By Zoe Brittain
Delegates Pete Villasmil, Alex Beck and Sean Raines feel that singing off pitch should be a guaranteed right, much like the freedom of speech and expression found in the First Amendment. Going into Conference, this team wanted to bring something different to the table and deviate from the norm. They searched for a topic that would provide comic relief and hopefully pass in the Senate, House, and eventually Governor's Cabinet. “To find what we wanted to write a bill about we Googled ‘ridiculous laws in North Carolina’ and this one frequently showed up. We collaborated and made a pretty decent bill that we felt would pass across the board,” said delegate Sean Raines. In the senate, the bill faced the expected opposition speaker, but the group clarified the terms of the bill in rebuttals to slowly but surely persuade delegates to vote for their bill. Singing off key is subjective. Villasmil, Beck, and Raines felt that if one were convicted of this it would simply be outrageous. “Allowing our colleague, Alex Beck, to sing off key was the best way to make an impression on how ridiculous this law is. In one regard, he was breaking North Carolina law in the process, but one can argue that demonstrates our passion in the passage of this bill,” delegate Pete Villasmil said. One of the delegates, Alex Beck, shared his story of being vocally impaired since birth and that he feels this law is oppressive to him and other people with the same story. Beck took the liberty of giving a live performance to the song “You Don't Know You’re Beautiful” by One Direction to gain sympathy from others in the Senate and House. “Although enforcement of this law is scarce, I would really hate to be doing karaoke night at Buffalo Wild Wings with my friends and suddenly be arrested and face a fine or even prison time for simply expressing myself,” he said. The opposition argued that singing off pitch is a public disturbance, an insult to professional singers, and would damage people's hearing. “Without [the existing law], people would be singing off-key freely while degrading the integrity of the music industry and talented artists. There are those who can sing and those who cannot and should not,” lobbyist Kimberly Blackburn said. The team responded, “Texas v. Johnson was a landmark freedom of speech Supreme Court case that essentially solidified the idea that offensive speech is protected under the First Amendment in the constitution. We noticed during our research that this case was perfect for illustrating the legality of this bill,” delegate Pete Villasmil said. Luckily, this tactic proved to be effective. Other delegates in both the House and the Senate expressed that they too were awful singers and that they would hate to face punishment for singing their favorite “jams.” One delegate during the pro/con debate said “I get sick often which leads to me losing my voice or it sounding really scratchy. I like to sing in my shower and car but it sounds terrible. I would hate to face any sort of legal persecution for trying to have fun.” The bill passed in the House, Senate and Governor’s Cabinet. One of the members of GovCab, Owen Lester, stated “It was an unnecessary bill in the first place. It clearly limited citizens of North Carolina’s right to free speech and was essentially unconstitutional.” Alex Beck, Pete Villasmil and Sean Raines can officially say they accomplished what they came here to do. “It feels great to have passed our bill wherever we presented it. My team and I are proud to be in the bill book and I look forward to coming back next year and doing it all again,” delegate Raines said. On or off pitch, this team stands behind you in your decision to sing.
0 Comments
By Cooper Metts Kamryn Gaither and Jae’lin Parker-Freeman, delegates from the Forsyth Early College, authored the controversial House Bill 42.
House Bill 42, is an act to try minors as adults in the state of North Carolina if they are accused of a serious or violent crime such as first, second, or third-degree kidnapping, sexual assault, or manslaughter. Delegates in the chamber were very split on their opinions as to whether or not the bill should pass. In defense of her bill, Gaither said,“It’s like if a two year old was to steal cookies from the cookie jar. They know it is wrong yet they still did it. They need to be punished. This same concept applies to sixteen year olds when committing serious crimes.” Gaither was motivated to write the bill because she feels people need to be held more accountable for their actions.“I feel like if you commit a crime like murder or rape, no matter what age you are, you know that is wrong. People need to be held accountable for their actions.” Parker-Freeman said that the impact of this bill would not only affect the crime levels of juvenile delinquents today but also the crime levels of future juvenile delinquents. “I feel like if people were tried as adults at the age of sixteen then it would prevent the future criminal activity of those individuals as well as cut down on the juvenile criminal activity today.” Gaither said she believes youth need to be held more accountable for criminal actions.“I think that as youth, society has taught us that because we are youth we get somewhat of a free pass.” Several delegates vehemently opposed the bill. Arguments primarily centered around the idea that juvenile correction centers have had much success in the rehabilitation of those delinquents. While Parker-Freeman and Gaither acknowledged this point, they said they believed by the age of sixteen, people need to be held accountable for their actions as adults. Several delegates spoke in favor of the bill and based their arguments predominantly around the idea that sixteen year olds should be held accountable for their actions. They also concurred with Parker-Freeman and Gaithers idea that if youth are not held accountable for their actions they are being failed by society. At the end of the vote, the aye’s took the majority by a twenty-three to nineteen margin. Gaither’s final words on the topic were, “society sets youth up for failure in adulthood by making them expect a free pass when really, they deserve to be held accountable for their actions.” |
|