteer firefighters to burn the top layer of refuse in the landfill

The Centralia Council, representative of a small Pennsylvania borough, arranged for an illegal controlled burn of the Centralia landfill in late May 1962. It happened the same way every year. As Memorial Day drew closer, the Council contracted volunteer firefighters to burn the top layer of refuse in the landfill in preparation for the day’s festivities, but intentionally burning landfills violated state law. A tangle of events over the years saw the “controlled” burn develop into an underground mine fire and then into a coal seam fire. Excavation costs lie far beyond the state’s budget, and Pennsylvania plans to let the fire burn until its natural end--anticipated at another 240 years. The tangled mess of poor decisions over 21 years begs one question: did the people or the fire kill Centralia?

This paper’s field of study falls into the cross section of geology and fire science, history, social conflict, public service ethics, and collaborative failures. I explore how a series of small choices snowballed into a full, government funded relocation effort after attempts at controlling the anthracite coal seam fire failed. Geology and fire science worked in tandem during the mine fire, influencing each other and complicating the firefighting efforts. The fire itself was a unique challenge. The history of Centralia played a large role in the government and community response efforts. I use the borough and regional history to contextualize the social conflict that divided Centralia. Social conflict impaired the community’s ability to unify and form a therapeutic community, and in turn, it damaged community-government relationships. The government agencies involved in the mine fire response did their own damage to community relationships by pursuing their own interests. Agencies worried about their brand image, and politicians worried about re-election. I study how these ethical failures impacted the situation. Finally, I look at a few examples of collaborative failures on behalf of the government and the community. Over the course of my research, it became apparent the people killed Centralia, not the fire.
ContributorsLandes, Jazmyne (Author) / Bentley, Margaretha (Thesis director) / Gutierrez, Veronica (Committee member) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-12
132277-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
There are certain clear-cut instances where speech is used only to harm, where the context of the situation does not affect or alter the meaning. These instances, however, are rare. The issue presented in Matal v. Tam (2017) highlights the government’s inability to, and difficulty in, attempting to prohibit assumed

There are certain clear-cut instances where speech is used only to harm, where the context of the situation does not affect or alter the meaning. These instances, however, are rare. The issue presented in Matal v. Tam (2017) highlights the government’s inability to, and difficulty in, attempting to prohibit assumed offensive content. This thesis argues that even in the rare and overt instances, the government is required to abstain from regulating hate speech, and that the government will not be able to successfully adopt advocate proposed hate-speech regulations. This thesis embraces the concept of precedent as the most binding force in First Amendment questions. It also begins argumentation at the most important era of First Amendment issues, and then analyzes numerous cases spanning nearly one hundred years. Utilizing case rulings, this thesis examines the American social context, as well as academic and historical writings, throughout the past century. Ultimately, this thesis finds that the decision in Matal was not surprising, and that it supports a contemporary First Amendment jurisprudence that believes in a strong divide between the government and private speech. The implications of Matal have been almost immediate, with several lawsuits being decided or brought to court based on the precedent. The decision implies that hate-speech regulations, already given little credence, will share a similar outcome to the law in Matal.
ContributorsSmith, Case Hilliard (Author) / Russomanno, Joseph (Thesis director) / Russell, Dennis (Committee member) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism & Mass Comm (Contributor) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05
165684-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Education is one of the most important factors in a person’s life - it shapes your friends as a child, your future career, and has tangible effects on a person’s earning potential, health, and more. The state government has the responsibility, and privilege, to provide every child with a K-12

Education is one of the most important factors in a person’s life - it shapes your friends as a child, your future career, and has tangible effects on a person’s earning potential, health, and more. The state government has the responsibility, and privilege, to provide every child with a K-12 education through a system of public schools as directed by the Arizona Constitution. The Arizona State Legislature expanded the public school system to include charter schools to facilitate more choices for students and parents in the delivery of education. In the late 1990s and throughout the last two decades, Arizona would form, fund, and begin to prioritize a parallel publicly-funded private education system. Through the creation of the School Tuition Organization income tax credits, vouchers, and the Empowerment Scholarship Account program the Arizona State Legislature has systematically diverted funds from public schools to private education institutions. A report by the Center for the Future of Arizona, The Arizona We Want: The Decade Ahead, identified a range of issues, including education, that a majority of Arizonans find consensus on. Arizonans agree that a quality K-12 public education system is one of the most important issues to improving Arizona’s future and 73% agree that more money should be spent on K-12 education. Arizona leaders have shown a concerning willingness to ignore expressed public values in relation to education - these policy decisions have left our state public schools, which 88% of Arizona children attend, critically underfunded. Now is the time for all Arizonans to support the future we want by pushing for a strong, well-funded K-12 public education system.
ContributorsGerhart, Stephanie (Author) / Anderson, Derrick (Thesis director) / Francis, Sybil (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Department of Management and Entrepreneurship (Contributor) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor)
Created2022-05