Last month, the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC) presented “Voices Of Resistance And Hope,” an Internet portal where members of black communities can share their life reports on the coronavirus pandemic and the Black Lives Matter movement.
As travel and leisure reports, those reports can be in virtually any format you want. First-hand accounts, non-public stories, essays, poems, and observations are discussed on the portal as imaginable presentations, but it is not limited to writing; Image and video files are also accepted, so images or sequences taken at events, such as original music and animated virtual illustrations through this moment in American history, can also be sent. Your content must have a call and designation category (COVID-19, quarantine, self-reflection, or social disturbance), but you can enter your call as “Anonymous” and make a decision if the museum can contact you about its submission.
“Their non-public expressions can help create reports shared with others in the country and what many of us aspire to in those turbulent times: an opportunity to celebrate American values of resilience, optimism, and spirituality,” the portal says.
The crusade is done through the Robert F. Smith Fund community healing platform of the NMAAHC, an online destination where you can explore all the presentations. There is an old circle of family photos, newspaper articles about private reports of people on protest marches and even a letter that The Quaker Oats Company sent to a student who contacted his moot Aunt Jemima logo… 1968.
You can submit your own content here and see the here.
[h / t Travel – Leisure]
If you’re already in DIY houses for birds and dogs, maybe it’s time you built one for yourself.
As Simplemaximum reports, there are a number of house kits you can order on Amazon, and the Allwood Avalon cabin kit is one of the most scenic and has $32,990. The 540-square-foot design provides enough mastery for a kitchen, bathroom, bedroom and living room, and there is an additional 218 square foot loft with the prospect of being the most comfortable reading domain of all time.
The structure procedure would possibly not be an intelligent concept for someone who has never taken a hammer, but does not want an architectural title to take care of it. Step-by-step commands and all fabrics are included, making it a bit like a high-end IKEA project. According to Amazon’s list, two adults take about a week. Since the northern wooden walls are reinforced with metal rods, the space can face winds of up to 120 mph, and you can pay an additional $1,000 to move from windows and double glazed doors to triple glazing for further fortification.
Although everything you want for the helmet space is in the kit, you will need to buy everything there: toilet, shower, sink, stove, insulation and all other furniture. You can also customize the plan to support your own space plans; maybe, for example, use the space as a place for a small occasion, and prefer to have two or 3 giant, airy rooms without kitchen or bedroom.
Intrigued? Find out here.
[simpler h/t]
This article includes links associated with products decided through our publishers. Mental Floss would possibly get a commission for purchases made by those links.
If you asked some random people to call a scenario that wouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment ‘freedom of speech’ clause, at least one of them is likely to mention the example of someone shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater (when there is no fire). Over the past century, the scene has been widely used to illustrate that if its “freedom of expression” harms others, it can still be placed in the defendant’s chair. But, as with the law, it’s not really that simple.
When other people started talking about human chimney alarms in crowded meetings, it was less of a constitutional debate than a social threat. In the last 18th and early 19th centuries, there were dozens of tragedies [PDF] – basically in the United States, but also – where false cries of “Fire!” caused a panic that resulted in several innocent and avoidable deaths. In 1913, for example, the citizens of Calumet, Michigan, hosted a Christmas party for the young copper miners on strike. Hundreds of others piled up on the ground at the time of the Italian Hall, and when an unidentified culprit (perhaps motivated by anti-union feelings) shouted “Fire! They all ran upstairs. The stampede killed 73 other people, of whom a maximum of young people.
Concern for the chimney site was not unfounded. As not all buildings had sprinkler systems, neon shutdown symptoms and capacity limits occurred many fatal fire collars. More than six hundred more people died at the chimney site at Chicago’s Iroquois Theatre in 1903, (ironically) this construction was actually regarded as a chimney lamp retardant.
In short, shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, a concept firmly rooted in the public consciousness at a time when judges used the word for legal arguments about First Amendment rights.
Axiom has become popular in the legal sphere after Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. discussed it in Schenck v. United States in 1919, but was not the first user to use it in court. As Carlton F.W. Lawson noted in a 2015 article in the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, U.S. lawyer Edwin Wertz had published a longer edition last year while suing activist Eugene Debs. In fact, given that Holmes ruled on Debs’ appeal the same week after the Schenck case, he might even have had Wertz’s idea.
Each case concerned a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, which necessarily made it punishable by any action that might interfere with U.S. army operations, adding by denouncing the project. Debs, a pacifist who opposed the First Global War, criticized for a speech he gave in Ohio; and Charles T. Schenck, general secretary of the American Socialist Party, landed on the Supreme Court for distributing pamphlets encouraging men to reject the project.
But if his analogy touched the sensitive fiber, it has nothing to do with constitutional law.
“The ‘crowded theater’ statement in Schenck has never been a binding norm or doctrine,” Mental Floss Nashwa Gewaily, a media and First Amendment lawyer, told Mental Floss. “It is necessarily an additional touch full of emotion in the component of Judge Holmes, a component of the official legal ruling of this case; a hard symbol that has lasted outdoors in its contextArray… This is not a focus of American jurisprudence.
What Holmes said after that, however, has become popular among long-term arguments about free speech. “The question just in case,” he said, “is whether words are used in such cases and are more likely to create a transparent danger and provide the underlying ills that Congress has the right to prevent. Array»
Over the next 50 years, the transparent and proportionate danger was the accepted, and slightly indistinct, measure of whether spoken or published curtains were a protected discourse. Then, in 1969, the Supreme Court replaced it with something transparent. Brandenburg v. Ohio involved a Leader of the Ku Klux Klan, Clarence Brandenburg, who had damaged Ohio law that opposed defending “crime, sabotage or illegal terrorism strategies” for political purposes. (In his offensive speech, he raised the option of “revenge” [sic] if the federal government did not avoid “repressing the White and Caucasian Race.”)
Brandenburg appealed his guilty verdict before the Supreme Court, which overtumed the ruling on the grounds that his threats were too ambiguous to “incite or [produce] imminent illegal action.” For anything to qualify as imminent anarchic action, it must: expressly defend violence, defend immediate violence, and refer to the violence that would possibly occur.
As Gewaily explains, the judges interpret this popular “much more than many assume.” If individual establishments can condemn hate speech, for example, it is technically through the law, unless there is “immediate violence.”
Then yell falsely “Fire!” in a crowded theater are the situations of impending anarchic action outdoors, and that’s why they fall under the cover of the First Amendment? The short answer is that it depends on the circumstances. But here’s the long answer: if you’re arrested for it, the rates you’re opposed to can make the factor of freedom of expression completely irrelevant.
“The falsely shouted warning, though technically speaking, can potentially violate the corrupt legislation of a state that opposes disturbing peace or disorderly conduct, whether or not it causes a stampede, for example,” Says Gewaily. And if there’s a stampede in which he dies, he can be charged with murder. In other words, there is no law that explicitly prohibits him from shouting “fire” in a theater. This is the other legislation you’ll have to worry about.
Shout “Bomb!” or “Weapon!” in public would put you in a similar situation. In May 2018, for example, officials had to evacuate a component of Daytona Beach International Airport after a guy ran naked into construction screaming for a bomb in the women’s bathroom. There was no bomb, however, he was charged with “false bomb report,” “criminal mischief” and “sex organ exposure,” among others. In that case, no respectful attorney would advise him to claim that his movements went through the First Amendment.
And if there’s one thing Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. has taught us, it’s that not all of a Supreme Court judge’s words count as constitutional doctrine.
Do you have a big question you’d like us to answer? If so, let us know by writing to [email protected].