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/
Thursday, October 25, 2007
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)
