In the milieu of the publishing of my last article, focusing on the inadequacies and failures of the United States Postal System (i.e. the post office), I just finished reading Wendy McElroy's excellent account of the USPS as a system of constitutional injustice and aversion. Written for the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), McElroy pulls most of her information from Dorothy Fowler's Unmailable: Congress and the Post Office, one of the many literary discourses available that seek to address the constitutional, economic, and philosophical faults of a state-based monopoly in the postal system. For convenience purposes, I am providing a few of the article highlights:
The idea of a state-based monopoly in the postal violates constitutional rights in at at least three ways:
- Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution authorized Congress to "establish post offices and post roads," but it didn't bar others from doing so as well. The power to create was not a power to prohibit.
- Because the freedom of press includes and requires the right to privately distribute material to whoever wishes to read it, a government postal system can ban periodicals from using "virtually the only legal channels of distribution."
- The USPS Monopoly can be used for individual, political vendettas of those in power.
McElroy continues to provide tangible examples, corroborating each of the aforementioned constitutional arguments. In the case of presenting an affront to the freedom of press, we we look to the late 1780s, prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. To quote, "The Federalists dominated in the cities through which mail flowed. As a result, Anti-Federalists' communications seemed to disappear or be strangely delayed. The Federalist Postmaster General Ebenezer Hazard came under particular attack for allegedly stopping the flow of Anti-Federalist information."
It does not, however, stop there. In 1872, the USPS decided to grant second-class postal rates (cheaper than the first-class), to newspapers that had satisfied an array of requirements, most notably that the information be "of public character or be devoted to literature, the sciences, or some special industry." Because of this requirement, Moses Harman, editor and publisher of Lucifer the Light Bearer, was denied meeting the lower-rates because his publication included a letter that identified forced sex within a marriage as rape.
Following the 1960s era, the Post Office Department began to keep a list of everyone who received "questionable" mail, most predominantly one that seeks to disseminate radical information (i.e. communist propaganda). Other examples include the banning of the mailing of "unmailable" material as un-American political doctrines during World War I and "subversive propaganda" during World War II.
The editorial additionally puts significant focus on economic abuses. In the September of 2000, for example, the corporation "launched a $12 million campaign to advertise a new Internet service, eBillPay, through which customers could pay their bills electronically." Ironically, because of the legal monopoly that it holds, in conjunction with the fact that it is a state-funded (i.e. paid by regular citizens) monopoly; the owners of firms that would compete with eBillPay, including Paytrust and Billpay, are now required to pay taxes to support their competition. Our federal government truly has a questionable view of the idea of "public benefit," which the system is supposed to maximize.
In another instance of blatant corporate injustice, the postal department decreed that those wishing to send mail to private mail boxes (often used by small businesses and those wishing to preserve their privacy) must indicate that the box is a Private Mail Box (PMB) on the line preceding the box number itself, allegedly as to reduce mail scams, though as argued by Jere Glover, chief counsel of the Office of Advocacy of the small Business Administration, "There is no indication that using a '#' or 'PMB' in an address will in any way deter fraud." What are the repercussions of this decision?
- The government has now a comprehensive list of the people (including their addresses, given that the government ordered in a different decree that private mail box providers have to keep track of this information) who own the private mail boxes, hampering people's trust in the security that the company provides.
- As McElroy explains, "many small businesses are discourage from using private mailboxes with a designation--PMB--that stigmatized them as a 'second class' ventures. Thus another competitor of the USPS is placed at a disadvantage in the marketplace."
It truly does fascinate me that our system of economic regulation, based on the archaic and ideal neoclassical theory of perfect competition, would allow this kind of injustice to occur. Again, only one solution presents itself: abolish and privatize the postal system.
Some time ago, I made a reference to competing in the Great Debate, sponsored by the Clearwater Bar Association. More specifically, I promised that I'd public my cases subsequent to the debate taking place. Well, for all it is worth, Derrick and I did not win. We received high marks, though a 3-judge jury decided in a 2-1 ruling that a team from Lakewood won. It is interesting to note, however, that the jury generally agreed that we had a more through understanding of the topic. On the other hand, according to one of the lawyers in the jury, we "read too much from the paper." I do have to question why you'd look at something as technical as this rather than weighing the competency of one's argument (our presentation style as a whole was commendable), but, what can you do...we shall attempt next year. In the meantime, these the cases that I wrote (we had up to 4 minutes for each):
For those of you who don't remember, the resolution was as follows:
RESOLVED: The Florida Department of Education's mandate that school administrators should actively search information posted by students on MySpace, Facebook, and other social networking sites on the Internet for use as evidence in students' disciplinary proceedings is an impermissible invasion of privacy.
The following is my affirmative case, where I argued that the search is, in fact, an impermissible invasion of privacy:
“If schools spend as much time teaching as they spend telling parents how to parent, maybe we’d have smarter kids coming out.” It is because of our accord with the words of Kristin Larson, a concerned parent whose daughter was unrightfully removed from the school cheerleading team after posting derogatory statement about other cheerleaders on her blog that we stand in support of today’s resolution. We’ll begin our argument by addressing a crucial inadequacy of the resolution itself, demonstrating its impact on the course of debate to follow.
Let us begin with a discussion of the lack of restraint on the scope of information being sought by the school administrators. Though cases as Beussink v. Woodland School District have suggested that school authorities have the power to punish students for speech that materially and substantially disrupts school, even if the speech occurred on student’s private Internet account, several civil advocates have expressed concern for the escalating trend of schools seeking to punish students for offensive speech that criticizes the school administrators. According to Neal McCluskey, a policy analyst at the center for Educational Freedom, there is general concern that schools will extend their power to limit other types of off-campus speech. With several other examples available for corroboration, we point your attention to a Pittsburg high school, where a student was kicked off the volleyball team for an Internet message that criticized an art teacher.
Thus, because of (1) the lack of restraint of the scope of evidence being sought in the resolution itself and (2) the rising threat of the schools’ increasingly active involvement in students’ off-campus activity, we move onto our next point: the Tinker analysis.
As articulated by the Student Press Law Center in 2004, the Tinker v. Des Moines case is important to off-campus Internet speech for several reasons. First, Tinker's implied view of education was that schools should encourage the free exchange of ideas among students. Second, the Court imposed a significant burden on school officials to justify silencing student speech, despite officials' interest in maintaining full control and discipline over students while at school. Finally, Tinker's "schoolhouse gate" language largely has been interpreted to imply that administrative control of student speech does not begin until the student arrives at the school and ends as the student leaves. As the court argued, [T]he First Amendment forbids public school administrators and teachers from regulating the material to which a child is exposed after he leaves school each afternoon. As further articulated, “In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate.” Through the recognition of a student as a rational human being, it becomes indisputable that the society must continue to provide venues that allow students to express and develop creativity, rational objectivity, and freedom of thought, unrestricted by the collectivist tendencies of the U.S. public school system. The United States judicial system has upheld this view in milieu of the settling of 7 judicial disputes, 6 of which have ruled in favor of the student. In the case of Beussink v. Woodland School District, federal district court in Missouri ruled that the school officials violated Buessink’s First Amendment rights by suspending him for a website criticizing the school, teachers and administrators. In Emmett v. Kent School District, the court ruled that the school had crossed its constitutional boundaries by suspending the 18-year-old Nick Emmett for creating an Unofficial Kentlake High Home Page. In analyzing the results of these judicial conflicts, it becomes clear that in purporting to be acting in the interest of in loco parentis, school officials are clearly overstepping their constitutional boundaries when failing to recognize students as free, private citizens when outside the school gates. Because of these reasons we affirm.
Next is the negative case (it is not an impermissible violation):
The undoubted freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against the society’s countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Even the most heated political discourse in a democratic society requires consideration for the personal sensibilities of the other participants and audiences. It is because of our accord with the words of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger that we stand in negation of today’s resolution. In presenting an array of several contentions corroborating our claim, we’ll begin with a resolution analysis.
Because the resolution encompasses a lack of restraint on the scope of information being sought, if affirmed, it can be well argued that the use of any information, whether offensive or one that may disrupt the school learning environment, constitutes an impermissible invasion of privacy. As our case will demonstrate, however, such an interpretation would entail several negative implications on the school environment and would undermine the fundamental principles of social interaction.
According to the First Amendment Center, “from a legal perspective, schools can restrict student speech in the name of safety if (1) they can reasonably forecast substantial disruption under the Tinker v. Des Moines standard, or (2) the student expression is a true threat. Because the basis of any free society is the pursuit of individual will, as long as others’ rights are not impeded upon, it is crucial that we look to the legal precedent exemplifying such a philosophical outlook. In the case of Lavine v. Blaine School District, the court ruled that the schools did not violate Lavine’s First Amendment rights when they temporarily expelled him on emergency basis for writing a poem that depicted violence from a first-person perspective, as the schools could have reasonably forecasted a “potential for substantial disruption”. As the court further noted, “Tinker does not require school officials to wait until disruption occurs before they may act.”
Let us look to the case of Beussink v. Woodland School District, in which the court ruled that school authorities have the power to punish students for speech that materially and substantially disrupts school, even if the speech occurred on student’s private Internet account. Because the failure to respond to these threats with prompt expediency may inevitably result in the undermining of the safe educational atmosphere within a school environment, encroaching upon the rights of others, it is clear that we must negate.
In the second area of analysis, as articulated by the Supreme Court, [T]he First Amendment forbids public school administrators and teachers from regulating the material to which a child is exposed after he leaves school each afternoon. The statement, having been made in 1979, requires modern day reconsideration. Because schools generally contain professionally-trained IT staff and law enforcement agencies specializing in teenage interaction, it can be argued that schools have the capacity needed to effectively dictate child’s Internet activity, especially if that activity conflicts with the school’s purpose of preserving a safe and suitable learning environment for all pupils alike. As contended by Jim White, director of information services at the Clark-Pleasant Community School Corporation, “so we want the students to learn they have First Amendment rights, but there’s a responsibility that comes with that speech.” Because schools provide the venues necessary for creating an environment where students can develop a sense of personal responsibility, we can conclude that schools are the optimal players in regulating child’s off-campus Internet habits.
Having established the requirement of schools to adhere to their ascribed mission of preserving a safe learning environment, in conjunction with a thorough analysis of the school’s ability to act as an appropriate regulator of students’ off-campus Internet activity, we stand in negation.
Any feedback is fine. As mentioned, my posting frequency will be scarce throughout the next few weeks, given that I have to prepare for the NCFL Houston debate, CONA (Conference on National Affairs in North Carolina), and, of course, continue research pertaining to monopolies.
