Introduction
Since its conception in November 27, 1955 it seems that controversy follows the Kansas based funeral-picketing Westboro Baptist Church. By going to their website - godhatesfags.com[1] (a rather polished site), you can even find links to access all their picketing signs including: “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”, “Priests Rape Boys” and “Your Pastor is a Whore”. With messages like these, this content is obviously highly offensive and seems as though it should be banned. Yet, to eliminate speech that may be considered inappropriate (such as Westboro’s) would be to eliminate the principles that stand at the base of our democratic process and the purpose of free speech as a whole. To preserve our democracy, it is imperative that we continue to uphold the values of differing opinion, especially when presented in the face of opposition -- so we can continue to keep the dialogue alive.
Philosophical and Historical Reasoning
Despite that fact that the type of speech that Westboro omits is highly offensive (I will focus mainly on their most controversial type of speech: funeral picketing of soldiers) there are several main principles as to why this type of speech should be allowed. First, according to Tedford and Herbeck, the law must support each citizen’s right to serve as a communicator, not limiting the privilege to a powerful few.[2] Further, we must never silence the critics of the “establishment” because it ultimately offers a system of checks and balances.
The main philosophical reasons for freedom of speech are central for allowing Westboro to maintain their positions. John Milton, in Areopagitica published in 1644 that “society should allow a free and open clash of ideas in the belief that truth would win out.”[3] This is exactly why we should allow these arguments, though unfavorable, to exist. Further, John Stuart Mill in his essay On Liberty built his case along the same lines. First, a censored idea may be true and the accepted opinion may be in error. Second, even truth needs to be tested. Finally, there is some truth in all opinions. Overall, it is healthy for an active democracy; it is imperative for a society to receive uncensored information and be able to reach informed conclusions on public issues based upon all types of information so they can take place in the political process.
Arriving back to the idea that free speech only progresses a system of checks and balances, even if an individual offers an unpopular or distasteful opinion, it only validates the majority opinion further: therefore making it stronger. Zachariah Chafee, Jr. argues that “the great interest in free speech should be sacrificed only when the interest in public safety is really imperiled.”[4] In the case of Westboro, we see that their actions are obviously not self-serving and that they are merely trying to offer an opposing view in the search for truth. Ultimately, they are impairing no-ones safety through their peaceful (though irritating) protests. Though the point that they make may be crude, by Chafee’s definition it is still worthwhile, because they are making social statements in an attempt to benefit society through what they see is right.[5] Through this political expression, others like Alexander Meiklejohn argue that this very type of expression may never be abridged because this type of speech is essential to self-government – reinforcing the system of checks and balances.[6]
Legal Reasoning: Westboro and Protection under the “Immediate Incitement” Test
The case of Westboro can be seen to directly parallel the Brandenburg v. Ohio case which introduced a standard for evidence which must be met by the government. This landmark case involving the Ku Klux Klan leader Clarence Brandenburg and his speeches (that were also against popular interest) gave a unanimous decision reversing Brandenburg’s conviction which set a strong precedent: by requiring an actual empirical finding of imminent harm, this test protects the advocacy of lawlessness except in unusual instances.[7] It is this test of imperial harm that holds Westboro to a standard that makes what they are doing completely lawful, though some may not agree with it. Here, we must consider elements of intent to incite illegal action. To be punishable, the speech must be more then just talk – it must seriously intend to incite unlawful conduct that is immediate, impending and about to occur.[8]
By utilizing this test, we see that Westboro’s speech is far from seditious. The question here remains: what exactly is involved in Westboro’s picketing? The Columbia Daily Tribune outlines just that: Westboro’s protests involve dragging an American flag on the ground and displaying provocative signs, including one that showed President Barack Obama with devil horns.[9] Further, majority of their protests are silent. Though, their signs may be offensive, they are advocating for no direct action, but merely offering an alternative opinion that is meant to incite dialogue and stir up controversy. Further, on their website, they give anyone permission to use their content for any purpose – therefore, it is obvious that they intend to simply create dialogue, even if it is in opposition. According to the test – since they advocate no action, especially immediate action, Westboro’s speech can in no way be considered seditious and should therefore be protected.
Ties between Westboro and Cohen v. California
No other case better exemplifies an appropriate legal precedent then the case of Cohen v. California. According to the Cornell University School of Law the case outlines how “appellant (Cohen) was convicted of violating that part of Cal.Penal Code § 415 which prohibits offensive conduct, for wearing a jacket bearing the words "Fuck the Draft" in a corridor of the Los Angeles Courthouse.” [10] Yet, the Supreme Court protected this speech because it was not legally obscene (i.e. erotic). Also, because it was not directed at an individual hearer in such a way to provoke violence it is therefore protected by the constitution. Therefore, the definition of “fighting words changed to become words that are actually directed towards another in such a way to create danger.
According to Justice Frankfuter, “One of the prerogatives of American citizenship is to criticize the public men and measures – and that means not only informed and responsible criticism but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation.”[11] In correlation to the Westboro case, the words “Fuck the Draft” are very similar to the words and shock value that Westboro projects during their picketing. Here, Westboro’s speech remains outside the definition of ‘obscene’ and that of ‘fighting words’. Further, since it is not intended to provoke violence or direct action, it should be protected under the law.
Conclusion
While there is no doubt that the picketing of Westboro Baptist Church may seem highly offensive, we must protect the very principles that make our democracy strong by allowing speech that may seem outlandish. Ultimately, there is never a circumstance where it would be appropriate to limit one’s ability to speak objectionably about something so long as they cause no harm to others or advocate this harm. By definition, Westboro violates none of this. Therefore, if we are to truly uphold the ideals of a free and democratic society, we must seek to constantly re-affirm the people’s ability to speak in objection to what they feel is wrong. In doing this, we protect the free flow of new ideas that makes this country strong in the first place.
[1] Westboro Baptist Church “God Hates Fags”
[2] Tedford and Herbeck – page 5
[3] Tedford and Herbeck – page 433
[4] Tedford and Herbeck – page 435
[5] Tedford and Herbeck – page 437
[6] Tedford and Herbeck – page 436
[7] “Brandenburg v. Ohio…”
[8] Tedford and Herbeck– page 67
[9] Greaney J., S. Semelka. "Fighting hate with peace”
[10] “Cohen v. California”
[11] Tedford and Herbeck – page 176
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Questions of Liberty...
Response to Chapter 6, Provocations to Anger and Words that Wound as well as the website “The Nuremberg Files.”
Our class discussion on ‘The Nuremberg Files’ has really stuck with me throughout the quarter as being one of the highlighting issues into what exactly free speech encompasses and how that could possibly be damaging to an individuals rights. In other cases, such as juicycampus.com we see an issue of free speech presented in that what you present online could in fact damage a reputation and lead to personal issues later on. Here, this same idea is taken to a whole new extreme. On one hand, we cannot limit free speech by infringing on the rights to having lists of abortion doctors posted, yet on the other we see links to murder related to what is posted on these sites. As its name relates directly back to the Nazi’s in Germany, the assumptions the site makes are very strong. Though this site does not directly encourage murder, it is assumed. Can we limit speech based off assumption? Where do we draw the line?
Investigating this further, I was able to read an article by John Fitzpatrick in an Issues and Views post about how he felt about censoring such sites. In 1999 an Oregon jury in a civil cases awarded two women’s clinics and four abortion providers $109 million against anti-abortionists and the ‘Nuremberg Files’ website was closed. In Fitzpatrick’s opinion he states that, “The threat to free speech often comes from governments and courts, but others too. It comes from those who demand protection from being “offended”, and from those with such a poor opinion of their fellows that they insist on having the poor things sheltered from all manner of incitement and corruption. It also comes from those who, having failed to convince other people of their views, resort to violence. Anybody who cares about freedom of speech should condemn the anti-abortionists in the “Nuremberg Files” case – not for their views on abortion, but for polluting free debate with the aura of violence and for degrading the very principles which lie behind the idea of freedom of speech in the first place.” Fitzpatrick argues that by pushing their opponents into submission, and this taints the public debate forum.
Question one: In this context, what exactly constitutes a threat of imminent harm? With such protected practices as picketing, do you see any correlation? Further, do you believe that this decision perhaps could strike a blow at political rhetoric and do you think there should/can be a difference between promoting something and actually doing it?
In the ongoing debate regarding controls upon and limitations of free speech as it is protected by the first amendment, the United States Supreme Court has determined that there are in fact boundaries by which free speech can be curtailed if the expression is injurious, inflammatory, or disruptive to the peace of the greater community. According to chapter 6 (p.169), in 1938, Newton Cantwell, a Jehovah’s Witness incited two Catholic men, whom they were attempting to convert, by playing anti-Catholic rhetoric on their phonograph, which in turn led to a verbal altercation on the part of the Catholic men. Cantwell, promptly gathered his belongings and left the scene. State courts later ruled that Cantwell was not protected by the first amendment due to the fact that the he had intentionally incited the men. However, the U.S. Supreme Court later ruled that Cantwell’s actions were not threatening or abusive because the men agreed to expose themselves to the presentation, and Cantwell did not intend to insult the listeners. His actions did not beach the peace of the community, and the ruling was overturned.Later in 1942, Walter Chaplinski, another Jehovah’s Witness, incited a group of listeners he had attracted by calling organized religion a racket, and by claiming that he alone was presenting the true word of the bible. Upon being arrested hey threw insulting epithets at the arresting officer, which were later deemed to be inflammatory, and incendiary, charges that the Supreme Court ultimately, and unanimously agreed with. They determined that Chaplinski’s display, crossed the line of being protected by the first amendment, when he entered into the heated verbal exchange with the arresting officer, in which he disrupted the peace, and blatantly insulted the arresting officer, using fighting words that he meant to be injurious. In this landmark case, the Supreme Court determined that free speech can be curtailed if it is deemed injurious, inflammatory, and disruptive to its audience.
Question 2: Due to the fact that all individuals have differing tolerances for what they will personally allow in terms of inflammatory remarks, or injurious verbiage, how can there be legislation and morality base on a broad scale that determines what can an can’t be said to all persons, and still be protected by the first amendment. Should society play to the lowest common denominator, and set precedent based upon what the weakest and most intolerable members of society are willing to withstand?
The case regarding Arthur Terminiello the anti-Semitic racist Catholic priest from Alabama who was on suspension by his bishop was invited to speak to a group calling themselves the Christian Veterans of America. As his speech brought about protestors and supporters as he condemned the “communistic Zionistic” Jews of America as his listeners responded with cries of “Kill the Jews.” Ultimately, Terminiello was arrested and charged with an ordinance describing that “assisting in making any improper noise, riot, disturbance, breach of the peace or diversion tending to a breach of peace”. Upon appeal the Supreme Court reversed his conviction saying that the ruling was overly broad way to define “breaching the peace.” Further, Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the court which stated, “the vitality of civil and political institutions depends on free discussion… that it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is affected. (p.172)”
Question 3: While, I think there is little doubt about this notion, it calls into question the idea of forum and where it is in fact appropriate to exchange these very ideas. In terms of political debate, do you EVER think it appropriate to allow racist remarks? Or, do you think that by dispelling those remarks through addressing them, it only eliminates racist tension by brining it to light? With such comedies as South Park, do you think this type of racists speech is ok to address when it is proposed in a forum of comedy or is it never ok?
Our class discussion on ‘The Nuremberg Files’ has really stuck with me throughout the quarter as being one of the highlighting issues into what exactly free speech encompasses and how that could possibly be damaging to an individuals rights. In other cases, such as juicycampus.com we see an issue of free speech presented in that what you present online could in fact damage a reputation and lead to personal issues later on. Here, this same idea is taken to a whole new extreme. On one hand, we cannot limit free speech by infringing on the rights to having lists of abortion doctors posted, yet on the other we see links to murder related to what is posted on these sites. As its name relates directly back to the Nazi’s in Germany, the assumptions the site makes are very strong. Though this site does not directly encourage murder, it is assumed. Can we limit speech based off assumption? Where do we draw the line?
Investigating this further, I was able to read an article by John Fitzpatrick in an Issues and Views post about how he felt about censoring such sites. In 1999 an Oregon jury in a civil cases awarded two women’s clinics and four abortion providers $109 million against anti-abortionists and the ‘Nuremberg Files’ website was closed. In Fitzpatrick’s opinion he states that, “The threat to free speech often comes from governments and courts, but others too. It comes from those who demand protection from being “offended”, and from those with such a poor opinion of their fellows that they insist on having the poor things sheltered from all manner of incitement and corruption. It also comes from those who, having failed to convince other people of their views, resort to violence. Anybody who cares about freedom of speech should condemn the anti-abortionists in the “Nuremberg Files” case – not for their views on abortion, but for polluting free debate with the aura of violence and for degrading the very principles which lie behind the idea of freedom of speech in the first place.” Fitzpatrick argues that by pushing their opponents into submission, and this taints the public debate forum.
Question one: In this context, what exactly constitutes a threat of imminent harm? With such protected practices as picketing, do you see any correlation? Further, do you believe that this decision perhaps could strike a blow at political rhetoric and do you think there should/can be a difference between promoting something and actually doing it?
In the ongoing debate regarding controls upon and limitations of free speech as it is protected by the first amendment, the United States Supreme Court has determined that there are in fact boundaries by which free speech can be curtailed if the expression is injurious, inflammatory, or disruptive to the peace of the greater community. According to chapter 6 (p.169), in 1938, Newton Cantwell, a Jehovah’s Witness incited two Catholic men, whom they were attempting to convert, by playing anti-Catholic rhetoric on their phonograph, which in turn led to a verbal altercation on the part of the Catholic men. Cantwell, promptly gathered his belongings and left the scene. State courts later ruled that Cantwell was not protected by the first amendment due to the fact that the he had intentionally incited the men. However, the U.S. Supreme Court later ruled that Cantwell’s actions were not threatening or abusive because the men agreed to expose themselves to the presentation, and Cantwell did not intend to insult the listeners. His actions did not beach the peace of the community, and the ruling was overturned.Later in 1942, Walter Chaplinski, another Jehovah’s Witness, incited a group of listeners he had attracted by calling organized religion a racket, and by claiming that he alone was presenting the true word of the bible. Upon being arrested hey threw insulting epithets at the arresting officer, which were later deemed to be inflammatory, and incendiary, charges that the Supreme Court ultimately, and unanimously agreed with. They determined that Chaplinski’s display, crossed the line of being protected by the first amendment, when he entered into the heated verbal exchange with the arresting officer, in which he disrupted the peace, and blatantly insulted the arresting officer, using fighting words that he meant to be injurious. In this landmark case, the Supreme Court determined that free speech can be curtailed if it is deemed injurious, inflammatory, and disruptive to its audience.
Question 2: Due to the fact that all individuals have differing tolerances for what they will personally allow in terms of inflammatory remarks, or injurious verbiage, how can there be legislation and morality base on a broad scale that determines what can an can’t be said to all persons, and still be protected by the first amendment. Should society play to the lowest common denominator, and set precedent based upon what the weakest and most intolerable members of society are willing to withstand?
The case regarding Arthur Terminiello the anti-Semitic racist Catholic priest from Alabama who was on suspension by his bishop was invited to speak to a group calling themselves the Christian Veterans of America. As his speech brought about protestors and supporters as he condemned the “communistic Zionistic” Jews of America as his listeners responded with cries of “Kill the Jews.” Ultimately, Terminiello was arrested and charged with an ordinance describing that “assisting in making any improper noise, riot, disturbance, breach of the peace or diversion tending to a breach of peace”. Upon appeal the Supreme Court reversed his conviction saying that the ruling was overly broad way to define “breaching the peace.” Further, Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the court which stated, “the vitality of civil and political institutions depends on free discussion… that it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is affected. (p.172)”
Question 3: While, I think there is little doubt about this notion, it calls into question the idea of forum and where it is in fact appropriate to exchange these very ideas. In terms of political debate, do you EVER think it appropriate to allow racist remarks? Or, do you think that by dispelling those remarks through addressing them, it only eliminates racist tension by brining it to light? With such comedies as South Park, do you think this type of racists speech is ok to address when it is proposed in a forum of comedy or is it never ok?
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The Definition of Obscene Speech – Does it even Exist?
(Response to Evan’s question posted: Tuesday, May 19th)
First and foremost, I just want to commend Evan for the thought that he obviously put into writing these very complex questions and in particular, I would like to respond to the first question he presents relating to chapter 5’s Religio-Moral Heresy and particularly, what entails obscene speech.
In his multi-stranded question, Evan presents the idea of blurred lines in relation to what exactly obscenity involves and the context in which this type of speech occurs. He provides two deeply contrasting incidences and asks where do you draw the line for free speech: on one hand it is ok for Howard Stern to invite porn stars and others to come in and talk openly about sexually explicit acts on the air, yet Don Imus (another radio host) lost his job for referring to a Rutgers women basketball players as a “nappy headed Ho”. Evan then asks where do we draw the line between what is obscene and what is not? Does obscenity only relate to certain topics (such as racism)? And further my interpretation of his last question begged me to think about whether speech ever should be punishable without intent to harm? Where do we draw the line?
Obviously, this is a very complex issue to tackle. In fact, I was listening to NPR the other day and they had an entire segment on sexual language in daytime sitcoms. When the show ‘I Love Lucy’ came out you were not allow to say “pregnant” on the air. In contrast, NPR gave examples of language and content today, which now includes words like “whore” and tons upon tons of sexual innuendos.
Here, we can see that as society evolves so does our tolerance for what we can get away with. Once the shock value is gone from speech that is considered profane it seems to become accepted as a norm of society and thus as we continue to constantly push our limits our tolerance grows over time.
Evan made an excellent point. We are tolerant of things like sex on Howard Stern, but not tolerant of a racially connotative comment. Why is this?
For our answer we can look to page 121 in the book. The chapter describes what exactly is profane and disgusting speech. Historically, this is where the term obscenity fits, yet today we see a shift in Anglo-American law that defines it as sensual and erotic (this is where it gets blurry). This point, however, is one that I want to investigate further. One of the most famous cases relating to this topic is radio host George Carlin’s satirical monologue “Filthy Words” in which he builds around the ‘seven words you cannot say’. Ultimately the FCC deemed this too indecent to air due to the fact that children could hear it, though it was not legally obscene.
So, what then is legally obscene? One would think fowl language or racists comments could be just as obscene as sexual language. Further, if erotic and sensual defines obscenity – how then is Howard Stern still on the air?! Overall, this issue directly ties back to time, place and manner related problems as we discussed during our South Park PDF in class. Everyone knows South Park is meant to be offensive and Howard Stern fits in the same category: comedy. For whatever reason, comedy is a societal norm and as norms in comedy are constantly pushed and shift obscene speech becomes permissible in this context.
Inappropriate comedy is tolerable and we are slowly integrating new norms into what classifies this area. Comedy is usually presented late at night away from children and there are still issues that are deemed inappropriate such as racial slander which have not become normalized to joke about. In this context, obscenity becomes acceptable. When it is away from children and in the hands of individuals who understand its comedic purpose, then the speech can be considered less harmful in some respects. However, we apply certain standards and expectations to various groups, and when an obscene comment is out of context for their respective role, they are then punished for it. This opens up new issues into what exactly defines obscene speech and begs the question: is an expectation enough to except someone from obscene speech? Ultimately, this idea is so loose and so variable upon context, I think it really does create a slippery slope. The way to define it precisely, remains to be seen.
First and foremost, I just want to commend Evan for the thought that he obviously put into writing these very complex questions and in particular, I would like to respond to the first question he presents relating to chapter 5’s Religio-Moral Heresy and particularly, what entails obscene speech.
In his multi-stranded question, Evan presents the idea of blurred lines in relation to what exactly obscenity involves and the context in which this type of speech occurs. He provides two deeply contrasting incidences and asks where do you draw the line for free speech: on one hand it is ok for Howard Stern to invite porn stars and others to come in and talk openly about sexually explicit acts on the air, yet Don Imus (another radio host) lost his job for referring to a Rutgers women basketball players as a “nappy headed Ho”. Evan then asks where do we draw the line between what is obscene and what is not? Does obscenity only relate to certain topics (such as racism)? And further my interpretation of his last question begged me to think about whether speech ever should be punishable without intent to harm? Where do we draw the line?
Obviously, this is a very complex issue to tackle. In fact, I was listening to NPR the other day and they had an entire segment on sexual language in daytime sitcoms. When the show ‘I Love Lucy’ came out you were not allow to say “pregnant” on the air. In contrast, NPR gave examples of language and content today, which now includes words like “whore” and tons upon tons of sexual innuendos.
Here, we can see that as society evolves so does our tolerance for what we can get away with. Once the shock value is gone from speech that is considered profane it seems to become accepted as a norm of society and thus as we continue to constantly push our limits our tolerance grows over time.
Evan made an excellent point. We are tolerant of things like sex on Howard Stern, but not tolerant of a racially connotative comment. Why is this?
For our answer we can look to page 121 in the book. The chapter describes what exactly is profane and disgusting speech. Historically, this is where the term obscenity fits, yet today we see a shift in Anglo-American law that defines it as sensual and erotic (this is where it gets blurry). This point, however, is one that I want to investigate further. One of the most famous cases relating to this topic is radio host George Carlin’s satirical monologue “Filthy Words” in which he builds around the ‘seven words you cannot say’. Ultimately the FCC deemed this too indecent to air due to the fact that children could hear it, though it was not legally obscene.
So, what then is legally obscene? One would think fowl language or racists comments could be just as obscene as sexual language. Further, if erotic and sensual defines obscenity – how then is Howard Stern still on the air?! Overall, this issue directly ties back to time, place and manner related problems as we discussed during our South Park PDF in class. Everyone knows South Park is meant to be offensive and Howard Stern fits in the same category: comedy. For whatever reason, comedy is a societal norm and as norms in comedy are constantly pushed and shift obscene speech becomes permissible in this context.
Inappropriate comedy is tolerable and we are slowly integrating new norms into what classifies this area. Comedy is usually presented late at night away from children and there are still issues that are deemed inappropriate such as racial slander which have not become normalized to joke about. In this context, obscenity becomes acceptable. When it is away from children and in the hands of individuals who understand its comedic purpose, then the speech can be considered less harmful in some respects. However, we apply certain standards and expectations to various groups, and when an obscene comment is out of context for their respective role, they are then punished for it. This opens up new issues into what exactly defines obscene speech and begs the question: is an expectation enough to except someone from obscene speech? Ultimately, this idea is so loose and so variable upon context, I think it really does create a slippery slope. The way to define it precisely, remains to be seen.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Where do we draw the line? (The controversy surrounding funeral picketing)
Responding to Funeral Demonstrations (In-Class Debate on May 6, 2009)
The debate on Wednesday focused around the very controversial topic of funeral picketing of fallen soldiers – a conflict most recently brought to light by the Westboro Baptist Church who entered the spotlight in 1998 when they protested against a man who was beaten to death due to his homosexuality, and again in 2005 when they picked a 19 year old soldier who died in Iraq, amongst others. However, these questions bring forth the idea of freedom of expression versus infringement on people’s right to mourn properly – and the decency of how we should act as peoples towards one another; which are the issues that the two debates set out to address.
The government began setting out to first invoke personal emotion; by challenging the audience to imagine a close family members funeral being picketed by a war demonstration we were able to connect to the anger that the families could potentially feel. To preserve the family’s right to mourn in peace and uphold the integrity and dignity for those members who had passed the government proposed federal legislation that would hinder demonstration at funerals of soldiers who had died at war. The government presented their case by showcasing their case on a moral ground. Center around the idea of respect and individual protection, the government highlighted legal precedence in supporting cases that would uphold the idea of private mourning. Further, the argument centered on the idea of appropriateness and how a political demonstration at a time of mourning is in fact an infringement on personal rights to allow such an intimate act to remain intimate.
The opposition countered their argument and said that any government restriction would cross lines that would be too broad to define; ultimately by paving the way for a very slippery slope. The idea of the military is to protect free ideas and democracy, and limiting picketing would counter those very core fundamentals of what a free society advocates. Further expressing that public dissent is in fact a healthy and necessary thing to be had in our democracy and if the line is drawn at funeral pickets, then who is to say that will not open other doors to limit free speech. If we limit these pickets, whose to stop the placing of limitations on other pickets if they are considered offensive to some? This slippery slope could ultimately open the door to hindering our freedom of speech in not only this circumstance, but others.
While ultimately both sides made great argument, the appeal to emotion made by the government was not easy enough to define. On many levels, there is no doubt that any rational person would say that picketing at a funeral is indecent. However, who really has the right to define the limits of what we in society consider decent and what we do not? While it may not be decent, it certainly does not cause direct harm. Ultimately, the opposition was able to tie their argument more concretely with how limiting our rights throughout history have in fact infringed on those justices that the soldiers died to protect. In example, at one time the idea of creating a non-segregated United States could have been considered an indecent proposal. The United States is a free market of ideas, and opposition has been at its foundation since the conception of this nation, which is why we so strongly guard those rights in the first place.
Often differing ideas offend many, but a difference of opinion is not enough to limit our right to free speech that those soldiers fought to protect in the first place. While it could be reasonable to perhaps limit distances, the idea of infringing on another’s feelings or emotions is much to indefinable to limit our freedoms based on that premise, especially when we cannot see physical signs of damage. If we limit picketing, who is to say the government cannot limit when or where name-calling can be used? It is obvious here, that such value statements made by the government are too hard to define and if we give the government the power to define decency, there is no limit to what restrictions that could place on our democratic values in the future.
The debate on Wednesday focused around the very controversial topic of funeral picketing of fallen soldiers – a conflict most recently brought to light by the Westboro Baptist Church who entered the spotlight in 1998 when they protested against a man who was beaten to death due to his homosexuality, and again in 2005 when they picked a 19 year old soldier who died in Iraq, amongst others. However, these questions bring forth the idea of freedom of expression versus infringement on people’s right to mourn properly – and the decency of how we should act as peoples towards one another; which are the issues that the two debates set out to address.
The government began setting out to first invoke personal emotion; by challenging the audience to imagine a close family members funeral being picketed by a war demonstration we were able to connect to the anger that the families could potentially feel. To preserve the family’s right to mourn in peace and uphold the integrity and dignity for those members who had passed the government proposed federal legislation that would hinder demonstration at funerals of soldiers who had died at war. The government presented their case by showcasing their case on a moral ground. Center around the idea of respect and individual protection, the government highlighted legal precedence in supporting cases that would uphold the idea of private mourning. Further, the argument centered on the idea of appropriateness and how a political demonstration at a time of mourning is in fact an infringement on personal rights to allow such an intimate act to remain intimate.
The opposition countered their argument and said that any government restriction would cross lines that would be too broad to define; ultimately by paving the way for a very slippery slope. The idea of the military is to protect free ideas and democracy, and limiting picketing would counter those very core fundamentals of what a free society advocates. Further expressing that public dissent is in fact a healthy and necessary thing to be had in our democracy and if the line is drawn at funeral pickets, then who is to say that will not open other doors to limit free speech. If we limit these pickets, whose to stop the placing of limitations on other pickets if they are considered offensive to some? This slippery slope could ultimately open the door to hindering our freedom of speech in not only this circumstance, but others.
While ultimately both sides made great argument, the appeal to emotion made by the government was not easy enough to define. On many levels, there is no doubt that any rational person would say that picketing at a funeral is indecent. However, who really has the right to define the limits of what we in society consider decent and what we do not? While it may not be decent, it certainly does not cause direct harm. Ultimately, the opposition was able to tie their argument more concretely with how limiting our rights throughout history have in fact infringed on those justices that the soldiers died to protect. In example, at one time the idea of creating a non-segregated United States could have been considered an indecent proposal. The United States is a free market of ideas, and opposition has been at its foundation since the conception of this nation, which is why we so strongly guard those rights in the first place.
Often differing ideas offend many, but a difference of opinion is not enough to limit our right to free speech that those soldiers fought to protect in the first place. While it could be reasonable to perhaps limit distances, the idea of infringing on another’s feelings or emotions is much to indefinable to limit our freedoms based on that premise, especially when we cannot see physical signs of damage. If we limit picketing, who is to say the government cannot limit when or where name-calling can be used? It is obvious here, that such value statements made by the government are too hard to define and if we give the government the power to define decency, there is no limit to what restrictions that could place on our democratic values in the future.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Where is the accountability?
Fear spoils freedom's promise… a response to Paul K. McMasters
In relation to the article Fear spoils freedom's promise I definitely agree that the flow of information today seems overwhelming. So often today, as the media grows in size and depth and as more of the general public participates in the conversation, the ways in which we are able to share information seems limitless. However, one of the most pressing communication issues today is the simple issue that there is little to no accountability for those who are sending the message in the over exhausting media atmosphere.
Today, the idea of anonymity can be as much of a powerful idea as well as a dangerous one. As McMasters addressed in his article there are "constant and rapid advances in new forms of media which provokes new modes of speech -- and thus more anxiety." Advancements in technology have really opened up the forum for an alternative opinion which really helps uphold the ideals of the first amendment, those who previously have not had a voice can speak freely and clearly with no punishment. Further, the Internet gives way to new insight and information and offers numerous opinions and insight from those who perhaps know it better than traditional new sources. There is so many great advantages of living in an age of advanced communication, as consumers of the media are being shown more alternatives, better advice and more free-flowing information. However, with such a exhaustion of information and communication tools available it is often hard to distinguish fact from fiction. Thus, it is often easy to just accept what you hear and see at face value and take it for the truth which could also present a major problem.
Not everything that is posted is true, and most of us know this. Whereas, traditional new sources (such as newspapers and television) are held by the general public to a certain level of professionalism and accountability, news from the average public themselves are not. Yet, as today we are so used to the idea of quick and easy information, we tend to not want to overextend too much effort really cross-checking the facts of what we are reading in today's media environment. Even today, we see the indecencies of companies and corporations who go on various media sites just to hype up their products, without being held to any sort of standard of saying who they are or what they are representing, and often it only becomes an issue when these companies are caught. The idea that you can tell a lie and get away with it has always been a tempting premise, and with the new media environment this idea only increasingly grows more appealing.
How can we differentiate the truth from a lie when they are so intermingled within one another in the new media environment? Does this lessen the validity of those who do take the time to tell the truth? How can we possibly try accountability on the Internet while the idea of free speech exists? Finally, where do we draw the line? As McMasters says, "we struggle to separate the good from the bad, reality from fantasy, the safe from the dangerous." As this premise only becomes more blurry and the levels of information expand and grow, how do we move forward and progress?...
In relation to the article Fear spoils freedom's promise I definitely agree that the flow of information today seems overwhelming. So often today, as the media grows in size and depth and as more of the general public participates in the conversation, the ways in which we are able to share information seems limitless. However, one of the most pressing communication issues today is the simple issue that there is little to no accountability for those who are sending the message in the over exhausting media atmosphere.
Today, the idea of anonymity can be as much of a powerful idea as well as a dangerous one. As McMasters addressed in his article there are "constant and rapid advances in new forms of media which provokes new modes of speech -- and thus more anxiety." Advancements in technology have really opened up the forum for an alternative opinion which really helps uphold the ideals of the first amendment, those who previously have not had a voice can speak freely and clearly with no punishment. Further, the Internet gives way to new insight and information and offers numerous opinions and insight from those who perhaps know it better than traditional new sources. There is so many great advantages of living in an age of advanced communication, as consumers of the media are being shown more alternatives, better advice and more free-flowing information. However, with such a exhaustion of information and communication tools available it is often hard to distinguish fact from fiction. Thus, it is often easy to just accept what you hear and see at face value and take it for the truth which could also present a major problem.
Not everything that is posted is true, and most of us know this. Whereas, traditional new sources (such as newspapers and television) are held by the general public to a certain level of professionalism and accountability, news from the average public themselves are not. Yet, as today we are so used to the idea of quick and easy information, we tend to not want to overextend too much effort really cross-checking the facts of what we are reading in today's media environment. Even today, we see the indecencies of companies and corporations who go on various media sites just to hype up their products, without being held to any sort of standard of saying who they are or what they are representing, and often it only becomes an issue when these companies are caught. The idea that you can tell a lie and get away with it has always been a tempting premise, and with the new media environment this idea only increasingly grows more appealing.
How can we differentiate the truth from a lie when they are so intermingled within one another in the new media environment? Does this lessen the validity of those who do take the time to tell the truth? How can we possibly try accountability on the Internet while the idea of free speech exists? Finally, where do we draw the line? As McMasters says, "we struggle to separate the good from the bad, reality from fantasy, the safe from the dangerous." As this premise only becomes more blurry and the levels of information expand and grow, how do we move forward and progress?...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)