Magazine, making woodstock number two when they said it was the greatest peaceful man made event in history of all mankind and it was second to the man landing on the moon. The legacy of Artie Kornfeld is what . That im sitting here with you right now. [ laughter ] 45 years later. Yeah. Im just so thrilled. I hope what i do next year will be my legacy. Yeah . Yeah. Terrific. Yeah. Thank you. My pleasure. American history tv products are now available at the new cspan online store. Go to cspan store. Org to see whats new for American History tv and check out all of the cspan products. Today marx the 50th anniversary of a Landmark Supreme Court case, tinker v. Des moines. In just a moment well be talking to one of the key players in that case. John tinker will be joining us from des moines, iowa, but first, courtesy of cbs news walter cronkite, the evening news 50 years ago today. The Supreme Court today endorsed the right of student protests so long as the protests does not disrupt order or interfere with the rights of others, but a dissenting justice hugo black said it has an era fostered by the judiciary. It upheld the right of three des moines teenagers to wear black antiwar arm bands. Students do not leave the freedoms of speech and expression at the school door. That courtesy of the cbs news and two of the key players in this case, mary beth tinker, and john tinker joining us from des moines iowa is john tinker. Good morning. Thank you for being with us. Good morning. Its great to be with you. And we apologize that your sister mary beth could not be with us. We fully understand that theres been some ice and weather in the greater des moines area so we appreciate you trekking out and being with us on this sunday morning. Thats right. Give our audience a big were having quite a. Well, we wore black arm bands to protest the war in vietnam back in december of 1965, and when we were suspended we decided to sue the School System for violating our First Amendment right to freedom of expression and we lost at the district court, the Federal District court in des moines. We appealed to the Appellate Court in st. Louis and there they split 44. So we appealed to the Supreme Court and the u. S. Supreme court. There had been a case in the fifth circuit where students had given the right to wear freedom buttons around the Civil Rights Movement and so with the split between the two circuit court, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and at the Supreme Court, as you mentioned we won 72. Our goal for the next hour and we should also point out we welcome our viewers on cspan3, American History tv is to talk not only about the significance of this case, but also 50 years later, how and why it is relevant today. From the majority opinion, justice fortis with the following, quote. First amendment rights applied in the School Environment are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their Constitutional Rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school house gate. Can you explain the significance of that decision . Well, this is the first time that the court, the Supreme Court had recognized that students in the public will schools are persons under the law and therefore they are endowed with their First Amendment rights with the provision that they not disrupt the educational environment. There cannot be materiel and substantial disruption of the environment and they cant infringe on the rights of other, but this is the first time that had been articulated by the Supreme Court and so that was a significant change in the way that students in the Public Schools were seen. And we should point out that while today is the anniversary of the historic Supreme Court ruling, the genesis really began in the mid1960s. So lets go back to what the country was facing in that time period. Lyndon johnson had just been sworn in to a full, fouryear term and the war in vietnam continued to escalate. As we look at the figures courtesy of the defense department, there were an estimated 184,000 u. S. Soldiers in vietnam and look at the increase from the Previous Year where there were just over 23,000 soldiers and the death toll from a few hundred in 1964 to nearly 2,000 in 1965 so explain what you, your sister and others were in that time period and you were, 15, 16 years old at the time . Yes. I was 16 years old. I should explain that my sister and i both grew up within the is Civil Rights Movement. S in our t parents were active in thr civil rightsmi movement and we d a black family and the kids in that family were not permitted to usese the public swimming pool, and my father was a methodist minister in that town. He brought that issue to the city council there, and instead of just correcting it and allowing the kids to go to the swimming pool, they denied the kids permission and the church where my father was a pastor thought that that was a divisive issue in the church and so they didnt renew his contract. So we moved to des moines and he was appointed to a Different Church and in des moines, my mother sort of made sure that i had black friends. She became involved with the Civil Rights Movement in des moines, and indeed, we did have black friends and when we invited them to come to our church, that church also did not want to have black people in their church, and so they also did not renew our fathers contract. At that point he began working for a waker organization. The American Friends Service committee and his job title there was Peace Education secretary. So his job was to bring in speakers about World Affairs and to basically promote peace and so thats the environment that we grew up in, and so by the time the war in vietnam was building up, it was natural for us to be opposed to it, and so by the by thanksgiving time of 1965 there was a large demonstration in washington, d. C. There were two charter busses from iowa and mostly they were College Students from the State University of iowa, Grinnel College and the university of iowa, but there were also other peace activists. I asked for permission to be on that bus trip and to go to washington, d. C. , and i was able to go. On the way back from that there was a discussion on the bus what we might do to continue to protest the war and the idea was raised that we could wear black arm bands. Black arm bands had been worn during the Civil Rights Era to memorialize the three girls that were killed in birmingham. The four girl, i should say, and the three civil rights workers that were also killed. There were black arm bands worn around that, and it was very natural to wear black arm bands to mourn all deaths on both sides of the conflicts in vietnam and we wore them to promote the idea of Robert Kennedy had for Christmas Truce that year. So when the School Authorities found out that we would wear arm bands they got together and they decided that the arm bands would not be permitted and we decided that we really should wear them anyway, and so we wore the black arm bands and a completely silent symbol of our opposition to the war. We were suspended from school. There was a Community Decision really among the Peace Community in des moines and iowa that we would go ahead and pursue the matter in the courts so thats how it got into the court system. Were talking to john tinker. If youre a student or teacher, 8007488000 and for others 8007488001. In 1969 you and your family moved to st. Louis, missouri and to get a sense of whats happening in 1965, you wore the arm band and you were in high nr school design, andy your sister mary beth was in middle school and you had two younger sibling who were in middle school and they, too, wore the arm band, correct . That is correct. We all were opposed to the war. We all felt that it was a horrible loss of life that was going on in vietnam and we were all mourning the deaths. So yes, we did all wear arm bands and ill say that the morning that mary beth wore the arm band i was delivering newspapers and it occurred to me that we hadnt had a Group Discussion of it was not just our family and Christopher Eckhart that wore the arm bands. I was a member of the unitarian youth group and pretty much the whole group decided to wear arm bands and after we found out the School Authority his banned the wearing of arm bands we hadnt had any kind of a Group Discussion. So while i was delivering newspapers i was thinking that we really should get together and i got on the telephone and called people up and told them to hold off until we had a discussion, and mary beth had already gone to school and she left early and chris, when i got a hold of him said i dont want care ill wear it anyway and he went off to school. After the two of them were suspended the first day, we did have a meeting at chris house that afternoon. We tried to call the president of the school board, and he told us that it wasnt an important issue and that we should wait until january and take the matter to the school board, but that would have been after the Christmas Period and we thought it was important to support the Christmas Truce and we thought we had a First Amendment right to wear the arm band. The rest of us wore the arm bands and we were suspended the next day. Did you ever get an apology after the fact from the principal, School Board Members and teachers and others who say you being wecould wear the arm . We never got a formal apology, but i dont feel one is really required at this point. The des moines School System has been very welcoming to us and has treated us very well and provided opportunities for us to talk to students and been very they seem to be very supportive of the case as it sits now. Why is your case, 50 years later, relevant today . Think of all the issues that students have. Theres obviously the gun violence issue, the parkland shooting being a very large one a year ago in floor did arida a number of students and Global Warming is an issue students are very concerned with and there are local issues that students encounter. The suppression of student speech often occurs because schools are embarrassed because the students are pointing out problems that the School Administration may be causing. Anyway, the students all throughout the country have things that they want to say, and i think its good for our society if they are allowed to say it. Lets get to your phone calls as we look back at the 50th anniversary of this landmark case. One of the cases we featured in the landmark cases, michael from florida, good morning. Good morning. Ive got to say this is a real honor to do this to us. Mr. Tinker, your name is on the a. P. Exam every year. So its kind of cool to talk to you. Thank you, michael. Thank you. What ive always wanted to ask is and im glad you just segwayed into it. Are we just fortunate that you guys are protesting something noble like the war or the other reference you made now that the kids want to protest about civil rights and other noble causes. What if eight students came into School Wearing swastikas on arm bands or something or another, something thats abhorrent. The decision didnt really address what you guys are protesting and just your right to wear them and so how would you respond to that . Michael, thank you. Thats right. Our case being looking back on it it was simple in many ways because it was a silent symbol. We werent standing up on the desk proclaiming anything. We were just wearing our arm bands and it was obviously a political statement that we were making. So it fit right down the center of what free speech is all about, and so that is fortunate, in a way. If you had a swastika or a hate symbol of any kind, i think it would complicate the matter because the disruption to the educational environment is a very important consideration because in our country, we have compulsory education, and the Public Schools who have a creature of the state, and so its a kind of a doublesided issue. We have to have an appropriate educational environment and yet because its a creature of the state, it has to it has to be true to the Constitutional Rights that we have, and it is a fortunate coincidence of a nondisruptive protest of a purely political statement. John tinker, a petitioner in the case tinker v. Des moines. It was heard in the fall of 1968 and the decision handed down on this day in 1969, did you have a chance to listen to the oral arguments . This is a kind of a sad story for me. I arrived at the airport in cedar rapids plenty of time for the 11 p. M. Flight. I had a long day, and when i got to the terminal full of people, i fell asleep and when i woke up everybody else was gone. I was kind of surprised that nobody had bothered to just shake me on the shoulder or something to wake me up, but there it was, and i dont know if the fact that i had a beard and the long hair at the time had anything to do with that, but anyway, i missed that flight, and in the morning i being only get a standby flight, and i got bumped off of the flight kecking from chicago to washington. So by the time i got to washington and my father came and picked me up at the airport it was all over. I have since been able to hear the oral arguments and theyre quite interesting, if anyone in the audience would be interested to hear those arguments, they are available online. And theyre available on the cspan webite as we carry oral arguments in the archival arguments at cspan. Org. You can also go to landmark cases for our 90minute program on this case. Greg from holy oak, massachusetts. Thank you for waiting. Good morning. Good morning. Id like to ask mr. Tinker what his views are on kids not being able to wear their maga hats and shirts to school . Thank you. My personal belief is that we should permit all forms of the schools, especially ones that have political components. There was a case in california where students have wanted to wear American Flag shirts to school on cinco de mayo, which was a mexican holiday. My sister and i, mary beth and i did write an amicus brief on behalf of those students that wanted to wear the American Flag. I would support the wearing of maga has or hats or maga shirts. I disagree with that position, but i agree with their expression to wear those. Is that the original armband on your arm this morning . No, this is not. This is an armband that has been printed up by the tinker tour, which is a project that my sister, mary beth, has organized. It is commemorative of that 50th anniversary. The original armband was black. It did not have the peace symbol on it. We have kind of elaborate at it a little. The website is tinkertourusa. Org. Mary beth tinker, part of our landmark cases series, described what happened in 1965. I was very, very nervous, because i was a shy kid anyway and only 13 years old, in eighth grade. People were talking about what to do, what to do, but i decided to go ahead and try to be brave like the other kids i had seen as examples on the news and things. So i had an armband, i had it on and i picked up my friend connie, and she said, you better take that off and you are going to get in trouble. When i got to school, i saw one of my favorite teachers after lunch, he gave me a pink pass. I went to the office after lunch and i looked around the office and i looked at mrs. Tanner and the vice principal, and they said to take off the armband because it is against the rules. As i tell the students in the schools now, in a great stand of courage and conviction, i said ok, and i took off that armband and i gave it to them, but i learned a very important lesson then. You dont have to be the most courageous person in the world. You can be you. You can be you, you can be scared, you can be shy and make a difference, because that is what happens. Mary beth tinker, along with her brother, who made history in a landmark case celebrating its 50th anniversary today. If you want to follow us on twitter at cspan history, we have a poll. Do students today have enough free speech rights at school . This is part of our American History tv programming. 27 percent say it is about right. 13 say too much, 51 say not enough. Richard is next from redlands, california. Good morning. Good morning. Go ahead, richard. How are you doing, sir . This is richard from california. I just moved out here, but i came from des moines to southern california. I lost my fiancee wife, fiancee, to cancer and we moved out here and i got my son up here in school. He is now 13 years old and the schools are having sexual abuse going on, Something Like that, and i am just not understanding it and the kid is not getting the right schooling, nobody calls me in to talk to me or to say, you know, we need to address this or that. It is just weird how they do the schooling out here compared to what we are used to. But i just want to say god bless you guys. Ok richard, thank you for the call. Do you want to weigh in on that point . Thank you, richard. Im sorry to hear about your fiancee. The School Officials have a tremendous task, and i have nothing but admiration for them and what they are trying to do. And it is a difficult role they are in. With regard to our case, you had mentioned earlier, justice blacks dissent in our case, saying now is the time that the students are going to run riot in the schools, and that has not happened. Originally, some of the administrators felt they were not going to know how to handle this freedom of expression that the students now had, but a lot of them have figured out a good balance. It is really often an Educational Opportunity when you have problems in the School Related to expression. Remember, the students in school are not just learning math and science and history and all of that, they are learning how to be citizens in our democracy. It is important that the First Amendment be respected and students are taught to respect the First Amendment, and not think that it is just something that we say because it sounds good, that the First Amendment is something we really believe in. Our landmark cases series, which included not only the tinker case, but New York Times versus sullivan, griswold v. Connecticut, cassidy v u. S. , all of them on our website at landmarkcases. Cspan. Org. In this plaque is commemorating what your sister did at her school in her role in Supreme Court history and continuing to work as an First Amendment rights. Back here phone calls. Diana new york city. Good morning. Hi, in my seventh grade history class we are learning about your case, and i wonder if you think certain racial or homophobic slurs targeting other students should still be protected in schools . Can you stay on the line after john tinker answers that . I would like to followup. My feeling, and this is not the official legal position or the case law necessarily, but my feeling is that some expression verges into virtual assault. I know that assault is defined purely as physical violence, but a threat can really cause physical consequences on the receiving end of the threat. There is quite a bit of controversy over the issue of hate speech. I am generally very, very supportive of speech and i think that our society is better off if you do express in words their opinions of things, but i know that threats can verge in toward the actual nature of violence. So it is a complex issue. Speech outside of school that affects what goes on in the school, it is a very difficult issue. I think that generally speaking, we should avoid suppression of speech and that any control of speech should be done with circumspection and a great deal of concern that we not infringe on the speaker, but i hope that our society can find ways to work out its problems, especially without resorting to physical violence. I think that is a very bad breakdown, obviously. The only way we really have is with words. So we depend on our ability to communicate with words in order to avoid more serious breakdowns in society. I am very hesitant to restrict what anyone might say. And the argument in the 72 decision handed down 50 years ago today, the First Amendment to the u. S. Constitution, which provides freedom of speech, congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of people easily to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I want to go back to diane. Yes . You are 12 years old. Mary beth was 13 at the time, john tinker was 15. Do you think you would have the courage to do what they did more than 50 years ago on issues you are facing today in high school, elementary school, or middle school . I think if it was affecting our country that it would be affecting me too, and i would want to play a role in that and speak out. Diane, think you very much. Where do you go to school . Roto Country School in the bronx. John tinker, what do you hear from this 12yearold . I think it is wonderful. We need that kind of courage from our students and i think they will carry that courage with them as they grow older and become more active citizens, voting citizens. I think that is a very good attitude to take. In des moines, iowa, where rachel is joining us, a teacher. Good morning. Good morning. Im at middle School Teacher in des moines, iowa, and our students study your case and it is a great honor to speak to you, mr. Tinker. My question concerns i think you mentioned it just now concerns the internet and speech in cyberspace. The court seems conflicted on how to apply the standards set in tinker be des moines tinker versus des moines, and how students rights dont stop at the schoolhouse gates, and cyberspace is Something Else that is both at the schoolhouse gate and beyond. My question is, how do you think the standards set by tinker versus des moines should apply to student speech on the internet, which can be disruptive in the school . I am wondering what your thoughts are on that. Thank you very much. Before we get john tinkers response, what is your reaction from the students when you teach this case . They are fascinated by it. It is some thing that was incredibly influential to our society at large and specifically for student rights. That it happened here in des moines and it is something local in their community they love it. Rachel, thank you for the call. John tinker . Thank you, rachel. It is an honor for me to be here speaking with you too. It is a difficult problem, the cyberspace and freedom of speech. My view is that we should be distinguishing between speech which is conveying ideas and speech which is threatening and is an attempt to intimidate people. How that can be done by the courts, i am not sure. The distinction between inside and outside of the schoolhouse gates is becoming blurred. I will go back to my general position regarding freedom of speech and the importance that it holds for our democracy, and that we should be very careful when we consider limiting speech. I would encourage our culture, our society to teach kids to try to see things from the other side. When you have hate speech, you have someone who is trying to inflict damage or intimidation on another person, and you have a person who is on the receiving end of that. An old principle in law and ethics and in morality is to look at thing from the and in morality is to look at things from the other side, a different point of view. It is not easy. If it were, we would not have these problems. But it is an Educational Opportunity for an adult with a mature sense of right and wrong and ethical and moral principles and it is an opportunity for an adult to help the students understand what they are saying and how it is going to be received at the other end. I know that there are cases where that works. I would encourage teachers to help their students find a mature position. An attorney argued the case on your behalf. He tell the justices . They asked if speech he answered yes. That is not exactly the position that the court took when he wrote his majority opinion. It is not exactly the same as freedom of speech inside a school as he would have on a Street Corner or a soapbox. Educational environment is fundamental. It is important to the functioning of the schools. The speech that would be disruptive of the educational environment cannot be permitted. In order to limit speech in the schools, it must be interiorly and substantially disruptive. He says that minor irritations and disruptions have to be tolerated because that is the nature of our society. In our society, we are going to have disputes and contentions and we cannot trying to cut them all out. We can only control it if it will be materially and substantially disruptive or if there is a reasonable fear for the School Environment. The two dissenters in a decision. Handed down 50 years ago today. Among those suspended, your friend, christopher eckardt. Who was he . Chris actually became the class president. He went to the unitarian church. I knew him through not. His parents were very strong civil rights advocates and very strong peace advocates. Our families knew each other. We had the four parents, chris was also a very strong activist and a good guy. He was not really a close friend of mine, but we knew each other and i respected him. He became the class president of his high school. The student body, as a whole respected him. 50 years ago today, this is for tv. How did you find out about the decision . When my family moved to st. Louis, i was attending the university of iowa. I was living at a dormitory and i was in my room. A reporterrom the School Newspaper called me up and informed me that we had won our Supreme Court case. He asked me how i felt about that. I said, i am glad. I was happy that we had won our case, but i also realized it did not stop the war. The war continued for some years after we won our freedom of speech case. It was two different issues. Our victory was not really our primary goal. Our primary goal was to stop the war. We understood that we were a small part of that effort. Good morning, gary. I have a return retired teacher and engineer. I wanted to relate some of the trials and tribulations. Just to set the picture. I had studied history and history told me that the war in vietnam was a big mistake. In the history classes i took, i would take view of being opposed to the war. As a result of that and having written several editorials to the School Newspaper, at the end of my senior year, there was a history award that was to be given out in my school. I had all as in the courses that i took. I had a perfect score. The head of the History Department denied me the award because she said i had not really learned history if i was opposed to the war in vietnam. It was a struggle of being ostracized. Just for holding a point of view that i thought was historically correct. Thank you. Well, that is quite a story. Im sorry it happened that way. I can only say that maybe say it to your whole audience. If you think you are a patriotic american and you want to cause problems for somebody who disagrees with your opinion, in my opinion you are not being a patriotic american. The Supreme Court vindicated us in a sense. They said that what we did was completely an american thing to do. To express your opinion on war or any other issue is a very american thing to do. If we are going to bring our country into the future, we need to be able to express our opinions and not just express them. We need to be able to hear other people when they express their opinions. You have told the story that illustrated a time in history when people were not so good at doing that. I hope, Going Forward into the future, we can improve on that. Eric joining us from new york. Good morning and welcome to the conversation. A great conversation. I was 15 years old also in 1965 in new york. It is very interesting. I called to ask if we could expand the discussion somewhat. I want to make a point that there is a wider issue. The right to protest is very important. I went back and i read a lot of history. 1951, we got involved in vietnam. All the way through eisenhower and kennedy into the 1960s, we were involved more and more. It was not until 1964 when there was an incident that enabled might have been attack on an American Ship or maybe not. Congress authorized military involvement at that basis. In 1968, congress repealed the resolution. The whole notion that we could be involved in the vietnam war and other wars since then without congress authorizing it and how they cast aside the constitutional responsibility. What i am asking, this must have been part of your protest, not to just protest for the sake of wearing an armband. Was that a consideration, how congress was not authorizing this military involvement when that is the primary responsibility for congress . Can i get your thoughts . I would like to hear. Thank you. That is a very important point to make. A very important question. At the time, we were opposed to the war because of the suffering, the death and destruction. Also, for the help. We wore armbands hoping that what Robert Kennedy had proposed would be taken seriously and lead to an ending to the war. This is all postworld war ii. The russians, the soviet union was our ally in world war ii to defeat the nazis. And the japanese, also. Following that, that war, world war ii, it immediately began an arms race between the west and the soviet union. The growth of this destructive potential and Nuclear Arsenals on both sides. The fear the Nuclear Weapon is an instrument of terror. The threat of the Nuclear Weapon is tantamount to terrorism. The mutually assured destruction we were all living with a sort of suicide pact. It is not the kind of life that we want. If you read the quotations i often carry them with me, if you read the quotations i often carry them with me, b khashoggi. I wanted to there was a profit motive that was driving the militarism. The thing is, when war, the threat of war, the threat of death, terrorism. It causes people to behave in a very primal way. It kind of moves our behavior closer to the brain stem if you will. We lose awareness of our higher consciousness, our higher value systems. As you pointed out, there hasnt been a declared war since world war ii. So, congress is really, given away its prerogative to be the declare of our wars. I think that is a real problem in our country. Id very much like to get back to a more judicious consideration of when we should go to war and when not. I forget the number of conflicts that we were involved in at the moment. If you look back to the iraq war. You see a war that was put together on false even dishonest reasons. The vast destruction that caused, and the vast amount of treasure that it cost us, and that trillions of dollars could have been well spent here doing things that we need to do. So the growth of the military Industrial Complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned us against has actually occurred. We are in that era now of that being the rule, the military budget grows year by year. The threats of military action are now taken on lighter and lighter circumstances. The threat now against iran and venezuela. Those are very significant things. Our support for the saudis in yemen. These are the same saudis that cut up the journalist for the Washington Times in Saudi Embassy in turkey. And our president dismissed that as well as that happens. Remember that the saudis by so much of our military equipment. Look at the ethical, and moral position that that has taken. Many of us grew up with religious traditions that is completely abhorrence to. I think as a society we need to consider what we are doing. We as citizens need to figure out some way, to turn it around and get back to a truly civilized society. Your reference to Jamal Khashoggi the journalist for the Washington Post summarize. We have had dozens of tweets. This sense of what our viewers are thinking right now. Does this address only the positions that we consider political question mark is it relevant . How do it does address the central core. Political speech is the most protected speech in the u. S. System. I am a believer that all kinds of expression needs to be protected. I am reminded about the way the nazis considered abstract art as somehow a violation of society. There are all kinds of expressions besides political expressions that are central to being able to express human values. Human values are very complex. Thankfully so. Our society is made up of many more things than politics and political law. The arts are very wide and varied. We need to enable expression in all forms of the arts, as well as in political speech. I am a proponent in freedom of expression. If it does not destroy our society and if it does not violate the rights of others, you will find me, personally, generally in support of it. We are talking we are talking about tinker versus des moines. You and your sister have been traveling across the country, talking about the case. Rebecca is a student generalist. A horrific shooting that forever changed that school and community. Here is what she told a gathering in des moines. My name is rebecca schneider. I am the editor in chief. If he did not know, last year, on february 14, it was the site of a shooting that killed 17 people. I do not think that is what it is all it is known for now. We are not known as a school and victims. We are known as a school of fighters. We speak up for what we believe in. We advocate for the rights we believe that we deserve. If youre going to take anything from today, it should be that it does not matter your age. If you are old enough to be affected by society, your old enough to have a say in it and got for what you believe affected by society, you are old enough to have a say in it student journalist. About about stories that were important to me and my classmates. Culture, diversity, each of these are is important as the other. If any of these issues is important to you, i encourage you to stand up for your rights and to speak up for them and write about them. Student voices are the most important thing in this country right now. They are the things that are keeping us together and holding everybody else accountable for their actions. It write about the issues and affect change. Thank you. It will air later table air later today. Joining us from clinton, maryland, a teacher. Good morning. I want to tell you that i am a 77yearold man who wanted to protest something when i was in elementary school. What i wanted to protest was the requirement of singing the National Anthem by Francis Scott key. One of the reasons i wanted to protest was that Francis Scott key was a holder of slaves. He was racially bigoted and he wrote that bombastic, that violent National Anthem. Now that i am 77 years old, i am protesting. I am protesting that all youngsters throughout the u. S. Should learn the negro National Anthem by James Weldon Johnson. He voted in the 1900s. If you go to wikipedia right now and looking up, youll find that years ago, there was a contest between James Weldon Johnson and Francis Scott keys at National Anthems. James weldon johnsons won, but the judges rejected it. I say to all people, no matter what your age, if you cannot do it when youre young like i was, do it when you get old. Thank you for the call. I think that is an excellent idea. That is a wonderful comment. It points out the need to bring it up. To say it and bring that to us, to let us know that. I agree. The Francis Scott key song is a glorification of war. I think to lift every voice and saying would be a better National Anthem. I do not know how other people feel about that. I think it is open to debate. Everyone should say what they think about that and what us know. I think that is an excellent idea. You heard from rebecca. What are your general observations about this generation . Thank you, rebecca for your comments. I have had the opportunity to meet with journalists from parkland, florida. The school there that had the terrible shooting with 17 students killed. The student journalists are very aware that another court case limited press freedom in the schools and it is an important impediment to student journalists in some parts of the country, although there have been 13 states that have opened up their School Newspapers to freedom of the press. I think that is a very important thing to do. The students today are more aware and more active by far than the students where when i was at school. I think it is a very positive development. I think our society will benefit greatly from it. I encourage student journalists and students of all kinds to speak up, say what you think and let us know what you think. I think it is very essential to our society that you do so. Good morning. I am just retired now at 60 years old. Certainly, the congress was made by what may have been an overpaid incident. I will move on. Regarding the students, absolutely. Student needs to be vocal and they should be given full rights. The problem i had most recently is that Citizens United case that opened pandoras box a little wider of corporate purchasing of the elections. They moved it up into the ad phase instead of just being lobbyists. They can just fund elections. What do think about the chance . Leaning in the direction of looking into the past and holding that stand . The fundamental premise of that case is freedom of speech. Right. Thank you, andy. Very important question. The Citizens United decision is one of the most desired decisions that i am bizarre decisions that i am aware of. To say that money and free speech are the same thing . Cant we distinguish between money and free speech . Money is money and speech is speech. How we spend money we had a divergence since the 1970s by the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting more poor. Back in the eisenhower years, the maximum marginal tax rate was 91 . Now, i am not sure what it is. Maybe 20 or 30 . To equate money with speech is a very strange thing. If money were speech, i would be able to go down to the store and talk my way into whatever i wanted. Money is not speech. You acquaint them, you are basically handing your democracy over to the people with money. Whether that is corrected at the Supreme Court or whether it is corrected through legislation, i hope it is corrected. It will be hard to correct because people talk about buying congress. It is not totally like that, but it is significantly like that. Money does rule a lot of congresspeople. Their opinions follow the money. If youre going to have a democracy, you really have to have one person, one vote. Not one dollar, one vote. I think we need to elect a congress that will overturn it if the Supreme Court itself will not overturn it. Let me bring it back to this case. Why is it relevant today . Its relevant today because the world has not shed its problems. In a lot of ways, there is an indication that it is hard to progress on some of the problems. Some of the problems have become much worse. Freedom of speech in the schools, among the students who have a future in front of them is absolutely essential in my opinion. John tinker joining us from des moines. Thank you for being with us. enjoy American History tv now and every weekend on cspan 3. Having to lie i feel, is the saddest and ugliest part of being homosexual. When
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.