Data: Smart phones contain a significant quantity of personal data. The police are allowed to search these phones without a warrant. “Once they place a suspect under arrest, police in many parts of this country are allowed to search the contents of his or her mobile phone — including text messages, photos, video files and contacts — without a warrant.”

Claim: The police should not be allowed to search cell phones without a warrant. “Police may not conduct warrantless searches of data on cellphones seized by arrested persons.”
Warrant: Citizens have a right to not have their privacy infringed on. “It’s time for the court to adapt its doctrine to new technology.”

Qualifiers: The police should still be allowed to search phones without a warrant when it’s vital to search at that time. “It could rule more narrowly that searches are permissible when necessary to preserve evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made — for example, if there is a danger that confederates could remotely swipe incriminating information from the phone before a warrant could be obtained.”

Backing: The courts did not know what wealth of personal information they were giving the police access to when they passed the law allowing warrantless search. “These searches can expose a wealth of personal detail that was inconceivable to the Supreme Court 40 years ago when it gave officers wide latitude to search people and their effects when taking them into custody.”

This argument seems completely valid to me. A modern smart phone contains more personal information than can be found in a house search, and if the police need a warrant in order to search a house, they definitely need one to search a phone. As the article stresses, the law is behind the times, and rights to privacy need to be updated.

(2013, October 3). Hands off Our Cellphones. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-cellphones-20131002,0,3491948.story

“Milbank: Washington Redskins Should Change Their Name”
Data: The name of the Redskins is a racial epithet which gathers complaints from offended people. “‘This word is an insult. It’s mean, it’s rude, it’s impolite,’ Kevin Gover, who is Native American and director of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian, said Monday at a news conference on the eve of the NFL meeting.”

Claim: The Redskins should be required to change their name. “The name is going to go in the dustbin of history.”

Warrant: The Redskins should be required to change their name because it is offensive and insensitive. “‘We’re asking the NFL to stop using a racial slur,’ said Ray Halbritter, representing the Oneida Nation.”

Rebuttal: The name of the Redskins is a tradition across generations. Its goal is not to offend anyone. “‘We love our team and its name,’ he wrote, and ‘we do not intend to disparage or disrespect a racial or ethnic group.’” “The name ‘Washington Redskins’ is 80 years old — it’s our history and legacy and tradition.”

Backing: The name may not be gathering the attention it deserves because people are ambivalent about racial slurs about Native Americans. “‘We’ve noticed that other racial insults are out of bounds. .?. We wonder why it is that the word that is directed at us, that refers to us, is not similarly off-limits.’”

This article does not dig into whether the Redskins have the legal right to keep their name, and instead simply states that it is offensive. I agree that changing the name would be the right thing to do, as there is no arguing whether it is offensive. Still, by the right to free speech, I do not believe anyone has the right to force the Redskins to change their name, and this article simply does not mention any reason otherwise.

Milbank, D. (2013, October 8). Milbank: Washington Redskins Should Change Their Name. Denver Post. Retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_24265434/milbank-whats-name-plenty