I was watching Bill O’Reilly last night and he had short talking point on the Holocaust museum bombing as well as a short excerpt of a white supremacist speaking. I decided to see what Fox News had on the issue and come across this wonderful article that encapsulates the good/bad of the First Amendment. I’m just going to highlight some of the main points:
“Holocaust Museum Shooting Shows Difficulties in Tracking Hate Sites, Speech”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/11/holocaust-museum-shooting-shows-difficulties-tracking-hate-sites-speech/
I think the opening paragraphs says it all: “…attack…shines news light on how the Internet has become a double-edged sword for law enforcement agencies trying to track domestic extremists and prevent hate speech from mutating into hate-fueled violence.” The article discusses how as the Internet has grown, so has its uses as a forum for hate groups and “twisted individuals.”
The article makes an interesting point that many of these websites operate just under the radar of legality. They are fluent in the laws and know what not to say on the sites, thereby preventing law enforcement from taking action.
This paragraph is what really drew me in, especially in the context of this class:
“[The Internet is] the greatest intelligence resource in the history of mankind. But on the other hand, in connects these people together in a way they used to not be able to…The truth of the matter is just about anything you publish is going to have First Amendment protection.”
You know, I read all this information about Intellectual Freedom and the First Amendment and accounts of people trying to censor good literature and I’m outraged. But I think that this article is absolutely right. The Internet is a breeding ground for wackos; it allows them to connect, plan crazy things, and get their rocks off being psychos. And for the most part, this craziness is protected because of the First Amendment. That wacko supremacist on Bill O’Reilly is protected by the First Amendment. I don’t like it!! As said in the article “No matter how offensive to some, we are keenly aware that expressing views is not a crime, and that protections afforded under the Constitution cannot be compromised.” I guess I can’t have it both ways.
One solution the article offers is to fight speech with speech: “overwhelm hate speech with endorsements of tolerance and condemnation of racist attitudes.” Who has the time to combat all these hate groups publishing on the web? Great suggestion and it’s worth a try, but I feel it will not make much difference.
And even though I don’t like it, the whole concept behind Little Brother comes into play here. You start monitoring/censoring one group, pretty soon, everybody is under the same microscope: “we don’t want government surveillance of anybody simply expressing a hateful idea…”
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
June 16th: The Catcher in the Rye
There are a couple of issues I’d like to discuss in this blog. Not sure how many of you are aware that 90 year old J.D. Salinger is fighting to stop some guy from named J.D. California (real original) from publishing “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye.” Apparently, it follows Holden as he breaks free from his nursing home. A case similar to this, “”The Wind Done Gone,” a parody of “Gone With the Wind” was protected because it was a parody.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/books/06/03/salinger.catcher.lawsuit/index.html
My first question is: as future media specialists, how do you feel about one author ripping off another author’s characters/ideas? Or do you believe California has a right to have his work published? And, if this book is published, would you purchase it for your library collection?
The article from CNN mentions that Catcher in the Rye “currently sells more copies on Amazon.com than Harry Potter, The DaVinci Code, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Of Mice and Men. So I decided to see how Catcher was faring. As of June 4th, Catcher was listed at number 95. But what really caught my eye was a particular customer discussion called: Catcher in the Rye should be banned… So of course I clicked and I want to share with you some of the very original quotes: all customer quotes are in italics and in color. This book definitely gets people heated up. (These are not complete postings…)
Here is the original posting. I think that anybody who has ever read Catcher has a place in their heart for Phoebe Caulfield and how she brings Holden back to the human condition. As a result, I disagree with the following:
Catcher in the Rye should be banned because...
...not because it's obscene or perverse. But it should be rejected flat out by high-school English professors because it's a lousy book. It's literary garbage that debases rather than celebrates the human condition.What if every teenager in America who was forced to read a junk novel like Catcher in the Rye, also had to read a truly uplifting modern work like Angels in Iron by Nick Prata?Which do you think would resonate more with them? How would our country be different today?
Here is one response that I think hit the nail on the head:
So you think it should actually be banned just because you didn't particularly like it and feel that there are more uplifting novels? That sounds like a ridiculous reason to ban it. Maybe you could just give it a bad review and move along. In truth, many teenagers identify with Holden Caulfield, and maybe they need more books with characters with whom they can identify. Sometimes the human condition feels lousy, depending on a person's perspective. Still, that's no reason to ban a book.
Another customer simply stated:
Let's not ban books, please
I like this one too:
Perhaps if you ceased ignoring every book that doesn't sugar coat adolescence or "celebrate the human condition," you'd have a more open mind and would stop promoting censorship through your self centered opinions
This posting makes me proud to be an American. I think it brings up many of the issues we’ve discussed in relation to intellectual freedom.
I want my children to read what you consider "junk" and to develop the critical thinking skills to determine for themselves what can be learned about the universal search for meaning. What I don't want is for anyone to determine, in advance, what is "uplifting" and what a steady diet of pre-determined "uplifting" material is supposed to do for "our country." Life is bigger than your country (whichever one you're referring to) and how presumptuous of you to even suggest banning a book. Exactly which authority figure would supervise the list of banned books?
And here’s part of a posting that other customers labeled as “customers don’t think this post adds to the discussion.” I agree!! Who determines what “very exceptional modern literature” is exactly? Can I apply for this job?
I haven't yet read "Catcher in the Rye" yet (which is why I am reading these comments), but I've read enough books to know that only very exceptional modern literature is good enough for my children to spend their valuable time reading.
I encourage you to check out some of the customer discussions on Amazon. Have you had any personal experiences with Catcher? I taught it for four years and I never had one complaint. Nor, did my teenagers feel that the book was particularly harmful. Actually, they found it to be a challenging and insightful read.
http://www.amazon.com/Catcher-the-Rye-should-banned/forum/Fx15L1MCR7UTKI7/Tx9CWV7Z5ZP492/1/ref=cm_cd_zgbs_tft_tp?%5Fencoding=UTF8&asin=0316769487
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/books/06/03/salinger.catcher.lawsuit/index.html
My first question is: as future media specialists, how do you feel about one author ripping off another author’s characters/ideas? Or do you believe California has a right to have his work published? And, if this book is published, would you purchase it for your library collection?
The article from CNN mentions that Catcher in the Rye “currently sells more copies on Amazon.com than Harry Potter, The DaVinci Code, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Of Mice and Men. So I decided to see how Catcher was faring. As of June 4th, Catcher was listed at number 95. But what really caught my eye was a particular customer discussion called: Catcher in the Rye should be banned… So of course I clicked and I want to share with you some of the very original quotes: all customer quotes are in italics and in color. This book definitely gets people heated up. (These are not complete postings…)
Here is the original posting. I think that anybody who has ever read Catcher has a place in their heart for Phoebe Caulfield and how she brings Holden back to the human condition. As a result, I disagree with the following:
Catcher in the Rye should be banned because...
...not because it's obscene or perverse. But it should be rejected flat out by high-school English professors because it's a lousy book. It's literary garbage that debases rather than celebrates the human condition.What if every teenager in America who was forced to read a junk novel like Catcher in the Rye, also had to read a truly uplifting modern work like Angels in Iron by Nick Prata?Which do you think would resonate more with them? How would our country be different today?
Here is one response that I think hit the nail on the head:
So you think it should actually be banned just because you didn't particularly like it and feel that there are more uplifting novels? That sounds like a ridiculous reason to ban it. Maybe you could just give it a bad review and move along. In truth, many teenagers identify with Holden Caulfield, and maybe they need more books with characters with whom they can identify. Sometimes the human condition feels lousy, depending on a person's perspective. Still, that's no reason to ban a book.
Another customer simply stated:
Let's not ban books, please
I like this one too:
Perhaps if you ceased ignoring every book that doesn't sugar coat adolescence or "celebrate the human condition," you'd have a more open mind and would stop promoting censorship through your self centered opinions
This posting makes me proud to be an American. I think it brings up many of the issues we’ve discussed in relation to intellectual freedom.
I want my children to read what you consider "junk" and to develop the critical thinking skills to determine for themselves what can be learned about the universal search for meaning. What I don't want is for anyone to determine, in advance, what is "uplifting" and what a steady diet of pre-determined "uplifting" material is supposed to do for "our country." Life is bigger than your country (whichever one you're referring to) and how presumptuous of you to even suggest banning a book. Exactly which authority figure would supervise the list of banned books?
And here’s part of a posting that other customers labeled as “customers don’t think this post adds to the discussion.” I agree!! Who determines what “very exceptional modern literature” is exactly? Can I apply for this job?
I haven't yet read "Catcher in the Rye" yet (which is why I am reading these comments), but I've read enough books to know that only very exceptional modern literature is good enough for my children to spend their valuable time reading.
I encourage you to check out some of the customer discussions on Amazon. Have you had any personal experiences with Catcher? I taught it for four years and I never had one complaint. Nor, did my teenagers feel that the book was particularly harmful. Actually, they found it to be a challenging and insightful read.
http://www.amazon.com/Catcher-the-Rye-should-banned/forum/Fx15L1MCR7UTKI7/Tx9CWV7Z5ZP492/1/ref=cm_cd_zgbs_tft_tp?%5Fencoding=UTF8&asin=0316769487
Friday, May 29, 2009
June 9th: Is he gay or isn't he?
Is it only me who doesn’t care about the answer to this question? From the very first time I saw Adam Lambert on American Idol, I thought he was gay. Did that make any difference to me one way or the other? Absolutely not? What is the big deal people?
Of course, my fav blogger is all up in arms because Adam won’t openly admit that he’s gay. Perez seems personally affronted by Adam’s lack of forthcoming. What is interesting to me is that this is now a rather big story in the mainstream media. I’ve read articles in People, US, and Entertainment Weekly, all speculating about his sexuality.
The article that particularly interested me is from Kara DioGuardi's perspective. She basically says that she never thought that Adam was even in the closet. In The View Episode set to air Friday, Barbara Walters wonders if “Lambert’s controversial loss to Kris Allen was influenced by questions about whether Lambert is gay.”
Okay, people, get real, Adam was in the bottom two of American Idol exactly ONE time. Kris almos t went home a few. Obviously Adam had people voting for him the whole competition. I hope that him maybe being gay had nothing to do with it. I can admit though that there is a section of people who might be turned off by his “penchant for eyeliner, nail polish, tight pants and flamboyant hair styles..” Wait are we talking about Steven Tyler or Adam Lambert here?
Okay, my husband says that I’m stretching my argument here, and I have no idea if I’m on the right track. But is Adam protected by the First Amendment here? Isn’t it within his right to not speak? Of course, it’s within the tabloids right to speculate too?
I guess what really bothers me about this case goes back to Walter’s speculation. Is Lambert afraid to come out because he’s afraid it will impact his popularity? Why the secrecy? Lambert says “You should own who you are and what you’re about, and never make apologies for it.” This is the particular quote that got the tabloids roaring. Adam seems to be contradicting himself. He clearly isn’t “owning” who he is by hiding behind all the speculation. Or is it really just not anybody’s business?
It seems ironic to me that Lambert is so averse to admitting he is gay when it is such a common topic in the media right now. Everybody is talking about in the wake of Proposition 8 and Miss California. Is Lambert afraid of the First Amendment or is he hiding behind it? Is he really that afraid of what this will do to his career? Or is her just terrified of how the media will deal with it?
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20281763,00.html
http://www.ew.com/ew/package/0,,20007164_20174011,00.html?bcpid=3887239001&bclid=3343000001&bctid=24448789001
http://perezhilton.com/2009-05-30-lambert-mocking-the-gay-issue-again
Of course, my fav blogger is all up in arms because Adam won’t openly admit that he’s gay. Perez seems personally affronted by Adam’s lack of forthcoming. What is interesting to me is that this is now a rather big story in the mainstream media. I’ve read articles in People, US, and Entertainment Weekly, all speculating about his sexuality.
The article that particularly interested me is from Kara DioGuardi's perspective. She basically says that she never thought that Adam was even in the closet. In The View Episode set to air Friday, Barbara Walters wonders if “Lambert’s controversial loss to Kris Allen was influenced by questions about whether Lambert is gay.”
Okay, people, get real, Adam was in the bottom two of American Idol exactly ONE time. Kris almos t went home a few. Obviously Adam had people voting for him the whole competition. I hope that him maybe being gay had nothing to do with it. I can admit though that there is a section of people who might be turned off by his “penchant for eyeliner, nail polish, tight pants and flamboyant hair styles..” Wait are we talking about Steven Tyler or Adam Lambert here?
Okay, my husband says that I’m stretching my argument here, and I have no idea if I’m on the right track. But is Adam protected by the First Amendment here? Isn’t it within his right to not speak? Of course, it’s within the tabloids right to speculate too?
I guess what really bothers me about this case goes back to Walter’s speculation. Is Lambert afraid to come out because he’s afraid it will impact his popularity? Why the secrecy? Lambert says “You should own who you are and what you’re about, and never make apologies for it.” This is the particular quote that got the tabloids roaring. Adam seems to be contradicting himself. He clearly isn’t “owning” who he is by hiding behind all the speculation. Or is it really just not anybody’s business?
It seems ironic to me that Lambert is so averse to admitting he is gay when it is such a common topic in the media right now. Everybody is talking about in the wake of Proposition 8 and Miss California. Is Lambert afraid of the First Amendment or is he hiding behind it? Is he really that afraid of what this will do to his career? Or is her just terrified of how the media will deal with it?
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20281763,00.html
http://www.ew.com/ew/package/0,,20007164_20174011,00.html?bcpid=3887239001&bclid=3343000001&bctid=24448789001
http://perezhilton.com/2009-05-30-lambert-mocking-the-gay-issue-again
Saturday, May 23, 2009
June 2nd - Post Tribune "Your Views"
I came across this nifty little article as I was perusing my mom’s Post Tribune paper. A8 of the paper is typically the Opinion section. The top of the page contains “Our View” editorials of various Post Tribune Staff writers and then the bottom is labeled Your Views, where readers can respond to previous “Our View” articles.
First I find it interesting that directly in the middle of the page amidst the articles and political cartoons is The First Amendment. It’s just right there just below the post tribune editorials. So is it there to remind people that everybody has their own opinions and to not go off the deep end? Is it there to remind people that it is within their rights to respond to these opinions? Regardless of the reason, it’s there. I was kind of pleasantly surprised to see it there, considering the context of this class.
So the “Your View” letter was titled “Academic freedom not the issue at ND.” The writers are responding to a May 10 article by Richard Schneirov who stated that President Obama should be allowed to speak at Notre Dame’s commencement because of academic freedom. The authors say “opponents of the Obama invitation agree with Schneirov that fostering public discourse is part of the work of a university, and that politicians of various viewpoints, even the pro-choice viewpoint, should be permitted to speak on campus. The authors' issue is that commencement is not a planned forum where views can be discussed, there is no debate or Q&A planned.
What Notre Dame is doing is privileging somebody with an honorary degree and the title of commencement speaker who is pro-choice. The authors remind that “the Catholic Church considers abortion intrinsically evil – always and everywhere.” They also present some interesting analogies. Would Notre Dame invite a Holocaust denier to deliver the commencement address or a segregationist?
So I’m a little torn on this issue. I do think that Obama has a right to speak but I understand the other side of the issue. Notre Dame is a Catholic University and Obama is pro-choice. But is this single issue enough to deny him the privilege? Obviously he spoke at the ceremony and protestors protested and eventually the controversy died down. But I think the issue remains. Should Notre Dame have asked somebody who holds principles so opposite to the Church’s.
This whole scenario reminds me so much of my request for reconsideration case. More on that later…
First I find it interesting that directly in the middle of the page amidst the articles and political cartoons is The First Amendment. It’s just right there just below the post tribune editorials. So is it there to remind people that everybody has their own opinions and to not go off the deep end? Is it there to remind people that it is within their rights to respond to these opinions? Regardless of the reason, it’s there. I was kind of pleasantly surprised to see it there, considering the context of this class.
So the “Your View” letter was titled “Academic freedom not the issue at ND.” The writers are responding to a May 10 article by Richard Schneirov who stated that President Obama should be allowed to speak at Notre Dame’s commencement because of academic freedom. The authors say “opponents of the Obama invitation agree with Schneirov that fostering public discourse is part of the work of a university, and that politicians of various viewpoints, even the pro-choice viewpoint, should be permitted to speak on campus. The authors' issue is that commencement is not a planned forum where views can be discussed, there is no debate or Q&A planned.
What Notre Dame is doing is privileging somebody with an honorary degree and the title of commencement speaker who is pro-choice. The authors remind that “the Catholic Church considers abortion intrinsically evil – always and everywhere.” They also present some interesting analogies. Would Notre Dame invite a Holocaust denier to deliver the commencement address or a segregationist?
So I’m a little torn on this issue. I do think that Obama has a right to speak but I understand the other side of the issue. Notre Dame is a Catholic University and Obama is pro-choice. But is this single issue enough to deny him the privilege? Obviously he spoke at the ceremony and protestors protested and eventually the controversy died down. But I think the issue remains. Should Notre Dame have asked somebody who holds principles so opposite to the Church’s.
This whole scenario reminds me so much of my request for reconsideration case. More on that later…
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
May 26th: Icky Icky Poo
Yes, I will admit – I am a fan of Perez Hilton’s blog. I can’t help it; I’m addicted. Perez has all the most scandalous news on all the celebrities. 90% of his blog postings are very honest – very honestly mean and crude. However, he’s usually right on in his observations. But, I also think that he’s a bit of a hypocrite.
I know this is kind of old news, but I’m still fascinated by all the controversy surrounding Miss California’s statements at the Miss USA pageant. Carrie Prejean got very lucky/unlucky when Perez asked her that infamous question. Prejean hesitated and then answered very honestly – to paraphrase, she believes that marriage is between a man and a woman; that is the way she was raised. Well, as you can imagine, Perez hit the roof, went through the roof, and then just kept on going. If you tuned into his blog, almost every other posting was badmouthing Prejean, using any and every obscenity he could think of.
Maybe I’m lost here, but I don’t understand the big deal. I thought that it took a lot of integrity for Prejean to answer the way she did. This is what she believes. And even though I DO NOT agree with her, wasn’t it within her right to answer honestly. And because she did, she has gotten blasted by various medias, with Perez leading the way. Just recently, she almost lost her crown, and it was left to the “morally virtuous” Donald Trump to decide her fate. Surprisingly, he allowed her to stay, despite those nude photos that surfaced, which Perez was only too happy to post.
So I don’t know if somebody told Perez to take a chill pill, reminded him of her 1st amendment rights, but he’s definitely chilled a little on his blog. Most of the postings of Prejean are archived in a folder called Icky Icky Poo. It’s hard to take him seriously with a folder title like that. However, I also think that Perez has used all this controversy to his benefit. This whole situation happily coincided with many states allowing gay marriages and so on. So while Perez was ticked at Prejean for her conservative thinking, it allowed him to jump on his platform and make some things happen. All of these happy things are located in his folder: Gay Gay Gay.
Every day Perez rips a variety of star figures a new one, figuratively speaking. He freely exercises his first amendment rights and has a huge fan following. I doubt that many of these stars appreciate his very honest comments. However, when Prejean spoke her mind, Perez went off the deep end. Unfortunately, I’m sure many American believe as Prejean does, but fortunately, those beliefs are protected by the Bill of Rights.
Speaking of the Bill of Rights, check out the latest article on Perez's blog discussing Sarah Palin's defense of Miss California: http://perezhilton.com/2009-05-14-duh-sarah-palin-defends-miss-california
I know this is kind of old news, but I’m still fascinated by all the controversy surrounding Miss California’s statements at the Miss USA pageant. Carrie Prejean got very lucky/unlucky when Perez asked her that infamous question. Prejean hesitated and then answered very honestly – to paraphrase, she believes that marriage is between a man and a woman; that is the way she was raised. Well, as you can imagine, Perez hit the roof, went through the roof, and then just kept on going. If you tuned into his blog, almost every other posting was badmouthing Prejean, using any and every obscenity he could think of.
Maybe I’m lost here, but I don’t understand the big deal. I thought that it took a lot of integrity for Prejean to answer the way she did. This is what she believes. And even though I DO NOT agree with her, wasn’t it within her right to answer honestly. And because she did, she has gotten blasted by various medias, with Perez leading the way. Just recently, she almost lost her crown, and it was left to the “morally virtuous” Donald Trump to decide her fate. Surprisingly, he allowed her to stay, despite those nude photos that surfaced, which Perez was only too happy to post.
So I don’t know if somebody told Perez to take a chill pill, reminded him of her 1st amendment rights, but he’s definitely chilled a little on his blog. Most of the postings of Prejean are archived in a folder called Icky Icky Poo. It’s hard to take him seriously with a folder title like that. However, I also think that Perez has used all this controversy to his benefit. This whole situation happily coincided with many states allowing gay marriages and so on. So while Perez was ticked at Prejean for her conservative thinking, it allowed him to jump on his platform and make some things happen. All of these happy things are located in his folder: Gay Gay Gay.
Every day Perez rips a variety of star figures a new one, figuratively speaking. He freely exercises his first amendment rights and has a huge fan following. I doubt that many of these stars appreciate his very honest comments. However, when Prejean spoke her mind, Perez went off the deep end. Unfortunately, I’m sure many American believe as Prejean does, but fortunately, those beliefs are protected by the Bill of Rights.
Speaking of the Bill of Rights, check out the latest article on Perez's blog discussing Sarah Palin's defense of Miss California: http://perezhilton.com/2009-05-14-duh-sarah-palin-defends-miss-california
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
