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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
