The last week of September annually marks the date for an awareness campaign on free speech, Banned Books Week. Back in my small, high school classrooms, teachers would encourage reading these books. I’ve become very fond of a few including Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World. The irony with these books: both are censored due to their criticisms of censorship. Also, these two texts were required reading in high school. I’m thankful that these great literary works are now embraced instead of exiled, but what is being banned within American high schools?
In my four years at Lincoln-way East, I fell in love with Shakespeare, let my imagination dance with Fitzgerald, and rebelled with Orwell. I found the paperbacks in my chaotic locker almost always penned by dead, white males. First of all, this curriculum avoids too many current issues that are most prevalent in students’ lives. Also, these one-perspective pieces bound together advocate ethnocentrism, calling for me to forget everything the U of I has worked so hard for me to learn in my Global Studies class. America’s high schools must embrace the basis of freedom of expression, diversity of ideas, in order to fully educate our diverse makeup.
The literature curriculum ties with that of the history department. American high school textbooks remember America, not an accurate one. In fact, when James Loewen and coauthors proposed the text Mississippi: Conflict and Change, the Mississippi Textbook Purchasing Board refused the book, stripping their First Amendment right to pursue Truth with a capital T. Mississippi: Conflict and Change is an accurate portrayal of historic Mississippi that brutally acknowledges race relations in the state. The Purchasing Board found racial matters too controversial. In Loewen v. Turnispeed, U.S. District Judge Orma R. Smith found that the grounds for rejection were not justifiable and the authors were denied their First Amendment rights (1).
High school libraries are censoring students too. In Olathe, Kansas, the school board decided to remove the story of a lesbian romance, Annie on my Mind. The book was present in the school library for over a decade, but when gay rights were coming to a forefront and when students needed to confront the issue most, the school board decided to remove the novel (2). In Cedarville, Arkansas, my favorite boy wizard, Harry Potter, was removed from the school district’s libraries (3). Both school districts were found to be acting unconstitutionally in court.
Censorship is diluting our education. After receiving a high school diploma, I don’t know what really happened in history, I’m just breaking my ignorance on the present, and I’m worried about the future. As we found during our earliest days of First Amendment enlightenment, high schools avoid controversy at all costs but with that they avoid educating.
Sources
1. http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases.htm
2. www.librarylaw.com/Liebler.doc
3. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11382
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Restricting the Right to Speak: American Higher Education in Muddy Waters
All over America, free speech at the collegiate level was tested this fall.
The University of California at Irvine extended an offer of deanship to Erwin Chemerinsky, a political science and law professor at Duke University. Chemerinsky had previously taught in California at the University of Southern California where he gained a reputation for robustly affirmed opinions on civil rights and liberties. Chemerinsky continued his opinions by publishing a critique of the policy change pursued by the current US attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales. Conservative groups opposed the selection. The chancellor later revoked the offer citing Chemerinsky as “too politically controversial” (1).
The withdrawal of the chancellor’s offer is a form of prior restraint. Prior restraint is the restriction based on content in advance of publication. Chemerinsky was not hired to publish at Irvine. He was hired by the university to speak, obviously not freely, to a group of young minds, developing opinions. By taking away his classroom, Chemerinsky was censored.
What is happening to our higher education system? If well-educated, established professors are restricted from passing on their knowledgeable opinions, whose opinion am I supposed to listen to? Whose opinion can I respect? Should I listen to the Iranian president without any commentary?
Columbia University was willing to provide that opportunity, but also allowed their professors to voice opinions. The university invited Iranian President Mohmoud Ahmadinejab to speak to a college audience during his visit to New York. Ahmadinejab has publicly denied the Holocaust. He also believes Israel should be “wiped off the map”. Before being introduced a professor at the university made unflattering comments about the global power. By allowing Ahmadinejab’s opinions to take the stage, Columbia shined a spotlight on the fallacies in his argument. Columbia, a school with a large Jewish community, created a large marketplace for their students shop in. A Jewish organization on campus made a statement supporting the administration’s invitation for free speech (2).
Unfortunately, the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul did not allow the same free speech. The campus was considering inviting Ahmadinejab to speak as a part of a lecture series but did not due to his controversial viewpoints. A university spokesperson stated, "We didn't want to ... bring someone here who has said things that were hurtful to the Jewish community" (3).
Academic freedom is always compromised when free speech is restricted. If the university truly wished to provide their students with a great education, they would have invited Ahmadinejab along with other individuals with countering viewpoints.
As a high school sophomore, Lincoln-way East, the school I attended, denied me the right to a full marketplace. Michelle Obama had offered to speak at my school, but my school denied her generous offer, because they did not want to become politically involved.
It is the responsibility of an educating institution to provide every ounce of education available to them, like Columbia. By denying any resource, the institution revokes a piece of a student’s education. Free speech opportunities surround us. What are we being censored from?
These different events across the country have potentially severe inferences for academic freedom and free speech. Be sure to keep your academic freedom under intense examination.
Sources:
(1) http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uci9nov09,0,5637158.story?coll=la-home-local
(2) http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/07/09/ahmadinejad2.html
(3) http://chronicle.com/subscribe/login?url=http%3A%2F%2Fchronicle.com%2Fweekly%2Fv54%2Fi10%2F10b00701.htm
The University of California at Irvine extended an offer of deanship to Erwin Chemerinsky, a political science and law professor at Duke University. Chemerinsky had previously taught in California at the University of Southern California where he gained a reputation for robustly affirmed opinions on civil rights and liberties. Chemerinsky continued his opinions by publishing a critique of the policy change pursued by the current US attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales. Conservative groups opposed the selection. The chancellor later revoked the offer citing Chemerinsky as “too politically controversial” (1).
The withdrawal of the chancellor’s offer is a form of prior restraint. Prior restraint is the restriction based on content in advance of publication. Chemerinsky was not hired to publish at Irvine. He was hired by the university to speak, obviously not freely, to a group of young minds, developing opinions. By taking away his classroom, Chemerinsky was censored.
What is happening to our higher education system? If well-educated, established professors are restricted from passing on their knowledgeable opinions, whose opinion am I supposed to listen to? Whose opinion can I respect? Should I listen to the Iranian president without any commentary?
Columbia University was willing to provide that opportunity, but also allowed their professors to voice opinions. The university invited Iranian President Mohmoud Ahmadinejab to speak to a college audience during his visit to New York. Ahmadinejab has publicly denied the Holocaust. He also believes Israel should be “wiped off the map”. Before being introduced a professor at the university made unflattering comments about the global power. By allowing Ahmadinejab’s opinions to take the stage, Columbia shined a spotlight on the fallacies in his argument. Columbia, a school with a large Jewish community, created a large marketplace for their students shop in. A Jewish organization on campus made a statement supporting the administration’s invitation for free speech (2).
Unfortunately, the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul did not allow the same free speech. The campus was considering inviting Ahmadinejab to speak as a part of a lecture series but did not due to his controversial viewpoints. A university spokesperson stated, "We didn't want to ... bring someone here who has said things that were hurtful to the Jewish community" (3).
Academic freedom is always compromised when free speech is restricted. If the university truly wished to provide their students with a great education, they would have invited Ahmadinejab along with other individuals with countering viewpoints.
As a high school sophomore, Lincoln-way East, the school I attended, denied me the right to a full marketplace. Michelle Obama had offered to speak at my school, but my school denied her generous offer, because they did not want to become politically involved.
It is the responsibility of an educating institution to provide every ounce of education available to them, like Columbia. By denying any resource, the institution revokes a piece of a student’s education. Free speech opportunities surround us. What are we being censored from?
These different events across the country have potentially severe inferences for academic freedom and free speech. Be sure to keep your academic freedom under intense examination.
Sources:
(1) http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uci9nov09,0,5637158.story?coll=la-home-local
(2) http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/07/09/ahmadinejad2.html
(3) http://chronicle.com/subscribe/login?url=http%3A%2F%2Fchronicle.com%2Fweekly%2Fv54%2Fi10%2F10b00701.htm
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Offensive Speech vs. Free Speech
The Jewish people have suffered a layered history of persecution. Among the difficulties of their past lies demeaning, racist speech. When anti-Semitic speech is thrown into the war between offensive speech and free speech, the battlegrounds become much more heated whether it is on a national or local level.
One of the most publicized national debates was over Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. Passion of the Christ was Gibson’s graphic interpretation of Jesus’s crucifixion. Many objected due to Gibson’s position with the portrayal. Gibson’s father is known for citing the Holocaust as fiction (3).
Katha Pollit stated, “Gibson has violated just about every precept of the conference's own 1988 ‘Criteria’ for the portrayal of Jews in dramatizations of the Passion” (1). Yes, there are limits set by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for passion plays. The Conference set out distinct guidelines to dodge anti-Semitic depictions in the Passion story (2).
Many individuals called for the movie to be banned. If any form of speech is banned, all free speech is threatened. Furthermore, guidelines restricting speech blatantly strip First Amendment values. It is not up to the any organization to set rules on what can or cannot be said. It undermines the protections of the First Amendment. It is up to an individual to censor himself or herself. If such individual does not wish to censor himself or herself, it is their right.
On a local level, anti-Semitic speech is causing quite the debate. The local public television channel, UPTV, is under intense scrutiny. UPTV broadcasts films by pastor Ted Pike. The content is offensive and often anti-Semitic. Many Urbana residents have voiced requests to create hate speech ordinances and laws. Others have called for the end of UPTV (5).
In response, Urbana Resident David Gehrig stated “Concerning UPTV, I think that it would be a terrible shame if one looney-tune with a swastika fetish caused the entire public access channel to be closed down”(6).
The ACLU believes open access debate should be allowed on UPTV, countering anti-Semitic content with other free speech.
If UPTV were shut down, it would effectively censor us all. By striping one man’s right to demean a community, we would strip the community’s right to rebuild. I agree with the ACLU’s opinion. Whether or not speech demeans a culture, censorship will demean a society.
Sources:
(1) http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040329/pollitt
(2) http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=12754
(3) http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-02-19-gibson-main_x.htm
(4) http://www.city.urbana.il.us/urbana/mayor/boards/uptv_commission/minutes/UPTV_minutes_09-17-07.pdf
(5) http://www.city.urbana.il.us/urbana/mayor/boards/uptv_commission/minutes/UPTV_minutes_09-17-07.pdf
(6) http://www.news-gazette.com/news/opinions/letters/2007/11/01/uptv_could_become_antizionism_channel
One of the most publicized national debates was over Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. Passion of the Christ was Gibson’s graphic interpretation of Jesus’s crucifixion. Many objected due to Gibson’s position with the portrayal. Gibson’s father is known for citing the Holocaust as fiction (3).
Katha Pollit stated, “Gibson has violated just about every precept of the conference's own 1988 ‘Criteria’ for the portrayal of Jews in dramatizations of the Passion” (1). Yes, there are limits set by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for passion plays. The Conference set out distinct guidelines to dodge anti-Semitic depictions in the Passion story (2).
Many individuals called for the movie to be banned. If any form of speech is banned, all free speech is threatened. Furthermore, guidelines restricting speech blatantly strip First Amendment values. It is not up to the any organization to set rules on what can or cannot be said. It undermines the protections of the First Amendment. It is up to an individual to censor himself or herself. If such individual does not wish to censor himself or herself, it is their right.
On a local level, anti-Semitic speech is causing quite the debate. The local public television channel, UPTV, is under intense scrutiny. UPTV broadcasts films by pastor Ted Pike. The content is offensive and often anti-Semitic. Many Urbana residents have voiced requests to create hate speech ordinances and laws. Others have called for the end of UPTV (5).
In response, Urbana Resident David Gehrig stated “Concerning UPTV, I think that it would be a terrible shame if one looney-tune with a swastika fetish caused the entire public access channel to be closed down”(6).
The ACLU believes open access debate should be allowed on UPTV, countering anti-Semitic content with other free speech.
If UPTV were shut down, it would effectively censor us all. By striping one man’s right to demean a community, we would strip the community’s right to rebuild. I agree with the ACLU’s opinion. Whether or not speech demeans a culture, censorship will demean a society.
Sources:
(1) http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040329/pollitt
(2) http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=12754
(3) http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-02-19-gibson-main_x.htm
(4) http://www.city.urbana.il.us/urbana/mayor/boards/uptv_commission/minutes/UPTV_minutes_09-17-07.pdf
(5) http://www.city.urbana.il.us/urbana/mayor/boards/uptv_commission/minutes/UPTV_minutes_09-17-07.pdf
(6) http://www.news-gazette.com/news/opinions/letters/2007/11/01/uptv_could_become_antizionism_channel
Thursday, November 1, 2007
We’re Students; Let’s Protest
I stop on the quad in front of a group of young men holding a sign that says “We can stop the war.” An advocate hands me a flyer and encourages me to attend the Campus Antiwar Network meeting on Tuesday evening. “How can we stop the war?” I ask.
His eyebrow raises, and he hesitates before saying, “Come to the meeting to find out!”
“The meeting sounds great, but how can we stop the war?”
“Just come to the meeting and you’ll find out,” he states before scurrying off to address another Illini.
I turn to the man holding the sign. “How can we stop the war?”
“Well, we have to evoke the same anger and protest that fired the Vietnam protests. Talk to your friends, your classmates. Make this a common issue,” he passionately states.
Less than one hundred feet from a small classroom devoted weekly to First Amendment discussion, a group of young Americans exercises their right in the very way the Framers desired. These young men were peacefully assembling and speaking freely to promote additional free speech and peaceful assembly. Students everywhere use their right to assemble peacefully.
On September 30, 1998, Operation Standard, a conservative group at Clemson University in South Carolina, also exercised their First Amendment rights. They petitioned against the “homosexual agenda” of a spoken word tour set to hit campus the next day. The Spitfire tour featured an Indigo Girl, a former grunge king, and an actor collaborating to address a handful of issues including gay rights. The event was free to students of Clemson University due to a $20 activity fee collected each semester. A spokesperson for the group said that if the University did not comply with the petition's requests to shut down the event and ban "others like it" or refund the $20 per-semester student fees, the group will file a lawsuit against the institution. The “others like it” comment refers to a 1998 decision that ruled the use of student fees to fund activist groups on a campus in violation of the First Amendment.
Ironically, in protest of Spitfire, Operation Standard promoted some of the event’s ideals. Former Nirvana bassist and Spitfire moderator Krist Novoselic stated, “Our agenda as a group is to promote free speech. We're encouraging anybody who wants to send out a press release or speak out or show up in protest or get up during the question-and-answer session to do so. That's great; that's what this about" (1).
Earlier in 1998, high school students in Irmo, South Carolina protested after their school cancelled an Indigo Girls concert due to the musicians’ homosexuality and lyrics. The students were suspended for their protest and then filed suit against their superintendent. Unlike in Tinker, these students disrupted their learning by not attending their second period classes for the protest (2). The court denied the students’ request for a preliminary injunction (3).
If the students had protested after the school day, would they still have been suspended? Would the court have ruled in the same way? Honestly, I think the outcome would be the same. If the school was conservative enough to cancel a free concert based on the musician’s sexuality, they would find a way to silence an activist for a gay musician.
Furthermore, does the use of student fees to fund activist groups on a campus really violate First Amendment rights? I stand on middle ground, torn between both sides. On one hand, the viewpoints of another group can only strengthen one’s own. If an institution provides events for opposing activist groups, an excellent learning experience would be provided. On the other hand, should a student be forced to financially support a cause they oppose under any circumstance? My favorite Framer, Thomas Jefferson, stated, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Overall, student protest is one of the greatest actions, no matter what's the side. Find a cause, and make a difference. We're students; let's protest.
Sources:
(1)http://www.vh1.com/artists/news/502231/19980930/indigo_girls.jhtml
(2)http://www.vh1.com/artists/news/200060/19980512/indigo_girls.jhtml
(3)http://www.vh1.com/artists/news/250018/19980513/indigo_girls.jhtml
Indigo Girls - Shame on You
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The Cost of Free Speech
Nappy-headed Hos. The American public became well acquainted with the term after Don Imus, controversial talk show host and writer, referred to Rutgers University women’s basketball team as such on his talk show, Imus in the Morning.
“IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women's final.
ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.
IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --
McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.
IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo”(1).
The black community and feminists responded with a roar. Sponsors started dropping their support. CBS canceled Imus in the Morning (2). Some argue this infringes on Imus’s First Amendment rights. In fact, it does not. As a private company, CBS has the right to promote who they wish. CBS has the right to protect their financial support, advertisers. Advertisers have the right to please their consumer base, the public. This process is capitalism at its best, protecting the public’s interest. In this instance, the damage had unfortunately been done. Capitalism could only protect the public from possible future threats. But what exactly was the damage?
Nappy can be considered the original N-word. Since the days of slavery, nappy has been used to describe the coarse nature of African hair. During these times, the natural hair texture of blacks was considered a negative attribute compared to desirable European hair. “Even within the community, nappy hair for a long time was seen as a bad thing. Nappy hair meant you weren’t beautiful or desirable,” Nsenga Burton, professor of communications and media studies at Goucher College said. Ho is slang for prostitute. It originated in the 1960s representing a dialect pronunciation of whore (3). With Imus’s words, he stripped a basketball team of their beauty and pride. He stripped a culture and a sex of integrity. He stripped a society of respect. Phrases such as “nappy-headed hos” demean the human race and suppress society. A group will become what one tells them they are. A teacher tells a child so many times he is stupid; the child will perform as if he is stupid. A society tells a black woman so many times she is ugly and unwholesome; she will feel as if she is ugly and unwholesome. This is the cost of free speech. As pricey as it may be, I pay.
Sources:
(1) http://mediamatters.org/items/200704040011
(2) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/12/national/main2675273.shtml
(3) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18081301/
“IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women's final.
ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.
IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --
McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.
IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo”(1).
The black community and feminists responded with a roar. Sponsors started dropping their support. CBS canceled Imus in the Morning (2). Some argue this infringes on Imus’s First Amendment rights. In fact, it does not. As a private company, CBS has the right to promote who they wish. CBS has the right to protect their financial support, advertisers. Advertisers have the right to please their consumer base, the public. This process is capitalism at its best, protecting the public’s interest. In this instance, the damage had unfortunately been done. Capitalism could only protect the public from possible future threats. But what exactly was the damage?
Nappy can be considered the original N-word. Since the days of slavery, nappy has been used to describe the coarse nature of African hair. During these times, the natural hair texture of blacks was considered a negative attribute compared to desirable European hair. “Even within the community, nappy hair for a long time was seen as a bad thing. Nappy hair meant you weren’t beautiful or desirable,” Nsenga Burton, professor of communications and media studies at Goucher College said. Ho is slang for prostitute. It originated in the 1960s representing a dialect pronunciation of whore (3). With Imus’s words, he stripped a basketball team of their beauty and pride. He stripped a culture and a sex of integrity. He stripped a society of respect. Phrases such as “nappy-headed hos” demean the human race and suppress society. A group will become what one tells them they are. A teacher tells a child so many times he is stupid; the child will perform as if he is stupid. A society tells a black woman so many times she is ugly and unwholesome; she will feel as if she is ugly and unwholesome. This is the cost of free speech. As pricey as it may be, I pay.
Sources:
(1) http://mediamatters.org/items/200704040011
(2) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/12/national/main2675273.shtml
(3) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18081301/
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Censorship Strikes Again: Musicians Continue their Battle to Freely Speak
Dirt crawls between my toes as my bare feet dance on the trash-littered ground known as Grant Park. I am a mere speck in tens of thousands of people facing a stage with five musicians utilizing their First Amendment rights. Grunge idols Jeff Amnet, Mike McCready, Matt Cameron, and Stone Gossard stand behind the voice of Eddie Vedder singing seditious libel. "George Bush, leave this world alone. George Bush, find yourself another home." Lollapalooza headliners Pearl Jam end the three-day, justice loving music festival with words of activism prancing over familiar melodies. Beyond Vedder’s critiques of America’s president, the band starts another tune with lyrics stating “BP Amoco, Don’t Go” in protest of the company’s recent decision to continue dumping waste into glistening Lake Michigan, which can be seen from the festival grounds. It is August 5, 2007, and freedom rings (1).
I roll sluggishly out of my cozy bed mid-afternoon on August 6 to find news articles swarming my white-framed computer screen. The bell of freedom is silenced. AT&T, Lollapalooza sponsors and broadcasters, censored Vedder’s controversial lyrics in the company’s online coverage. The public screams outrage, and AT&T credits the conveniently placed censorship as “an unfortunate mistake” and an “isolated incident.” Fans point out this incident isn’t so isolated. Less than two months earlier, AT&T censored controversial comments from The Flaming Lips and John Butler Trio at the Bonnaroo Festival in Manchester, Tennessee (2).
And now, two months after Vedder sang his heartfelt words, censorship strikes again. Another outspoken, peace-loving rocker, Bono, was awarded the Liberty Medal for 2007 in Philadelphia on September 27. In his acceptance speech, Bono stated, "You do not have to become a monster to defeat a monster." The official website for the Liberty Medal, www.libertymedal.org, edited Bono’s torture-critical words in their official video coverage of the event (3).
All of the speakers in the addressed cases of censorship cannot be protected under the First Amendment. Private institutions, not the government, censored the content. Whether or not the issues can arrive in American courts, these statements bleed the same ink as the First Amendment. The Framer’s intended the First Amendment to protect seditious libel. The Framer’s intended the First Amendment to protect democracy. Censorship in any form does not accomplish these goals.
Why do we, the people of the United States, support money-orientated corporations that demean our sacred Constitution? Why does a private corporation have the right to shatter the principals of the First Amendment? Pearl Jam Guitarist Mike McCready agrees, "I grew up in a democratic system of government. This is what was taught all through kindergarten through college. Freedom of thought and expression were hallmarks of my early education. These concepts and theories integrated my belief in an American system of democracy. Consequently, I became a musician because of these inalienable rights. Make no mistake I am an artist and a capitalist because of this system that I believe in and our country. I don't however believe that a capitalist corporation such as AT&T has the right to subvert the First Amendment of the constitution to which we all are accountable. This happened on the night we played Lollapalooza. I was dismayed to hear that the act of censoring free speech was used to edit our song 'Daughter' for a web cast. Surely the American listening public can discern for themselves what they deem acceptable to hear. This is a hallmark of our American way! The freedom to listen to what you want or don't want to. The American public was duped as was I in believing that I can speak freely without censorship" (2).
Next time you think you’re “freely” speaking on your AT&T serviced cell phone, think again.
Sources:
(1) http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070809-pearl-jam-censored-by-att-calls-for-a-neutral-net.html
(2) http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1566946/20070813/pearl_jam.jhtml
(3) http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10211
AT&T's "Coverage"
I roll sluggishly out of my cozy bed mid-afternoon on August 6 to find news articles swarming my white-framed computer screen. The bell of freedom is silenced. AT&T, Lollapalooza sponsors and broadcasters, censored Vedder’s controversial lyrics in the company’s online coverage. The public screams outrage, and AT&T credits the conveniently placed censorship as “an unfortunate mistake” and an “isolated incident.” Fans point out this incident isn’t so isolated. Less than two months earlier, AT&T censored controversial comments from The Flaming Lips and John Butler Trio at the Bonnaroo Festival in Manchester, Tennessee (2).
And now, two months after Vedder sang his heartfelt words, censorship strikes again. Another outspoken, peace-loving rocker, Bono, was awarded the Liberty Medal for 2007 in Philadelphia on September 27. In his acceptance speech, Bono stated, "You do not have to become a monster to defeat a monster." The official website for the Liberty Medal, www.libertymedal.org, edited Bono’s torture-critical words in their official video coverage of the event (3).
All of the speakers in the addressed cases of censorship cannot be protected under the First Amendment. Private institutions, not the government, censored the content. Whether or not the issues can arrive in American courts, these statements bleed the same ink as the First Amendment. The Framer’s intended the First Amendment to protect seditious libel. The Framer’s intended the First Amendment to protect democracy. Censorship in any form does not accomplish these goals.
Why do we, the people of the United States, support money-orientated corporations that demean our sacred Constitution? Why does a private corporation have the right to shatter the principals of the First Amendment? Pearl Jam Guitarist Mike McCready agrees, "I grew up in a democratic system of government. This is what was taught all through kindergarten through college. Freedom of thought and expression were hallmarks of my early education. These concepts and theories integrated my belief in an American system of democracy. Consequently, I became a musician because of these inalienable rights. Make no mistake I am an artist and a capitalist because of this system that I believe in and our country. I don't however believe that a capitalist corporation such as AT&T has the right to subvert the First Amendment of the constitution to which we all are accountable. This happened on the night we played Lollapalooza. I was dismayed to hear that the act of censoring free speech was used to edit our song 'Daughter' for a web cast. Surely the American listening public can discern for themselves what they deem acceptable to hear. This is a hallmark of our American way! The freedom to listen to what you want or don't want to. The American public was duped as was I in believing that I can speak freely without censorship" (2).
Next time you think you’re “freely” speaking on your AT&T serviced cell phone, think again.
Sources:
(1) http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070809-pearl-jam-censored-by-att-calls-for-a-neutral-net.html
(2) http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1566946/20070813/pearl_jam.jhtml
(3) http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10211
AT&T's "Coverage"
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Covering the Court
Whenever First Amendment rights are restricted, the public yearns for the inside story in court. But what about the restrictions on the coverage of the court? Is that not a First Amendment issue too?
Civil Rights Law 52, enacted in 1952, prohibits audiovisual coverage, by disallowing coverage of subpoenaed witnesses in New York. The law came about when Bruno Richard Hauptmann kidnapped and killed the son of notable aviator Charles Lindbergh. During the Hauptmann trial, photographers traveled without restriction throughout the courtroom. The photographers carried invasive equipment, fought for the best positions, and climbed over the counsel’s table for close up shots. Since Hauptmann’s days in court, state legislation has been responding with great restrictions (1).
The US Supreme Court instructed states to further their restrictions on news coverage in 1966. In Sheppard v. Maxwell, Sam Sheppard was accused of murdering his wife. The Court found that the coverage interfered with Sheppard’s right to a fair trial and therefore encouraged state coverage limitations (2).
The legislation on court coverage varies state to state. An Illinois witness cannot be forced to testify, if electronic media will cover the testimony. A news outlet must contact the court five days before the proceeding begins for access to coverage. Restrictions vary case to case; the judge’s discretion determines the limitations on coverage (3). In Idaho, the judge has exclusive discretion to decide which electronic devices can be used. The decision cannot be appealed (4).
By enabling one judge the jurisdiction to determine whether or not information can be released, the foundation of the First Amendment cracks. This enables the restriction of seditious libel. For example, a judge restricts unflattering coverage of a government figure. The power of the nation now lies in the hands of government officials and not the people. Democracy and the marketplace of ideas are threatened. The Framer’s included the First Amendment to preserve democracy. Regulated speech kills democracy and Truth. The coverage of court cases, specifically those surrounding the First Amendment, demand the rights of the First Amendment.
Sources:
(1) http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1044059444844
(2)http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=384&invol=333
(3) http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Rules/Art_I/ArtI.htm#63
(4) http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=17283
Civil Rights Law 52, enacted in 1952, prohibits audiovisual coverage, by disallowing coverage of subpoenaed witnesses in New York. The law came about when Bruno Richard Hauptmann kidnapped and killed the son of notable aviator Charles Lindbergh. During the Hauptmann trial, photographers traveled without restriction throughout the courtroom. The photographers carried invasive equipment, fought for the best positions, and climbed over the counsel’s table for close up shots. Since Hauptmann’s days in court, state legislation has been responding with great restrictions (1).
The US Supreme Court instructed states to further their restrictions on news coverage in 1966. In Sheppard v. Maxwell, Sam Sheppard was accused of murdering his wife. The Court found that the coverage interfered with Sheppard’s right to a fair trial and therefore encouraged state coverage limitations (2).
The legislation on court coverage varies state to state. An Illinois witness cannot be forced to testify, if electronic media will cover the testimony. A news outlet must contact the court five days before the proceeding begins for access to coverage. Restrictions vary case to case; the judge’s discretion determines the limitations on coverage (3). In Idaho, the judge has exclusive discretion to decide which electronic devices can be used. The decision cannot be appealed (4).
By enabling one judge the jurisdiction to determine whether or not information can be released, the foundation of the First Amendment cracks. This enables the restriction of seditious libel. For example, a judge restricts unflattering coverage of a government figure. The power of the nation now lies in the hands of government officials and not the people. Democracy and the marketplace of ideas are threatened. The Framer’s included the First Amendment to preserve democracy. Regulated speech kills democracy and Truth. The coverage of court cases, specifically those surrounding the First Amendment, demand the rights of the First Amendment.
Sources:
(1) http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1044059444844
(2)http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=384&invol=333
(3) http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Rules/Art_I/ArtI.htm#63
(4) http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=17283
Monday, October 1, 2007
Bullying the First Amendment: School Administrators Strip Students of Constitutional Rights
Students returning to school this fall in Arlington, Texas were given an extensive contract to sign. With their John Hancock, Arlington High students agreed they would not instant-message, send offensive digital pictures, download video footage, or hack into another student’s email account whether at school or in the privacy of their home. Students from coast to coast are forced into signing comparable agreements. Similar enforcement from the state looks likely in the near future. All across the nation, legislation has been proposed that would allow administrators to suspend or expel a student if they were found to have been bullying another online. Earlier this year, South Carolina passed a law allowing schools to punish “cyber bullies”. Arkansas, Oregon, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have similar laws in the works (1).
According to Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, cyberbullying is “the use of any electronic communication device to harass, intimidate, or bully.” In other words, cyberbullying includes any and all offensive speech made through traceable, electronic devices (2).
Two high school boys in New York claimed the name “cyber bullies” when they created a website dedicated to the publication of girls’ “sexual secrets”. Prosecutors never charged the boys because of free speech concerns (3).
In Killion v. Franklin Regional School District, a student mass-emailed an unflattering “top ten” about the school’s athletic director. When news of the email hit school officials, the author was suspended. While applying Tinker, a federal district court determined that the offensive speech did not create a substantial disruption (4).
In 2000, a high school student in Washington state created a website containing mock obituaries of two of his friends. School administration suspended the website creator, Nick Emmett, for harassment, intimidation, disruption of the educational environment, along with other violations. Emmett sued in defense of his First Amendment rights. The judge suggested that the school authorities did not have the power to regulate at all: “Although the intended audience was undoubtedly connected to Kentlake High School, the speech was entirely outside of the school’s supervision or control” (5).
As seen in these cases, cyberbullying is completely legal without additional legislation. But is the proposed legislation that limits students’ electronic speech constitutional? In my opinion, said legislation is clearly unconstitutional. Limiting any form of offensive speech on the Internet was deemed unconstitutional in Reno v. ACLU. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that speech on the Internet is entitled to the highest level of protection. The First Amendment clearly protects offensive speech, seeing as inoffensive speech goes unquestioned. Furthermore, students are protected from Internet bullies without infringing on First Amendment rights. The First Amendment does not protect actual threats.
The Supreme Court has yet to determine a student Internet case leaving the future unclear. If the proposed legislation is passed, students will be stripped of their constitutional rights.
Sources:
(1) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070913cyberbullying,1,7964745.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
(2) http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18692
(3) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253259,00.html
(4) http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/student.internet.speech.pdf
(5) http://www.faculty.piercelaw.edu/redfield/library/case-emmett.htm
Limiting cyberbullying is not constitutional, but it shouldn't have to be limited.
According to Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, cyberbullying is “the use of any electronic communication device to harass, intimidate, or bully.” In other words, cyberbullying includes any and all offensive speech made through traceable, electronic devices (2).
Two high school boys in New York claimed the name “cyber bullies” when they created a website dedicated to the publication of girls’ “sexual secrets”. Prosecutors never charged the boys because of free speech concerns (3).
In Killion v. Franklin Regional School District, a student mass-emailed an unflattering “top ten” about the school’s athletic director. When news of the email hit school officials, the author was suspended. While applying Tinker, a federal district court determined that the offensive speech did not create a substantial disruption (4).
In 2000, a high school student in Washington state created a website containing mock obituaries of two of his friends. School administration suspended the website creator, Nick Emmett, for harassment, intimidation, disruption of the educational environment, along with other violations. Emmett sued in defense of his First Amendment rights. The judge suggested that the school authorities did not have the power to regulate at all: “Although the intended audience was undoubtedly connected to Kentlake High School, the speech was entirely outside of the school’s supervision or control” (5).
As seen in these cases, cyberbullying is completely legal without additional legislation. But is the proposed legislation that limits students’ electronic speech constitutional? In my opinion, said legislation is clearly unconstitutional. Limiting any form of offensive speech on the Internet was deemed unconstitutional in Reno v. ACLU. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that speech on the Internet is entitled to the highest level of protection. The First Amendment clearly protects offensive speech, seeing as inoffensive speech goes unquestioned. Furthermore, students are protected from Internet bullies without infringing on First Amendment rights. The First Amendment does not protect actual threats.
The Supreme Court has yet to determine a student Internet case leaving the future unclear. If the proposed legislation is passed, students will be stripped of their constitutional rights.
Sources:
(1) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070913cyberbullying,1,7964745.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
(2) http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18692
(3) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253259,00.html
(4) http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/student.internet.speech.pdf
(5) http://www.faculty.piercelaw.edu/redfield/library/case-emmett.htm
Limiting cyberbullying is not constitutional, but it shouldn't have to be limited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
