--- Arthur O'Shaughnessy

On Wednesday, a couple of people from our court system dropped by for an editorial board to discuss a proposal to place a replica of the Liberty Bell at the old Fifth Street School downtown as part of an educational program about our Constitution, Bill of Rights and justice system. Several courts bookend the school on Lewis Street.

That evening, President Bush delivered his State of the Union address. He spoke of bringing peace to the world and renewing "the values that sustain our liberty."

During both presentations a story from the Tuesday Review-Journal kept coming to mind. It was about a two-year, $1 million survey of 112,000 students --- "The Future of the First Amendment," commissioned by a foundation established by a couple of newspaper magnates, John S. and James L. Knight. The students were asked about their knowledge of and respect for the First Amendment and its guarantees of freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.

In many respects the results were not unlike the depressing results of the annual State of the First Amendment survey of their parents --- only worse.

After having the First Amendment read to them, 35 percent of high schoolers agreed with the statement that it goes too far in the rights it guarantees, while only 44 percent disagreed and the remaining 21 percent couldn't even summon enough gumption or brain power to answer the question. A year earlier in a survey of American adults, 30 percent agreed the First Amendment goes too far while 65 percent disagreed.

Does not bode well for the future of those values that sustain liberty, does it?

When asked whether newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without prior government approval of a story, only 24 percent of the students strongly agreed. This compares to 48 percent of adults.

On the other hand, 32 percent of students think the press already has too much freedom, compared to a shocking 42 percent of adults.

Maybe it is a matter of context, since 70 percent of students said musicians --- and we use that term loosely, considering what passes for music these days --- should be allowed to use offensive lyrics. Only 59 percent of grown-ups would tolerate those lyrics.

That tolerance for lyrics does not translate to burning the flag as a political statement. Seventy percent of students thought it should not be allowed. Only 45 percent of adults support a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution.

Ignorance of the current state of the law is rampant among the young, with 75 percent saying it is currently illegal to burn a flag in protest. It is not. Asked if reporters can be jailed for refusing to reveal a news source, 69 percent said no. They can be. Asked if the government can restrict indecent material on the Internet, 49 percent said yes. It can't.

"These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous," said Hodding Carter III, the president of the Knight Foundation. "Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation's future."

The Constitution was advocated to a suspicious American public in the Federalist Papers --- widely published in the newspapers of the day --- as a framework for the citizens to maintain their freedoms by balancing and limiting the powers of government. But even that was being resisted until James Madison helped to push through the Bill of Rights as the first 10 amendments, limiting the powers of government and spelling out the rights of the people.

President Bush concluded his speech by saying: "As Franklin Roosevelt once reminded Americans (in his second inaugural address), 'Each age is a dream that is dying, or one that is coming to birth.' And we live in the country where the biggest dreams are born."

Are those dreams dying? What would be the outcome of a vote on the Bill of Rights today?