NationStates Jolt Archive

It seem that a large portion of Americans know next to nothing about their own rights. How can people so loudly proclaim the US the "Land of the Free" when they don't even know what "free" in this case means?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060228museum,1,4808182.story?coll=chi-news-hed

A survey released Wednesday showcases a bit of data that should surprise nobody: Americans know more about "The Simpsons" than they do about the 1st Amendment.

The study, conducted by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum, focuses on the 1st Amendment and found that less than one percent of the respondents could identify the five protected rights: freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly and to petition the government.

On the other hand, about 20 percent of respondents could name Bart and Homer and the other three members of the animated Simpson family.

The random telephone survey of 1,000 U.S. adults was conducted by the marketing research firm Synovate Jan. 20-22. The survey has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

"There was a depth of ... confusion that we weren't expecting," said Dave Anderson, executive director of the museum that will open April 11 at 445 N. Michigan Ave. "I think people take their freedoms for granted. Bottom line."

The constitutional confusion extended beyond what is written in the 1st Amendment. Many respondents also had interesting ideas about items the framers did not include.

The right to own pets, for example, which 21 percent of respondents said was listed someplace between "Congress shall make no law" and "redress of grievances." Seventeen percent said that the amendment contained the right to drive a car. And 38 percent thought that "taking the 5th Amendment" was part of the 1st.

The problem, Anderson said, is that most people don't see any point in memorizing the 1st Amendment. And, of course, interpreting a historical document isn't as much fun as laughing at a TV show, he added.

The survey "isn't surprising, because it's rational to be ignorant of these things," said Northwestern University law professor John McGinnis, a constitutional law expert. "You don't get much for knowing the particulars."

In other words, constitutional scholarship has less of a practical payoff than knowing how a car engine works, he said.

He suggested a new reality TV program as a way to stir popular interest in the Constitution. Call it "The Supremes."

"I'm in favor of ... more publicity for the (U.S.) Supreme Court," he said, explaining that its cases should be televised.

Columbia University law professor Michael Dorf said the results weren't shocking.

"I wouldn't give people a very hard time for not knowing that freedom of religion is protected by the 1st Amendment," Dorf said.

Which isn't to say that there aren't any drawbacks to widespread ignorance, Dorf said. If people ignore their rights, those rights might disappear, he said.

"The Constitution is just a piece of paper," he said. "What makes it work is a public commitment to living under it. And that requires some minimal understanding of what it entails."

Anderson hopes that the museum, which lets visitors explore and discuss 1st Amendment issues through its exhibits, will send people home with a greater understanding and curiosity about the Constitution. The museum will also launch an interactive Web site and distribute curricula for middle schools and high schools.

The museum is run by the McCormick Tribune Foundation, an independent non-profit organization separate from Tribune Co. with substantial holdings in Tribune Co. stock.

In an interview on Michigan Avenue Wednesday afternoon, Kyle Lambert, 26, who said his favorite "Simpsons" character is Homer, struggled to list the five rights of the 1st Amendment. That bothered him, he said.

"It seems like Americans have a pretty limited view of their world," he said. The 1st Amendment is "definitely important. It deals with what we want to do every day."

Law professor Dorf said he could easily name all the Simpsons, and that Lisa, a studious vegetarian, is his favorite.

"It's obvious what should happen here," Dorf said. The Constitution "should be featured in an episode of 'The Simpsons.'"

I think the funniest part is that 17 % of the people in this study said that the first amendment contained the right to drive a car, despite the fact that the car wasn't even invented when it was written.

It's easy. We're so fucking free we don't even need to think about it! :D



And incidentally, did anyone else notice this guy --->:upyours: being on the main smiley page? Maybe they want us to use it more?

It seem that a large portion of Americans know next to nothing about their own rights. How can people so loudly proclaim the US the "Land of the Free" when they don't even know what "free" in this case means?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060228museum,1,4808182.story?coll=chi-news-hed



I think the funniest part is that 17 % of the people in this study said that the first amendment contained the right to drive a car, despite the fact that the car wasn't even invented when it was written.

This reminds me of a similar survey taken among British schoolchildren a few years ago about British history. Shockingly a lot of them thought that the fictional character Edmund Blackadder was a real person!!!!:headbang:

"It's obvious what should happen here," Dorf said. The Constitution "should be featured in an episode of 'The Simpsons.'"
How many people my age know the pre-amble to the Constitution, but only if they can sing it? (http://www.school-house-rock.com/wav/prea.wav)

It seems like a weird comparison to make, but doesn't really compare anything substantial. The Simpsons is a long running tv show and pop culture icon with name reinforcement in the writing of the episodes. It's not as if, "Man, if I had spent every Sunday evening around eight reminding myself of the five rights in the First Amendment instead of being entertained by this cartoon I wouldn't have been embarrassed in that article about that study."

They are not related pieces of information, it tells me that a lot of people don't know the rights, and a large amount of people are familiar with The Simpsons. One doesn't really tell me anything about the other.

EDIT:Cool ass link added

The comparison is a bit random, but one has to wonder... I mean it's five rights, it not like it takes a year in college to learn them. And owning pets? Driving cars?! Where's the common sense?

Speech, religion, press, assembly. What am I missing?

The comparison is a bit random, but one has to wonder... I mean it's five rights, it not like it takes a year in college to learn them. And owning pets? Driving cars?! Where's the common sense?
Jay Leno and a crappy syndicated game show make a bit of thier way off the stupid answers to seemingly simple questions people will give when in front of a camera.

But, the First Amendent isn't taught that way, neccisarily. I've never been asked to 'name the five rights,' but I have been taught that they are there-it's just never 'packaged' like that. So it comes off as kind of an odd question. If asked differently, I'm going to bet that the numbers would be different. If asked if people had the right to assemble, most would know-religion, press, speech, petition the government-most would know. A good number would know that all of that would be in the First Amendment. It's just not taught as 'The Five Rights,' so I can see the question throwing people off.

Not completely excusing the outcome, I'd like to think that if they took a second they could figure out what they where talking about, but still...

But you ask enough people a question and you'll get plenty of batshit stupid answers. I'm pretty sure that's true of just about anywhere. Not much can be made of that.

Speech, religion, press, assembly. What am I missing?
Christ, its in the OP.

Speech, religion, press, assembly. What am I missing?
Petition the Government. You lose two points because the answers where at the begining of the book.

Christ, its in the OP.

I didn't read the OP. And I don't need to know all that, I'm not American.

:rolleyes:

I think surveying 1000 people isnt quite enough to represent the whole country. Maybe they called all the stupid ones.

I didn't read the OP. And I don't need to know all that, I'm not American.
I know your not American. Your Australian. I just don't get you.

:rolleyes:

I think surveying 1000 people isnt quite enough to represent the whole country. Maybe they called all the stupid ones.
true. It occured to me when reading the article that the only people who have time to answer a survey are probably people with nothing better to do, which wouldn't make them the type of people most would regard as intelligent.

:rolleyes:

I think surveying 1000 people isnt quite enough to represent the whole country. Maybe they called all the stupid ones.

The stupid ones are probably the only ones willing to take a survey like this.

:rolleyes:

I think surveying 1000 people isnt quite enough to represent the whole country. Maybe they called all the stupid ones.

I agree. Even though there are formulas and these things have a margin of error of 3% and this and that, I honestly can't see how 1,000 people can be the will of 270 million. Did they just call 10 year olds during vacation week? Did they call people in prison? Did they call people during business hours so the intelligent ones were working and the mind numbed ones were home?

I mean I can believe it, many of the people here are stupid, but 1,000 people = 270,000,000 people is pretty uhhh nope...that's why I tend to regard polls more as a suggestion.

:rolleyes:

I think surveying 1000 people isnt quite enough to represent the whole country. Maybe they called all the stupid ones.


I love the clever, mean spirited douchebags that have time to craft a poll/survey and deliberately mislead a target group in an effort to "expose" Americans as being ignorant.

If we are so pathetically ignorant, imagine how the rest of the world feels? :p

I know your not American. Your Australian. I just don't get you.
You'RE not your.

I love the clever, mean spirited douchebags that have time to craft a poll/survey and deliberately mislead a target group in an effort to "expose" Americans as being ignorant.

If we are so pathetically ignorant, imagine how the rest of the world feels? :p

People are always out to see how "dumb" they can make Americans look but whenever they need help how do they call? Not the ghostbusters.

People are always out to see how "dumb" they can make Americans look but whenever they need help how do they call? Not the ghostbusters.
Dude, I always call Ghostbusters. For anything. You should see their cake decorations.

Stupid survey. 1,000 people can't represent 295,000,000.

Stupid survey. 1,000 people can't represent 295,000,000.

It begs the question on how 435 people manage to represent the country.

It begs the question on how 435 people manage to represent the country.

Zing.

(Oh, and the survey was carried out by an independent market research firm, interviewing 1000 random adults. The percent of error was +/- 3%, so it shouldn't be that far off.)

This survey was likely designed specifically to get embarrassing answers. What were the exact questions asked? If I was asked "What are your protected rights?" I wouldn't understand the question, but if they asked "What are your first amendment rights?" I would say speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition (of Government). And if they asked me "Is driving a car a protected right?" I would probably yes. After all, the US is not Saudi Arabia; even if it isn't explicitly protected, the right is still there.

Snip

Q. What are the freedoms that are guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

It's all part of the plan. "They" don't want us to know, or care for that matter, about our basic human rights because it becomes easier to then legislate our rights away. In a free society the government is supposed to fear its citizens. I fear my government.

Q. What are the freedoms that are guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not guarantee nor grant any rights. These documents RECOGNIZE what the founding fathers considered basic inalienable rights all people have from birth. The documents are meant to protect the people from the government, and guarantee the people will have the means to remove oppressive rule.

While we still have this power to some extent, I think it's clear today that the goverment is too big and too well integrated to be simply "removed" even though it is clear they constantly over step their legal authority.

1,000 people CAN represent 300,000,000 within a margin of error if it's a true random sample. Of course, to have a much clearer idea about what this actually means and not what the newspaper thinks it means, we should know what the methodology and the actual questions of the survey were.

There's an entire branch of mathematics dedicated to this sort of thing, it's called statistics. Wouldn't hurt checking it out.

It seem that a large portion of Americans know next to nothing about their own rights. How can people so loudly proclaim the US the "Land of the Free" when they don't even know what "free" in this case means?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060228museum,1,4808182.story?coll=chi-news-hed



I think the funniest part is that 17 % of the people in this study said that the first amendment contained the right to drive a car, despite the fact that the car wasn't even invented when it was written.
I think this is a good sign: Americans are in tune with what knowledge is important, and what knowledge isn't.

You see, our rights as Americans are no longer important in the least. Our president has informed us that he has the right to do whatever he wants, regardless of our Constitution. Our government violates our rights as a matter of course. 51% of our citizens are not even permitted to claim ownership of their own bodies. Our "free speech" can be restricted to particular zones, our "free press" is bought and sold, and our "free expression" is restricted to only those expressions that are heartily endorsed by the ruling powers.

While our rights may be historically interesting, perhaps a charming bit of American trivia, they aren't really significant to our current world any longer. The Simpsons, on the other hand, are timeless.

I think this is a good sign: Americans are in tune with what knowledge is important, and what knowledge isn't.

You see, our rights as Americans are no longer important in the least. Our president has informed us that he has the right to do whatever he wants, regardless of our Constitution. Our government violates our rights as a matter of course. 51% of our citizens are not even permitted to claim ownership of their own bodies. Our "free speech" can be restricted to particular zones, our "free press" is bought and sold, and our "free expression" is restricted to only those expressions that are heartily endorsed by the ruling powers.

While our rights may be historically interesting, perhaps a charming bit of American trivia, they aren't really significant to our current world any longer. The Simpsons, on the other hand, are timeless.
You know, there's a recommended diary over at Daily Kos by a teacher of American Government asking if it's dishonest to teach the US Constitution anymore, since we seem to be paying so little attention to it these days.

1,000 people CAN represent 300,000,000 withing a margin of error if it's a true random sample. Of course, to have a much clearer idea about what this actually means and not what the newspaper thinks it means, we should know what the methodology and the actual questions of the survey were.

There's an entire branch of mathematics dedicated to this sort of thing, it's called statistics. Wouldn't hurt checking it out.


Sure it can represent ....accurately? No. It's like the Family Feud, survey says what 100 people think is the best cold cereal. That doesnt mean if you took a larger poll sample that the results would be the same. If the survey was taken with say 100,000 do you think it would be fair to say it would be a more accurate representation? If they were talking about a small town, population 5000, then 1000 randoms might suffice. 1000 does not give a reasonable interpretation of the "US's knowledge".

Sure it can represent ....accurately? No. It's like the Family Feud, survey says what 100 people think is the best cold cereal. That doesnt mean if you took a larger poll sample that the results would be the same. If the survey was taken with say 100,000 do you think it would be fair to say it would be a more accurate representation? If they were talking about a small town, population 5000, then 1000 randoms might suffice. 1000 does not give a reasonable interpretation of the "US's knowledge".
Of course not accurately, but within a few percentage points. Of course, if you took a larger sample the margin of error would be less, but it would also be much more expensive. The margin of error for this study, ±3%, is not unreasonable (unless the results are within that margin of error)

Now, I tend to trust a serious statistical analysis, but the intepretations provided by PR releases and the newspaper seldom are. Having access to a summary of the data, including methodology (which would tell us what people were asked) and the questions would be much better. From the story the only thing that can be said is that more people know the names of all five Simpsons than all First Ammendment, which only means that the Simpsons are more entertaining.

The study (http://www.mccormicktribune.org/mccormickmuseum/pdf/Survey_Results_Report.pdf). (PDF ALERT!)

I'm just saying that its like taking a survey of 3 teachers out of 10,000 and asking them what the district handbook says. Then if those 3 didnt know squat, it wouldnt be fair to say "Teachers know more about the Simpsons than they do their own district handbook."

the people who gave the poll obviously were misleading in the way they phrased the question. do you honestly believe that 21% of the people would actually say that the first amendment protected their right to own a pet if the pollsters hadn't lead them into that answer? come on, that's just bull and it throws the credibility of the poll into the garbage.

the people who gave the poll obviously were misleading in the way they phrased the question.

Yes, "What are the freedoms that are guarenteed to US citizens by the first ammendment of the US constitution?" Is such a misleading question...

do you honestly believe that 21% of the people would actually say that the first amendment protected their right to own a pet if the pollsters hadn't lead them into that answer?

Yes, yes I do.

I'm just saying that its like taking a survey of 3 teachers out of 10,000 and asking them what the district handbook says. Then if those 3 didnt know squat, it wouldnt be fair to say "Teachers know more about the Simpsons than they do their own district handbook."
Of course not, because that wouldn't be a representative sample, even though it lookd proportionally the same as in the study there's more than that to create a representative sample.

Now, if you took a representative sample of random teachers, then it would be reasonable to assume that they know the Simpsons better. What conclusions you get from that statement is another matter (are they dumb or are the Simpsons easier to learn, etc.) and often subject to debate.

the people who gave the poll obviously were misleading in the way they phrased the question. do you honestly believe that 21% of the people would actually say that the first amendment protected their right to own a pet if the pollsters hadn't lead them into that answer? come on, that's just bull and it throws the credibility of the poll into the garbage.
Dude, something like 1/3 Americans say that the Sun orbits the Earth. Half of America believes that humanity was created in its current form by a magical Sky Fairy. 34% of Americans still think George Bush is doing a good job.

I think 21% is a surprisingly low number.

I always love polls. The "exit" polls in '04 said that X% of the US was voting one way and the election came out another. The pundits screamed "conspiracy" yet nobody I know was ever asked. These are the same way.

There's what, 250 million people in the US? Can 1000, or even 10,000 really be a "representative sample"?

The study (http://www.mccormicktribune.org/mccormickmuseum/pdf/Survey_Results_Report.pdf). (PDF ALERT!)
Thanks. It looks rather pointless. Pretty much it says that popular culture is more popular than the First Ammendment rights (duh!) and that some people think that a right is in the First Ammendment instead of the 15th (it's the same Constitution, ain't it?) and that some of the freedoms they enjoy are in the Constitution when they actually aren't (may not be constitutional, but just try to take my Rottweiller).

I wouldn't say US people are dumb, I'd say they're just too busy to worry about these things.

There's what, 250 million people in the US? Can 1000, or even 10,000 really be a "representative sample"?
Yup, much more representative than asking people you know. The trick is to make it random. Polling companies go through great lengths to achieve that randomness (although true randomness can never be achieved) and it will always have a degree of error.

Dude, something like 1/3 Americans say that the Sun orbits the Earth. Half of America believes that humanity was created in its current form by a magical Sky Fairy. 34% of Americans still think George Bush is doing a good job.

I think 21% is a surprisingly low number.

i don't see any reason to attack anybody's religious beliefs. and i'd like to see where you get the figure of 1/3 of americans saying that the sun orbits the earth.

Petition the Government. You lose two points because the answers where at the begining of the book.

You lose one point for misspelling were. hehe

and i'd like to see where you get the figure of 1/3 of americans saying that the sun orbits the earth.

From a poll of course :)

Hm, based on what those links, the study seems valid and unsurprising.

Unsurprising - the things they measured (how well people know the Simpsons, how well people know slogans) are all things that commercial entities have vested interests in making rememberable. The whole PURPOSE of the "Simpsons" TV show or of "Advertising Slogans" is to make people REMEMBER them and come back to them.

The purpose of the 1st Amendment was to describe people's rights - it's not marketed, it's not advertised on TV, it doesn't make any particular effort to be rememberable.

And there's also the confusion caused by the rest of the constitution - according to the study, there were many people that cited rights granted in other parts of the constitution as 1st amendment rights.

It does not surprise me at all that something designed to be marketable is, well, more marketable than something that was not designed to be marketable.



...as for the validity -

The question seems, as far as I can tell, not particularly biased - it does not goad people into some answer or other.

Sampling size - it was carried out by what seems like a reputable polling company, and the methodology seems reasonable (random telephone interview with, as far as I know, no interest in proving one result or another), and a 95% confidence interval of 3% seems about right, based on what I remember from my introductory statistics course.

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm <-- has some info on sample sizes that are required for various confidence intervals

http://www.school-house-rock.com/wav/prea.wav

School House Rock!!!!!

I miss that, my kids know shite what I did.
Now its fecking pokemon, and them rolling their eyes as I make them watch the news, and listen to me explain CSPAN.

Who're the Simpsons? ;)

Yup, much more representative than asking people you know. The trick is to make it random. Polling companies go through great lengths to achieve that randomness (although true randomness can never be achieved) and it will always have a degree of error.
Actually no.
It has been proven time and time again that these poles are indeed NOT representative.

However, given the number of people I know who insist there are 52 states.......>.> I say I concur with findings.

The difference of course is it forgoes that fact most general populations are totally ignorant of some aspect of their culture, and science.

America, is not an anomoly--it is a representative of the rule.

Anyone know the survey qustions or a link...I am curious how bad I would do.

This reminds me of a similar survey taken among British schoolchildren a few years ago about British history. Shockingly a lot of them thought that the fictional character Edmund Blackadder was a real person!!!!:headbang:

You mean he's not?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Oh Noes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Seriously though, I know he's not real, but the show does provide some off-the-wall insights into the various time periods. Plus it's funny.

Simpsons has one of those going for it.

Long live Blackadder!

:rolleyes:

I think surveying 1000 people isnt quite enough to represent the whole country. Maybe they called all the stupid ones.
it is enough as long as the people are chosen with proper statistical method. thats just the way statistics works

i dont see the big deal. its comparing apples and oranges. americans can name more fruits than they can rights. they can name more beatles songs than rights in the first ammendment. they can name more super models.

whatever

it is enough as long as the people are chosen with proper statistical method. thats just the way statistics works

i dont see the big deal. its comparing apples and oranges. americans can name more fruits than they can rights. they can name more beatles songs than rights in the first ammendment. they can name more super models.

whatever

Um...

There are more fruits than there are rights, I'm pretty sure.

Um...

There are more fruits than there are rights, I'm pretty sure.
ya think?

does that in some way invalidate my point?

Actually no.
It has been proven time and time again that these poles are indeed NOT representative.
I was talking about the 1000 random persons sample, not exit polls on voting day. Because of their own nature they lose randomness, that's what makes them less reliable.

there is a difference between pop culture, and govenrment.

i cant remember the last time i sat down and read the constitution because i was bored, or had nothing better to do. i garuntee it is not just the Americans, im sure if you do a poll in the UK on the Magna Carta or even ask them what the hell the doomsday book was, i garuntee you will get close to the same results.