Evan McLaughlin Herbology
June 7, 2009 PDF
CMJR 450
Dr. Bammert
One of the reasons I initially chose this article is because I used to live in California and several of my friends graduated from Palo Alto High School. The issue or topic at hand is the freedom of speech for students at Palo Alto High School. Each year the senior class votes on what the senior class t-shirt should look like. Previous years shirts at Palo Alto High School include references to Absolut Vodka and gambling but were accepted by school administrators. However, this year when the idea of creating a shirt came up for discussion the seniors decided that they wanted to make a different reference.
The theme the class of 2006 decided on was referred to as “Herbology” and the shirts they wanted to create read, “Paly Seniors ‘06” Were Higher Than You”. The Higher as a word had an interesting large to small letter progression design with flames coming off the top of each letter. This time, the administrators had something to say about the shirts and immediately “shut the idea down”. Student Activities Director Joann Vaars commented on the issue. “I’m surprised that the senior class would even consider that herbology would be an appropriate theme…I’m extremely disappointed”. As a response to the administrations stance on the issue, several seniors had the shirts made anyway and the school administration determined that those seniors who wore the shirts could be suspended and their class would be docked 50 points. With the Palo Alto High School taking the attitude that, “Our dress code isn’t strict, It’s pretty much situational”, what exactly was the situation?
Personally, I think the students should have the freedom of expression in designing the shirts. Especially with a situational dress code that allowed previous graduating classes to make references to brands of vodka and gambling. What I find interesting is what the understanding of the “situation” was that allowed those shirts to be accepted and the Herbology shirts to be rejected. The simple solution is that gambling and alcohol are both legal substances. However, if you think on a deeper level, the legal drinking age in the United States is 21 and the legal gambling age is 18. It could just as easily be argued that seniors at Palo Alto High School shouldn’t have been allowed to wear the shirts with alcohol or gambling references as well.
One could argue that the alcohol shirt would encourage underage drinking and the gambling shirt would encourage gambling. There is no way all the senior class was of legal age at 18 and besides teen addiction and online gambling has become a large problem in the US over the last several years. If Palo Alto’s student handbook, “outlaws any clothing that has any drug references” how did the first several senior class shirts pass? Again, these are all examples of why I think the shirts should have been allowed. It is also proof of a much large movement to de-stigmatize the use of marijuana on a national scale in the pubic spotlight. Teenage high school students smoke weed, yes they do, it happens everyday…so what? If they want to talk about it on a t-shirt they have the right to express their urges. What’s the worst thing that could happen? Give them a twinkie and call it a day!
Questions:
1) Do you consider marijuana to be an offensive drug reference? What about alcohol and gambling?
2) What is your stance on the Palo Alto High School Students decision? Do you think the punishment was fair?
3) Would you consider these shirts disruptive? If yes explain and if no explain? What would you consider to be an offensive shirt and where do you draw the line for freedom of expression with High School Students in general?
Here's the Link to the article:
http://voice.paly.net/view_story.php?id=3314
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
494 PDF- Herbology
Evan McLaughlin Herbology
June 7, 2009 PDF
CMJR 450
Dr. Bammert
One of the reasons I initially chose this article is because I used to live in California and several of my friends graduated from Palo Alto High School. The issue or topic at hand is the freedom of speech for students at Palo Alto High School. Each year the senior class votes on what the senior class t-shirt should look like. Previous years shirts at Palo Alto High School include references to Absolut Vodka and gambling but were accepted by school administrators. However, this year when the idea of creating a shirt came up for discussion the seniors decided that they wanted to make a different reference.
The theme the class of 2006 decided on was referred to as “Herbology” and the shirts they wanted to create read, “Paly Seniors ‘06” Were Higher Than You”. The Higher as a word had an interesting large to small letter progression design with flames coming off the top of each letter. This time, the administrators had something to say about the shirts and immediately “shut the idea down”. Student Activities Director Joann Vaars commented on the issue. “I’m surprised that the senior class would even consider that herbology would be an appropriate theme…I’m extremely disappointed”. As a response to the administrations stance on the issue, several seniors had the shirts made anyway and the school administration determined that those seniors who wore the shirts could be suspended and their class would be docked 50 points. With the Palo Alto High School taking the attitude that, “Our dress code isn’t strict, It’s pretty much situational”, what exactly was the situation?
Personally, I think the students should have the freedom of expression in designing the shirts. Especially with a situational dress code that allowed previous graduating classes to make references to brands of vodka and gambling. What I find interesting is what the understanding of the “situation” was that allowed those shirts to be accepted and the Herbology shirts to be rejected. The simple solution is that gambling and alcohol are both legal substances. However, if you think on a deeper level, the legal drinking age in the United States is 21 and the legal gambling age is 18. It could just as easily be argued that seniors at Palo Alto High School shouldn’t have been allowed to wear the shirts with alcohol or gambling references as well.
One could argue that the alcohol shirt would encourage underage drinking and the gambling shirt would encourage gambling. There is no way all the senior class was of legal age at 18 and besides teen addiction and online gambling has become a large problem in the US over the last several years. If Palo Alto’s student handbook, “outlaws any clothing that has any drug references” how did the first several senior class shirts pass? Again, these are all examples of why I think the shirts should have been allowed. It is also proof of a much large movement to de-stigmatize the use of marijuana on a national scale in the pubic spotlight. Teenage high school students smoke weed, yes they do, it happens everyday…so what? If they want to talk about it on a t-shirt they have the right to express their urges. What’s the worse that could happen? Give them a twinkie and call it a day!
Questions:
1) Do you consider marijuana to be an offensive drug reference? What about alcohol and gambling?
2) What is your stance on the Palo Alto High School Students decision? Do you think the punishment was fair?
3) Would you consider these shirts disruptive? If yes explain and if no explain? What would you consider to be an offensive shirt and where do you draw the line for freedom of expression with High School Students in general?
Here's the Link to the article:
http://voice.paly.net/view_story.php?id=3314
June 7, 2009 PDF
CMJR 450
Dr. Bammert
One of the reasons I initially chose this article is because I used to live in California and several of my friends graduated from Palo Alto High School. The issue or topic at hand is the freedom of speech for students at Palo Alto High School. Each year the senior class votes on what the senior class t-shirt should look like. Previous years shirts at Palo Alto High School include references to Absolut Vodka and gambling but were accepted by school administrators. However, this year when the idea of creating a shirt came up for discussion the seniors decided that they wanted to make a different reference.
The theme the class of 2006 decided on was referred to as “Herbology” and the shirts they wanted to create read, “Paly Seniors ‘06” Were Higher Than You”. The Higher as a word had an interesting large to small letter progression design with flames coming off the top of each letter. This time, the administrators had something to say about the shirts and immediately “shut the idea down”. Student Activities Director Joann Vaars commented on the issue. “I’m surprised that the senior class would even consider that herbology would be an appropriate theme…I’m extremely disappointed”. As a response to the administrations stance on the issue, several seniors had the shirts made anyway and the school administration determined that those seniors who wore the shirts could be suspended and their class would be docked 50 points. With the Palo Alto High School taking the attitude that, “Our dress code isn’t strict, It’s pretty much situational”, what exactly was the situation?
Personally, I think the students should have the freedom of expression in designing the shirts. Especially with a situational dress code that allowed previous graduating classes to make references to brands of vodka and gambling. What I find interesting is what the understanding of the “situation” was that allowed those shirts to be accepted and the Herbology shirts to be rejected. The simple solution is that gambling and alcohol are both legal substances. However, if you think on a deeper level, the legal drinking age in the United States is 21 and the legal gambling age is 18. It could just as easily be argued that seniors at Palo Alto High School shouldn’t have been allowed to wear the shirts with alcohol or gambling references as well.
One could argue that the alcohol shirt would encourage underage drinking and the gambling shirt would encourage gambling. There is no way all the senior class was of legal age at 18 and besides teen addiction and online gambling has become a large problem in the US over the last several years. If Palo Alto’s student handbook, “outlaws any clothing that has any drug references” how did the first several senior class shirts pass? Again, these are all examples of why I think the shirts should have been allowed. It is also proof of a much large movement to de-stigmatize the use of marijuana on a national scale in the pubic spotlight. Teenage high school students smoke weed, yes they do, it happens everyday…so what? If they want to talk about it on a t-shirt they have the right to express their urges. What’s the worse that could happen? Give them a twinkie and call it a day!
Questions:
1) Do you consider marijuana to be an offensive drug reference? What about alcohol and gambling?
2) What is your stance on the Palo Alto High School Students decision? Do you think the punishment was fair?
3) Would you consider these shirts disruptive? If yes explain and if no explain? What would you consider to be an offensive shirt and where do you draw the line for freedom of expression with High School Students in general?
Here's the Link to the article:
http://voice.paly.net/view_story.php?id=3314
494 PDF- Herbology
Evan McLaughlin Herbology
June 7, 2009 PDF
CMJR 450
Dr. Bammert
One of the reasons I initially chose this article is because I used to live in California and several of my friends graduated from Palo Alto High School. The issue or topic at hand is the freedom of speech for students at Palo Alto High School. Each year the senior class votes on what the senior class t-shirt should look like. Previous years shirts at Palo Alto High School include references to Absolut Vodka and gambling but were accepted by school administrators. However, this year when the idea of creating a shirt came up for discussion the seniors decided that they wanted to make a different reference.
The theme the class of 2006 decided on was referred to as “Herbology” and the shirts they wanted to create read, “Paly Seniors ‘06” Were Higher Than You”. The Higher as a word had an interesting large to small letter progression design with flames coming off the top of each letter. This time, the administrators had something to say about the shirts and immediately “shut the idea down”. Student Activities Director Joann Vaars commented on the issue. “I’m surprised that the senior class would even consider that herbology would be an appropriate theme…I’m extremely disappointed”. As a response to the administrations stance on the issue, several seniors had the shirts made anyway and the school administration determined that those seniors who wore the shirts could be suspended and their class would be docked 50 points. With the Palo Alto High School taking the attitude that, “Our dress code isn’t strict, It’s pretty much situational”, what exactly was the situation?
Personally, I think the students should have the freedom of expression in designing the shirts. Especially with a situational dress code that allowed previous graduating classes to make references to brands of vodka and gambling. What I find interesting is what the understanding of the “situation” was that allowed those shirts to be accepted and the Herbology shirts to be rejected. The simple solution is that gambling and alcohol are both legal substances. However, if you think on a deeper level, the legal drinking age in the United States is 21 and the legal gambling age is 18. It could just as easily be argued that seniors at Palo Alto High School shouldn’t have been allowed to wear the shirts with alcohol or gambling references as well.
One could argue that the alcohol shirt would encourage underage drinking and the gambling shirt would encourage gambling. There is no way all the senior class was of legal age at 18 and besides teen addiction and online gambling has become a large problem in the US over the last several years. If Palo Alto’s student handbook, “outlaws any clothing that has any drug references” how did the first several senior class shirts pass? Again, these are all examples of why I think the shirts should have been allowed. It is also proof of a much large movement to de-stigmatize the use of marijuana on a national scale in the pubic spotlight. Teenage high school students smoke weed, yes they do, it happens everyday…so what? If they want to talk about it on a t-shirt they have the right to express their urges. What’s the worse that could happen? Give them a twinkie and call it a day!
Questions:
1) Do you consider marijuana to be an offensive drug reference? What about alcohol and gambling?
2) What is your stance on the Palo Alto High School Students decision? Do you think the punishment was fair?
3) Would you consider these shirts disruptive? If yes explain and if no explain? What would you consider to be an offensive shirt and where do you draw the line for freedom of expression with High School Students in general?
June 7, 2009 PDF
CMJR 450
Dr. Bammert
One of the reasons I initially chose this article is because I used to live in California and several of my friends graduated from Palo Alto High School. The issue or topic at hand is the freedom of speech for students at Palo Alto High School. Each year the senior class votes on what the senior class t-shirt should look like. Previous years shirts at Palo Alto High School include references to Absolut Vodka and gambling but were accepted by school administrators. However, this year when the idea of creating a shirt came up for discussion the seniors decided that they wanted to make a different reference.
The theme the class of 2006 decided on was referred to as “Herbology” and the shirts they wanted to create read, “Paly Seniors ‘06” Were Higher Than You”. The Higher as a word had an interesting large to small letter progression design with flames coming off the top of each letter. This time, the administrators had something to say about the shirts and immediately “shut the idea down”. Student Activities Director Joann Vaars commented on the issue. “I’m surprised that the senior class would even consider that herbology would be an appropriate theme…I’m extremely disappointed”. As a response to the administrations stance on the issue, several seniors had the shirts made anyway and the school administration determined that those seniors who wore the shirts could be suspended and their class would be docked 50 points. With the Palo Alto High School taking the attitude that, “Our dress code isn’t strict, It’s pretty much situational”, what exactly was the situation?
Personally, I think the students should have the freedom of expression in designing the shirts. Especially with a situational dress code that allowed previous graduating classes to make references to brands of vodka and gambling. What I find interesting is what the understanding of the “situation” was that allowed those shirts to be accepted and the Herbology shirts to be rejected. The simple solution is that gambling and alcohol are both legal substances. However, if you think on a deeper level, the legal drinking age in the United States is 21 and the legal gambling age is 18. It could just as easily be argued that seniors at Palo Alto High School shouldn’t have been allowed to wear the shirts with alcohol or gambling references as well.
One could argue that the alcohol shirt would encourage underage drinking and the gambling shirt would encourage gambling. There is no way all the senior class was of legal age at 18 and besides teen addiction and online gambling has become a large problem in the US over the last several years. If Palo Alto’s student handbook, “outlaws any clothing that has any drug references” how did the first several senior class shirts pass? Again, these are all examples of why I think the shirts should have been allowed. It is also proof of a much large movement to de-stigmatize the use of marijuana on a national scale in the pubic spotlight. Teenage high school students smoke weed, yes they do, it happens everyday…so what? If they want to talk about it on a t-shirt they have the right to express their urges. What’s the worse that could happen? Give them a twinkie and call it a day!
Questions:
1) Do you consider marijuana to be an offensive drug reference? What about alcohol and gambling?
2) What is your stance on the Palo Alto High School Students decision? Do you think the punishment was fair?
3) Would you consider these shirts disruptive? If yes explain and if no explain? What would you consider to be an offensive shirt and where do you draw the line for freedom of expression with High School Students in general?
Monday, June 1, 2009
Response to Monica's blog about violence vs. nonviolence
I would agree that taking the high road and going the non-violent route is the better way to go. The idea that humans won't defend or fight back goes against our most basic instinct to survive. It is this oddity that allowed the success of movements such as the civil rights movement and leaders such as Gandhi to overcome oppression. The oppression was never seen and when it was finally exposed, the ugliness of what our society looked like could finally be seen by all. I believe that this is the effectiveness of non-violence as a form of social movement. This is completely different in comparison to violent protest. It becomes very hard with violent protest for people to actually see what injustices are occurring. Instead they see the retailiation and it becomes an internal war with one side that is stronger eventually winning the battle. Real social change might come out of this but in studying violent vs. nonviolent protest this quarter that kind of social changes never lasts long. Eventually another violent uprising will eventually occur and it leads to the same cycle over and over again.
Final Discussion in CMJR 450
Question: Write a bit about stories that has stuck with you and why does that story stick with you? What are some of the different elements in that story that stuck with you?
Answer: One of the social organizations that I enjoyed reading about was Earth First! The idea of people giving up their God commanded nature to go and dominate Earth is a true commitment to social change. The article discussing how the movement constructed the ideas and how people got involved to show their commitment to the cause was amazing. People would actually bury themselves in the ground and then identify with how the ground looked up at people walking from above. In this sense advocates from Earth First! were not simply advocating for a cause, they were physically putting themselves in a position to be the cause itself. By burying themselves in the Earth, chaining themselves to trees and etc, it forced them to identify with the world in a different way. It also forced people to recognize the beauty of the natural world and by using physical bodies it actually changed the way people viewed nature. It also became a platform to gain community publicity. It's not everyday that someone would literally get completely naked and bury themselves in the ground.
Bugs and everything crawling all over them, just as if they were a piece of the Earth, they would proclaim that the Earth had a right to be protected. This also brings in the metaphor of life and death as a cycle. No matter how far the human species advances at some point each and every one of us will be buried in the ground again. Either as ash in a clay jar or in a wooden box, by physically burying themselves in the ground advocates of EarthFirst! were literally taking a physical metaphor of life and death by creating a new way for people to understand the reality of our situation on this planet. This is the kind of rhetorical reasoning based on the tenets that made the EarthFirst! campaign so successful.
Another way advocates of EarthFirst! were successful was in the way they used non-violent protest. Again this plays on the metaphor of the Earth not fighting back as humans dominate it again and again. As these people were buried in the ground or living in trees they became the defenseless Earth being brutalized by civilized society. Some advocates choose not to come down out of trees even as lumber companies cut the trees down. A number of Earth First! advocates lost their lives this way or had their heads beaten by lumber jacks. As the blood flowed out of their body they became the broken and beaten trees that bled sap from the wounds of chain saws and hatchets.
Lastly, the campaign was successful. Stories such as the Julia Butterfly story show that if certain people try hard enough they can make a difference. The Julia Butterfly Hill tree sitting story was a favorite of mine. One woman living in a tree was literally able to stop a corporate lumber company from cutting the tree down. The lumber company literally clear cut the entire forest around the tree that Julia was sitting in down but her tree remained. This shows that one individual can make a difference and in the midst of chaos and anarchy, one determined soul can save another living thing. Julia's story was all over the news and to this day the tree still remains living because of her dedication to a cause.
Question: What strategies do you think were the most effective that we have read about?
Answer: Many of the strategies used are discussed above. The strategy of literally using non-violent protest and putting themselves in a defenseless position to show how defenseless the Earth is in defending itself against civilized society. This strategy opened up a new way that people could see the Earth. The idea that another individual would give up their right to protect or defend themselves for the Earth was a concept never before seen. Earth First! developed this concept further and used it's visual imagery to gain support for their cause. Was the brutalization of a human life really necessary to clear cut for a housing development? People didn't think that brutalizing humans was the same as brutalizing the Earth because the Earth couldn't say how it was feeling. But people could not only say how they were feeling, they could show the damages being physically done.
When Earth First! was going to protest they made sure that representatives were standing by to explain what they were advocating for changing. These weren't the people sitting in the ground but other people that could discuss the reasons why people were sitting in the ground. At first this was one of the downsides of Earth First! They would get the publicity but the stories about what they were trying to accomplish didn't match up. This is why the campaign changed over time and Earth First! was able to find their niche in telling people about what they were trying to accomplish. Stories that would never have been told were told and the invisible power of corporate capitalism was finally made public through the absolute brutality and lack of care on the part of corporate lumber companies.
Answer: One of the social organizations that I enjoyed reading about was Earth First! The idea of people giving up their God commanded nature to go and dominate Earth is a true commitment to social change. The article discussing how the movement constructed the ideas and how people got involved to show their commitment to the cause was amazing. People would actually bury themselves in the ground and then identify with how the ground looked up at people walking from above. In this sense advocates from Earth First! were not simply advocating for a cause, they were physically putting themselves in a position to be the cause itself. By burying themselves in the Earth, chaining themselves to trees and etc, it forced them to identify with the world in a different way. It also forced people to recognize the beauty of the natural world and by using physical bodies it actually changed the way people viewed nature. It also became a platform to gain community publicity. It's not everyday that someone would literally get completely naked and bury themselves in the ground.
Bugs and everything crawling all over them, just as if they were a piece of the Earth, they would proclaim that the Earth had a right to be protected. This also brings in the metaphor of life and death as a cycle. No matter how far the human species advances at some point each and every one of us will be buried in the ground again. Either as ash in a clay jar or in a wooden box, by physically burying themselves in the ground advocates of EarthFirst! were literally taking a physical metaphor of life and death by creating a new way for people to understand the reality of our situation on this planet. This is the kind of rhetorical reasoning based on the tenets that made the EarthFirst! campaign so successful.
Another way advocates of EarthFirst! were successful was in the way they used non-violent protest. Again this plays on the metaphor of the Earth not fighting back as humans dominate it again and again. As these people were buried in the ground or living in trees they became the defenseless Earth being brutalized by civilized society. Some advocates choose not to come down out of trees even as lumber companies cut the trees down. A number of Earth First! advocates lost their lives this way or had their heads beaten by lumber jacks. As the blood flowed out of their body they became the broken and beaten trees that bled sap from the wounds of chain saws and hatchets.
Lastly, the campaign was successful. Stories such as the Julia Butterfly story show that if certain people try hard enough they can make a difference. The Julia Butterfly Hill tree sitting story was a favorite of mine. One woman living in a tree was literally able to stop a corporate lumber company from cutting the tree down. The lumber company literally clear cut the entire forest around the tree that Julia was sitting in down but her tree remained. This shows that one individual can make a difference and in the midst of chaos and anarchy, one determined soul can save another living thing. Julia's story was all over the news and to this day the tree still remains living because of her dedication to a cause.
Question: What strategies do you think were the most effective that we have read about?
Answer: Many of the strategies used are discussed above. The strategy of literally using non-violent protest and putting themselves in a defenseless position to show how defenseless the Earth is in defending itself against civilized society. This strategy opened up a new way that people could see the Earth. The idea that another individual would give up their right to protect or defend themselves for the Earth was a concept never before seen. Earth First! developed this concept further and used it's visual imagery to gain support for their cause. Was the brutalization of a human life really necessary to clear cut for a housing development? People didn't think that brutalizing humans was the same as brutalizing the Earth because the Earth couldn't say how it was feeling. But people could not only say how they were feeling, they could show the damages being physically done.
When Earth First! was going to protest they made sure that representatives were standing by to explain what they were advocating for changing. These weren't the people sitting in the ground but other people that could discuss the reasons why people were sitting in the ground. At first this was one of the downsides of Earth First! They would get the publicity but the stories about what they were trying to accomplish didn't match up. This is why the campaign changed over time and Earth First! was able to find their niche in telling people about what they were trying to accomplish. Stories that would never have been told were told and the invisible power of corporate capitalism was finally made public through the absolute brutality and lack of care on the part of corporate lumber companies.
Questions for Week 9 in CMJR 450:
Question 1:
Over the last several years (I would say since I began attending Seattle University in 2006) the university has been trying very hard to show a new image or movement on campus. It has been apparent in how they have been spending money to expand, put down a huge university seal at the entrance of the school and etc. In chapter ten several key discussions are made about transcendence and how social groups transcend to higher levels over time. Persuaders “claim that a goal, group, or right, for instance, is superior to or greater than all other options” (Pg 226). My question is, what exactly is the goal of the Jesuits in this new campaign to re-brand Seattle University in obtaining a Jesuit education and what exactly is Seattle University using to persuade other people that obtaining an education at Seattle University is “superior to or greater than all other options”. Are there options? Bruke argues, “Thus, the goal, group, or right has not reached an ultimate state of perfection but is more perfect or more preferable than its opposite” (Pg 226). How is Seattle University more perfect than the other? Who exactly is Seattle University and the message trying to reach or compare against? Is this a private school vs. public school issue? Is it a religious private school vs. other private schools? What do you think and explain your thinking behind what movement Seattle University as an institution is trying to create?
Question 2:
In our text Persuasion and Social Movements chapter 14 discusses different kinds of power. In the second paragraph on page 322, Andrew King discusses how power is derived and claims that 3 distinct areas are responsible for the creation of power in society. Those areas include: “material resource base, psychosocial base, and organizational/ syntactic base” (Pg 322). King states that, “Today the material resource is information or knowledge, and access to it confers power on groups and individuals” (Pg 322). He also claims, “The psychosocial base provides group members with a sense of identity that binds them through common interests, habits, culture, and values” (322). His last claim is, “Organizational/syntactic bases of power include legislative rules, regulations, and norms of behavior” (322). I have several questions relating to what King discusses. First, What specific information or knowledge does Seattle University have over other Universities and do you think that access to that information or knowledge confers power on us as students? If so how much power and does that information differ from say, The University of Washington’s information or knowledge on that same topic? Does that difference in access to the information or knowledge really justify the price tag for a private education at Seattle University? What sense of identity does Seattle University instill on students that relate to developing a sense of common interests, habits, culture and values? Does one exist and is that enough of a commonality to make you feel a part of the group? What’s your personal experience with identity on campus at Seattle University? Do you have one? Lastly, do you think the way Seattle University operates, as an institution with “legislative rules, regulations and norms of behavior” is justifiable? Are the number of rules, procedures, regulations and norms of behavior really necessary on campus? If yes then why, if no then why and explain your answers.
Question 3:
Do a comparison and contrast between the five different kinds of power and Andrew King’s three different areas of where power is developed. The five different kinds of power are identified as Legitimate, Coercive, Reward, Referent and Expert Power (Pg 321-322). Andrew King identifies the main forms of power as coming from, “a material resource base, psychosocial base, and organizational/syntactic base” (Pg 322). How do you think is more accurate and why? If you look at each power structure and how it applies to Seattle University, which is more accurate in describing how Seattle University operates as an institution? The last sentence in paragraph 2 on page 322 of our text makes the statement, “Power, then, is a multidimensional offensive and defensive weapon shared unequally by institutions and social movements because of the nature of social order” (Pg 322). Would you agree or disagree? How does Seattle University fall into this idea and how exactly would you define the nature of social order at Seattle University? Is there a perceived reason for the hierarchy or is it overkill? Why or why not and explain your answer.
Over the last several years (I would say since I began attending Seattle University in 2006) the university has been trying very hard to show a new image or movement on campus. It has been apparent in how they have been spending money to expand, put down a huge university seal at the entrance of the school and etc. In chapter ten several key discussions are made about transcendence and how social groups transcend to higher levels over time. Persuaders “claim that a goal, group, or right, for instance, is superior to or greater than all other options” (Pg 226). My question is, what exactly is the goal of the Jesuits in this new campaign to re-brand Seattle University in obtaining a Jesuit education and what exactly is Seattle University using to persuade other people that obtaining an education at Seattle University is “superior to or greater than all other options”. Are there options? Bruke argues, “Thus, the goal, group, or right has not reached an ultimate state of perfection but is more perfect or more preferable than its opposite” (Pg 226). How is Seattle University more perfect than the other? Who exactly is Seattle University and the message trying to reach or compare against? Is this a private school vs. public school issue? Is it a religious private school vs. other private schools? What do you think and explain your thinking behind what movement Seattle University as an institution is trying to create?
Question 2:
In our text Persuasion and Social Movements chapter 14 discusses different kinds of power. In the second paragraph on page 322, Andrew King discusses how power is derived and claims that 3 distinct areas are responsible for the creation of power in society. Those areas include: “material resource base, psychosocial base, and organizational/ syntactic base” (Pg 322). King states that, “Today the material resource is information or knowledge, and access to it confers power on groups and individuals” (Pg 322). He also claims, “The psychosocial base provides group members with a sense of identity that binds them through common interests, habits, culture, and values” (322). His last claim is, “Organizational/syntactic bases of power include legislative rules, regulations, and norms of behavior” (322). I have several questions relating to what King discusses. First, What specific information or knowledge does Seattle University have over other Universities and do you think that access to that information or knowledge confers power on us as students? If so how much power and does that information differ from say, The University of Washington’s information or knowledge on that same topic? Does that difference in access to the information or knowledge really justify the price tag for a private education at Seattle University? What sense of identity does Seattle University instill on students that relate to developing a sense of common interests, habits, culture and values? Does one exist and is that enough of a commonality to make you feel a part of the group? What’s your personal experience with identity on campus at Seattle University? Do you have one? Lastly, do you think the way Seattle University operates, as an institution with “legislative rules, regulations and norms of behavior” is justifiable? Are the number of rules, procedures, regulations and norms of behavior really necessary on campus? If yes then why, if no then why and explain your answers.
Question 3:
Do a comparison and contrast between the five different kinds of power and Andrew King’s three different areas of where power is developed. The five different kinds of power are identified as Legitimate, Coercive, Reward, Referent and Expert Power (Pg 321-322). Andrew King identifies the main forms of power as coming from, “a material resource base, psychosocial base, and organizational/syntactic base” (Pg 322). How do you think is more accurate and why? If you look at each power structure and how it applies to Seattle University, which is more accurate in describing how Seattle University operates as an institution? The last sentence in paragraph 2 on page 322 of our text makes the statement, “Power, then, is a multidimensional offensive and defensive weapon shared unequally by institutions and social movements because of the nature of social order” (Pg 322). Would you agree or disagree? How does Seattle University fall into this idea and how exactly would you define the nature of social order at Seattle University? Is there a perceived reason for the hierarchy or is it overkill? Why or why not and explain your answer.
Paper 1 & 2 posts. Didn't think we had to post as well.
Evan McLaughlin Paper #2
CMJR 494
May 18, 2009
Professor Bammert
Two words that have always seemed to compliment one another when used together are school and bullying. During recent years, the stereotypical image of a bully has changed greatly. Bullies today are no longer the giants they once were and they no longer use their brut force to hurt other children. Due to the invention of the Internet and other new forms of technology bullies now are using keyboards to flood chat rooms, personal web pages, cell phone messages and instant messaging services and strategically bully people they dislike.
In many instances bullying is worse now than it has ever been simply because there is no escaping the reach of the Internet. Children can no longer just come home after a hard day of bullying from one person. They have to live a life where everyone in their school has labeled them with whatever stigma that the bully has created, whether it be real or made up. Additionally, these students that are victims of cyber bullying cannot escape their bullies. Thanks to websites such as myspace and facebook, the bullying can continue even though the bully is not physically present. This has caused a new problem that has resulted in several young teens committing suicide due to the aggressive and intrusive nature of cyber bullying.
This paper will discuss some of the challenges and cases that have resulted due to increased levels of cyber bullying. It will also discuss whether schools should have the ability to censor students that participate in the act of cyber bullying, whether those students should be protected by the first amendment and what the consequences should be for bullies causing so much emotional distress it causes physical harm. I believe that any form of bullying or harassment that can be determined to have malicious intent must have punishable consequences and those consequences need to be in line with the severity of how those acts of cyber bullying affect the victim. I also believe that if any form of digital communication results in any physical act perpetrated against the student being bullied then it should be open for censorship.
While cyber bullying can be considered a form of hate speech I do think that each individual has a right to express their opinion about other individuals. However, when cyber bulling reaches a level where it begins to cause physical harm, the line has to be drawn. The only way that hate speech and cyber bullying can be justified is due to the individual reason for freedom of speech. Philosophical and political reasons for freedom of speech don’t apply here with cyber bullying. It is one individual’s idea of self-fulfillment against another’s but how does that apply when one individual’s idea of personal fulfillment degrades another individual’s identity to the point where that individual commits suicide?
The interpretation states, “The third reason for freedom of speech is based on a belief in the dignity of the individual and the right of each person to self-fulfillment” (Tedford 434). The statement firmly identifies a belief in the dignity of the individual but my question here is how does that apply? I would argue that our founding fathers did not entertain this idea of cyber bullying nor did they entertain the idea of how the Internet would change the entire world, yet alone US first amendment law. I would also argue that our founding fathers did not want other people to violate or intrude on another person’s sense of identity to the point where that person committed suicide. With that being said, I think it is important for individuals to fight back when it comes to cyber bulling and I think that when cyber bullying reaches a level where it threatens the individual dignity of another individual’s freedom of living their life (i.e. being able to attend school without fear of being severely made fun of) then it is a violation of the first amendment and calls for censorship.
Another way to look at cyber bullying is through the lens of philosophical reasoning relating to first amendment rights. I know I previously mentioned earlier that cyber bullying did not fall into that category and I would like to discuss why more in detail. Philosophical reasoning relies on the “ancient struggle for intellectual freedom and the search for truth” (Tedford 432). The idea is that if you let certain ideas compete, in the long run the truth will prevail. The reason this doesn’t work with cyber bullying is because the truth does not always prevail. One specific case illustrates this point quite well and it is unfortunate that it involves the death of a thirteen year old boy who took his own life. After numerous threats and teases 13 year old Ryan took his own life. His father said, “Other kids didn’t realize that he was truly suicidal” (Dakss 1). Then after Ryan’s death, his father went onto his computer and pulled up all the conversations that had helped influence his sons suicide. He father said “it was the most painful reading that I ever had to do in my entire life. My heart just broke a thousand times over every conversation that I read” (Dakss 2). Ryan’s example is a perfect case in which the truth relating to freedom of speech in the form of cyber bulling did not prevail and it cost Ryan his life. This is only one example of many cases where young teenagers have committed suicide because 1) either false things were said, believed and then the teenager was stigmatized with false truths or 2) the teenagers expressed their freedom of speech in the form of communicating their discontent and it wasn’t honored. This is why a philosophical reason for freedom of speech will never be a solid argument for cyber bullying being protected by the first amendment.
Another aspect that cyber bullying should be subjected to is called a “bad tendency test”. The idea behind a bad tendency test is that you stop a problem before it can actually happen. That means that speech the courts consider dangerous or offensive can be punished if it “be adjudged of a pernicious tendency” (Tedford 24). The bad tendency rule “allowed the government to constrain a message soon after it was published on the assumption that, if allowed to continue, it might create a problem sometime in the future” (Tedford 24). Additionally, no proof would be required that the message in question was a genuine threat to society or to the government (Tedford 24).
I believe this is the best test to use when considering the affects of cyber bullying. It is one thing to say something to another individual but it is something else entirely to post, distribute and manufacture it in a digital format. When this kind of technology is used, messages can be distributed on a massive scale that can produce a community organized (in this case school) backlash against a person. For young teens struggling with identity issues and for any other young teenager, developing a sense of identity is particularly difficult during this point in their life. The last thing that they need to worry about is the stress of being stigmatized because someone decides to massively distribute messages that are vulgar in nature. With a bad tendency test, it would provide the governing institution (in this case the school) the authority to determine if those messages constituted a threat and censor accordingly.
It would also provide schools with the opportunity to establish a code of conduct and applicable punishment for students who continue to violate the new implemented rules. We all know that when you are on a school campus your rights are waved. School officials can search your lockers, backpacks and cars with little or no warning and they can do it with drug sniffing dogs or police officials if they deem it necessary. Is it really so much more intrusive if school officials monitor how students use technology to deface other students? The difficult part is how to determine where to draw the line. According to Hannah Storm’s (a cyber bully victims) mother will tell you, “You can’t prove who did it, you can’t find out who did it, and it probably would exacerbate the problem to make something of it” (Dakss 2). My question is: what about people like Ryan Halligan? Simply ignoring the problem led to his suicide so clearly DOING SOMETHING about it COULD prove more helpful then simply doing nothing. I think that the solution is two fold to this problem of cyber bulling.
First, there needs to be education to parents about how the Internet can help and hurt their children. It is the duty of schools and parents to use the communication they have to combat the problem. Additionally, is the job of the parent to know what is going on in their child’s life and take action to notify a school official. The action taken by the school official should be swift based on real physical interaction or communication they see after begin tipped off by the parent about their child possibly being bullied while at home. Then necessary actions can be taken against the students who are cyber bullying. Typically, cyber bullies are often known but not exposed because they strategically involve other people so they can remain visible yet invisible (Cyberbullying by Proxy).
An example of a court case relating to class material was the case of Schenck v. United States in 1919. Defendant Charles T. Schenck was charged with 3 counts of violating the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917 (Tedford 48). The first violation occurred when he distributed a leaflet, which urged resistance to a drift. He was also charged with conspiracy to circulate the document through the mail and actually mailing of the copies (Tedford 48). This is similar to cyber bulling in several key ways. The first is the way in which Charles T. Schenck was trying to convince others to fight or deface a cause (in this case it was the draft). This is similar to cyber bullying because another individual is trying to spread information to other students in order to cause personal defacement to another student or person that the bully dislikes. The second way this relates to cyber bulling is in how the distribution of anti draft leaflets took place. The mail system was used to massively distribute the documents/ information. This is similar with cyber bullying because the media or system used to distribute the information is the World Wide Web via the Internet. The reason for this ruling was based on the bad tendency test and the ability of the documents to possiblly cause harm to the US government. That is why the government reacted and upheld the conviction. This could also prove to be an example of why the bad tendency test could be used in the case of cyber bullying and convictions could be upheld.
The main argument in the Schenck v. United States cause was that the leaflet, “would not have been sent unless it had been intended to have some effect, and we do not see what effect it could be expected to have upon persons subject to the draft expect to influence them to obstruct the carrying of it out” (Tedford 48). In the case of cyber bullying there are additionally similarities. Just as the Supreme Court ruled that the intent was important and hindered the ability of the US government to have a successful draft cyber bullying is also hindering a critical element for people who are victims of cyber bullies. That critical element is a fair and necessary education in the school system. If cyber bullying significantly decreases the child’s ability to interact with other people as they begin to develop their education in school then it can be seen as malicious in intent. In fact, several students that have suffered from cyber bullies have turned to home schooling in order to get away from other students that have turned to bullying on a massive scale (Dakss 2).
If the US government can rule to prevent the distribution of anti draft leaflets via a mail system because the intent had to be interference with a successful draft then an education system should have the same ability to rule in favor of a child having a chance at a legitimate education. The question to resolve for future cases is: what should the punishment be and how can the right people be identified and charged with violations of interfering with the education of other teenage students through cyber bulling? That is a question that the debate should focus on for later use because determining if an education system should have the ability to censor other bullies who risk the educational opportunities of other students and their participation in gaining that education is without question an appropriate justification to punish cyber bullies.
Evan McLaughlin Paper #1
April 18, 2009
CMJR 494
Dr. Bammert
In answering the question: “What Principle(s) should guide our understanding of communication justice and freedom of expression” I feel the best philosophical approach to the three cases I have chosen would be based on the philosophy of individual communication justice. The three cases I have chosen to explore more in depth include the articles titled: 1) Federal judge: Man’s anti-war T-shirts express ‘core political speech’ (from the Libel. Commercial speech category) 2) Jackson student leaders want shirts back after slogans called offensive (from the student speech category) and 3) Second Thoughts About kids and Cell Phones (from the Religious Moral Heresy: Obscenity category).
The philosophy of individual communication justice centers “on the belief in the dignity of the individual and the right of each person to self-fulfillment” (Tedford 434). This belief respects the freedoms of people to decide what to read, hear view and say (Tedford 434). The individual communication justice can also be related to freedom of expression through the fine arts as well. Anything relating to “composing poetry, painting a picture, or participating in theatre, dance and film” can all relate to the individual philosophy of communication justice (Tedford, 434). It is also important to note that often the three basic philosophies of communication justice are not mutually exclusive and overlap (434). While I will be making the case that the individual philosophy of communication justice applies to the first case of the man printing T-shirts with the names of soldiers that have died in Iraq, it also adheres to this idea of different philosophies of communication justice overlapping.
The reason why the individual philosophy of communication should guide the first case of the man printing t-shirts with the names of soldiers that have died in Iraq on them is valid relates to the stated value of being artistic in nature. The T-shirts were the opinion of the man taken as an idea and expressed in an artistic way via printing his idea on a T-shirt as a form of individual free speech. Due to the fact that the T-shirts were not only a statement but a form of art and the ultimate end product of one man’s ideas, the individual communication justice philosophy directly applies to the case. Thus, using the individual philosophy of communication justice not only makes sense but also solidifies the representation of free speech through the human spirit in the form of a specific art that can be consumed as a product.
The families of the soldiers make a good case in that the man did not ask them for their permission to publish the shirts but as Zechariah Chafee Jr. states, “In war time, therefore, speech should be unrestricted by the censorship or by punishment, unless it is clearly liable to cause direct and dangerous interference with the conduct of the war” (Tedford 435). Any single person can to go the published websites of new organizations and get an ongoing list of names for the soldiers that have died in Iraq. According to the individual philosophy of communication justice it allows what people can read, hear and view (434). In this statement by itself, the man has every right to have his freedom of speech protected through the individual philosophy of free speech. Additionally, the man is also protected by a combination of integrating the political philosophy of his statement against the government. By itself, the individual communication justice philosophy works but in combination with the political philosophy, the parents of soldiers that have died in Iraq are fighting two forms of individual and political philosophies that protect individual freedom of speech.
In the second article titled, “Jackson student leaders want shirts back after slogans called offensive” the individual philosophy of communication justice also applies. The reason it is the best form of communication justice philosophy to use involves similar association with being a form of art. The shirts made for the different classes of Jackson high school students were ideas that were taken and a specific product was created as a form of freedom of expression that could be displayed on the canvas of a purple t-shirt. Additionally, the words displayed on the back of the shirts were chosen by each class in a kind of process related directly to a democratic process of voting. While the words on the shirt could be interpreted as offensive it is still freedom of personal expression through a form of artistic design. Part of that artistic design could have also been the hidden meaning in the words printed on the back of those shirts. The fact that most of the administrators and parents did not know the meaning of the words shows that the shirts were artistic in nature. The shirts in no way violated any form of public safety and encouraged the search for truth in the meaning of the phrases on the back of the shirts. In essence, the shirts facilitated public discussion and encouraged fruitful debate about what certain words mean when used in a given context.
A case against the shirt can be made in that some people found the words offensive. However, if the ruling majority of that particular student body voted to use the specific words chosen that directly supports the concept of democracy and freedom of speech. The very fact that parents of students who disliked the church had the ability to voice their opinions shows the power of individual philosophical communication justice to continually facilitate discussion and debate. When Jackson high school administrators ordered the shirts to be returned that terminated the form of public and individual discussion, which led to a decrease in individual freedom of expression. While individual people do have the right to voice their opinions the idea that a minority can control a majority (as shown that the majority of students in each class voted for the words to be displayed on the back of the shirts in a democratic process) shows a lack of freedom in terms of the individual expressions of the students who chose the shirts in the first place.
It is for these reasons why the individual process for communication justice is appropriate and best to use in preserving the individual freedom of speech for the Jackson High School students. If the final decision to keep or recall the shirts were based fully on the individual philosophy of communication justice the outcome would be that the students would be able to have and wear their individual shirts as a way of showing their individual freedom of expression. If students chose not the wear the shirts then it would also be a statement that supported the same personal freedom of expression.
The last case titled, “Second Thoughts About Kids and Cell Phones” also ties into the idea of an individual communication justice philosophy. As stated previously, the individual philosophy gives each person the freedom to decide what to read, hear, view and say (Tedford 434). I can understand the argument that the girl who had her picture taken experienced a violation of personal privacy in that her nude pictures ended up being sent all around the high school she attended. However, as the individual philosophy will state, persons have the freedom to choose what they read, hear, view and say. If other students chose to view her nude photographs via their cellular phones then they are in no way violating that philosophical understanding. The individual philosophy of communication justice is also what allowed the student to express herself in terms of nude photographs in the first place. It also allowed her to speak out about it after the event occurred.
If this philosophical understanding of communication justice was fully realized the outcome would result in several different events. For one, the girl who exposed herself has the right or freedom of personal expression. Art can also be in the form of photographs, whether they are nude or not. Instead of her being charged with “sexual abuse of children and dissemination of child pornography when she posted nude pictures of herself online” freedom of individual expression under the 1st amendment would protect her from those allegations. It would do this by establishing that other students are the cause for the reason why her nude photos were distributed around campus. That is also a protection of 1st amendment rights through the individual philosophical form of communication justice. The second result is that the person responsible for initially beginning the distribution of those photographs would be charged with the personal defacement of property. This is a much different outcome then what actually occurred. In the end, the event facilitated a discussion on the topic that proved to be fruitful for a society understanding of how to handle further situations involving these issues.
Bibliography
"Federal Judge: Man's anti-war T-shirts express 'core political speech'" Associated Press 21 Aug. 2008. Congresscheck.com. 20 Apr. 2009
Gibbs, Nancy. "Second Thoughts About Kids and Cell Phones." Time Magazine 5 Mar. 2009. 20 Apr. 2009.
Tedford, Thomas L. Freedom of speech in the United States. 5th ed. State College, Pa: Strata Pub., Inc., 2005.
Thompson, Lynn. "Jackson student leaders want shirts back after slogans called
offensive. "Seattle Times 27 Mar. 2009. 20 Apr. 2009
CMJR 494
May 18, 2009
Professor Bammert
Two words that have always seemed to compliment one another when used together are school and bullying. During recent years, the stereotypical image of a bully has changed greatly. Bullies today are no longer the giants they once were and they no longer use their brut force to hurt other children. Due to the invention of the Internet and other new forms of technology bullies now are using keyboards to flood chat rooms, personal web pages, cell phone messages and instant messaging services and strategically bully people they dislike.
In many instances bullying is worse now than it has ever been simply because there is no escaping the reach of the Internet. Children can no longer just come home after a hard day of bullying from one person. They have to live a life where everyone in their school has labeled them with whatever stigma that the bully has created, whether it be real or made up. Additionally, these students that are victims of cyber bullying cannot escape their bullies. Thanks to websites such as myspace and facebook, the bullying can continue even though the bully is not physically present. This has caused a new problem that has resulted in several young teens committing suicide due to the aggressive and intrusive nature of cyber bullying.
This paper will discuss some of the challenges and cases that have resulted due to increased levels of cyber bullying. It will also discuss whether schools should have the ability to censor students that participate in the act of cyber bullying, whether those students should be protected by the first amendment and what the consequences should be for bullies causing so much emotional distress it causes physical harm. I believe that any form of bullying or harassment that can be determined to have malicious intent must have punishable consequences and those consequences need to be in line with the severity of how those acts of cyber bullying affect the victim. I also believe that if any form of digital communication results in any physical act perpetrated against the student being bullied then it should be open for censorship.
While cyber bullying can be considered a form of hate speech I do think that each individual has a right to express their opinion about other individuals. However, when cyber bulling reaches a level where it begins to cause physical harm, the line has to be drawn. The only way that hate speech and cyber bullying can be justified is due to the individual reason for freedom of speech. Philosophical and political reasons for freedom of speech don’t apply here with cyber bullying. It is one individual’s idea of self-fulfillment against another’s but how does that apply when one individual’s idea of personal fulfillment degrades another individual’s identity to the point where that individual commits suicide?
The interpretation states, “The third reason for freedom of speech is based on a belief in the dignity of the individual and the right of each person to self-fulfillment” (Tedford 434). The statement firmly identifies a belief in the dignity of the individual but my question here is how does that apply? I would argue that our founding fathers did not entertain this idea of cyber bullying nor did they entertain the idea of how the Internet would change the entire world, yet alone US first amendment law. I would also argue that our founding fathers did not want other people to violate or intrude on another person’s sense of identity to the point where that person committed suicide. With that being said, I think it is important for individuals to fight back when it comes to cyber bulling and I think that when cyber bullying reaches a level where it threatens the individual dignity of another individual’s freedom of living their life (i.e. being able to attend school without fear of being severely made fun of) then it is a violation of the first amendment and calls for censorship.
Another way to look at cyber bullying is through the lens of philosophical reasoning relating to first amendment rights. I know I previously mentioned earlier that cyber bullying did not fall into that category and I would like to discuss why more in detail. Philosophical reasoning relies on the “ancient struggle for intellectual freedom and the search for truth” (Tedford 432). The idea is that if you let certain ideas compete, in the long run the truth will prevail. The reason this doesn’t work with cyber bullying is because the truth does not always prevail. One specific case illustrates this point quite well and it is unfortunate that it involves the death of a thirteen year old boy who took his own life. After numerous threats and teases 13 year old Ryan took his own life. His father said, “Other kids didn’t realize that he was truly suicidal” (Dakss 1). Then after Ryan’s death, his father went onto his computer and pulled up all the conversations that had helped influence his sons suicide. He father said “it was the most painful reading that I ever had to do in my entire life. My heart just broke a thousand times over every conversation that I read” (Dakss 2). Ryan’s example is a perfect case in which the truth relating to freedom of speech in the form of cyber bulling did not prevail and it cost Ryan his life. This is only one example of many cases where young teenagers have committed suicide because 1) either false things were said, believed and then the teenager was stigmatized with false truths or 2) the teenagers expressed their freedom of speech in the form of communicating their discontent and it wasn’t honored. This is why a philosophical reason for freedom of speech will never be a solid argument for cyber bullying being protected by the first amendment.
Another aspect that cyber bullying should be subjected to is called a “bad tendency test”. The idea behind a bad tendency test is that you stop a problem before it can actually happen. That means that speech the courts consider dangerous or offensive can be punished if it “be adjudged of a pernicious tendency” (Tedford 24). The bad tendency rule “allowed the government to constrain a message soon after it was published on the assumption that, if allowed to continue, it might create a problem sometime in the future” (Tedford 24). Additionally, no proof would be required that the message in question was a genuine threat to society or to the government (Tedford 24).
I believe this is the best test to use when considering the affects of cyber bullying. It is one thing to say something to another individual but it is something else entirely to post, distribute and manufacture it in a digital format. When this kind of technology is used, messages can be distributed on a massive scale that can produce a community organized (in this case school) backlash against a person. For young teens struggling with identity issues and for any other young teenager, developing a sense of identity is particularly difficult during this point in their life. The last thing that they need to worry about is the stress of being stigmatized because someone decides to massively distribute messages that are vulgar in nature. With a bad tendency test, it would provide the governing institution (in this case the school) the authority to determine if those messages constituted a threat and censor accordingly.
It would also provide schools with the opportunity to establish a code of conduct and applicable punishment for students who continue to violate the new implemented rules. We all know that when you are on a school campus your rights are waved. School officials can search your lockers, backpacks and cars with little or no warning and they can do it with drug sniffing dogs or police officials if they deem it necessary. Is it really so much more intrusive if school officials monitor how students use technology to deface other students? The difficult part is how to determine where to draw the line. According to Hannah Storm’s (a cyber bully victims) mother will tell you, “You can’t prove who did it, you can’t find out who did it, and it probably would exacerbate the problem to make something of it” (Dakss 2). My question is: what about people like Ryan Halligan? Simply ignoring the problem led to his suicide so clearly DOING SOMETHING about it COULD prove more helpful then simply doing nothing. I think that the solution is two fold to this problem of cyber bulling.
First, there needs to be education to parents about how the Internet can help and hurt their children. It is the duty of schools and parents to use the communication they have to combat the problem. Additionally, is the job of the parent to know what is going on in their child’s life and take action to notify a school official. The action taken by the school official should be swift based on real physical interaction or communication they see after begin tipped off by the parent about their child possibly being bullied while at home. Then necessary actions can be taken against the students who are cyber bullying. Typically, cyber bullies are often known but not exposed because they strategically involve other people so they can remain visible yet invisible (Cyberbullying by Proxy).
An example of a court case relating to class material was the case of Schenck v. United States in 1919. Defendant Charles T. Schenck was charged with 3 counts of violating the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917 (Tedford 48). The first violation occurred when he distributed a leaflet, which urged resistance to a drift. He was also charged with conspiracy to circulate the document through the mail and actually mailing of the copies (Tedford 48). This is similar to cyber bulling in several key ways. The first is the way in which Charles T. Schenck was trying to convince others to fight or deface a cause (in this case it was the draft). This is similar to cyber bullying because another individual is trying to spread information to other students in order to cause personal defacement to another student or person that the bully dislikes. The second way this relates to cyber bulling is in how the distribution of anti draft leaflets took place. The mail system was used to massively distribute the documents/ information. This is similar with cyber bullying because the media or system used to distribute the information is the World Wide Web via the Internet. The reason for this ruling was based on the bad tendency test and the ability of the documents to possiblly cause harm to the US government. That is why the government reacted and upheld the conviction. This could also prove to be an example of why the bad tendency test could be used in the case of cyber bullying and convictions could be upheld.
The main argument in the Schenck v. United States cause was that the leaflet, “would not have been sent unless it had been intended to have some effect, and we do not see what effect it could be expected to have upon persons subject to the draft expect to influence them to obstruct the carrying of it out” (Tedford 48). In the case of cyber bullying there are additionally similarities. Just as the Supreme Court ruled that the intent was important and hindered the ability of the US government to have a successful draft cyber bullying is also hindering a critical element for people who are victims of cyber bullies. That critical element is a fair and necessary education in the school system. If cyber bullying significantly decreases the child’s ability to interact with other people as they begin to develop their education in school then it can be seen as malicious in intent. In fact, several students that have suffered from cyber bullies have turned to home schooling in order to get away from other students that have turned to bullying on a massive scale (Dakss 2).
If the US government can rule to prevent the distribution of anti draft leaflets via a mail system because the intent had to be interference with a successful draft then an education system should have the same ability to rule in favor of a child having a chance at a legitimate education. The question to resolve for future cases is: what should the punishment be and how can the right people be identified and charged with violations of interfering with the education of other teenage students through cyber bulling? That is a question that the debate should focus on for later use because determining if an education system should have the ability to censor other bullies who risk the educational opportunities of other students and their participation in gaining that education is without question an appropriate justification to punish cyber bullies.
Evan McLaughlin Paper #1
April 18, 2009
CMJR 494
Dr. Bammert
In answering the question: “What Principle(s) should guide our understanding of communication justice and freedom of expression” I feel the best philosophical approach to the three cases I have chosen would be based on the philosophy of individual communication justice. The three cases I have chosen to explore more in depth include the articles titled: 1) Federal judge: Man’s anti-war T-shirts express ‘core political speech’ (from the Libel. Commercial speech category) 2) Jackson student leaders want shirts back after slogans called offensive (from the student speech category) and 3) Second Thoughts About kids and Cell Phones (from the Religious Moral Heresy: Obscenity category).
The philosophy of individual communication justice centers “on the belief in the dignity of the individual and the right of each person to self-fulfillment” (Tedford 434). This belief respects the freedoms of people to decide what to read, hear view and say (Tedford 434). The individual communication justice can also be related to freedom of expression through the fine arts as well. Anything relating to “composing poetry, painting a picture, or participating in theatre, dance and film” can all relate to the individual philosophy of communication justice (Tedford, 434). It is also important to note that often the three basic philosophies of communication justice are not mutually exclusive and overlap (434). While I will be making the case that the individual philosophy of communication justice applies to the first case of the man printing T-shirts with the names of soldiers that have died in Iraq, it also adheres to this idea of different philosophies of communication justice overlapping.
The reason why the individual philosophy of communication should guide the first case of the man printing t-shirts with the names of soldiers that have died in Iraq on them is valid relates to the stated value of being artistic in nature. The T-shirts were the opinion of the man taken as an idea and expressed in an artistic way via printing his idea on a T-shirt as a form of individual free speech. Due to the fact that the T-shirts were not only a statement but a form of art and the ultimate end product of one man’s ideas, the individual communication justice philosophy directly applies to the case. Thus, using the individual philosophy of communication justice not only makes sense but also solidifies the representation of free speech through the human spirit in the form of a specific art that can be consumed as a product.
The families of the soldiers make a good case in that the man did not ask them for their permission to publish the shirts but as Zechariah Chafee Jr. states, “In war time, therefore, speech should be unrestricted by the censorship or by punishment, unless it is clearly liable to cause direct and dangerous interference with the conduct of the war” (Tedford 435). Any single person can to go the published websites of new organizations and get an ongoing list of names for the soldiers that have died in Iraq. According to the individual philosophy of communication justice it allows what people can read, hear and view (434). In this statement by itself, the man has every right to have his freedom of speech protected through the individual philosophy of free speech. Additionally, the man is also protected by a combination of integrating the political philosophy of his statement against the government. By itself, the individual communication justice philosophy works but in combination with the political philosophy, the parents of soldiers that have died in Iraq are fighting two forms of individual and political philosophies that protect individual freedom of speech.
In the second article titled, “Jackson student leaders want shirts back after slogans called offensive” the individual philosophy of communication justice also applies. The reason it is the best form of communication justice philosophy to use involves similar association with being a form of art. The shirts made for the different classes of Jackson high school students were ideas that were taken and a specific product was created as a form of freedom of expression that could be displayed on the canvas of a purple t-shirt. Additionally, the words displayed on the back of the shirts were chosen by each class in a kind of process related directly to a democratic process of voting. While the words on the shirt could be interpreted as offensive it is still freedom of personal expression through a form of artistic design. Part of that artistic design could have also been the hidden meaning in the words printed on the back of those shirts. The fact that most of the administrators and parents did not know the meaning of the words shows that the shirts were artistic in nature. The shirts in no way violated any form of public safety and encouraged the search for truth in the meaning of the phrases on the back of the shirts. In essence, the shirts facilitated public discussion and encouraged fruitful debate about what certain words mean when used in a given context.
A case against the shirt can be made in that some people found the words offensive. However, if the ruling majority of that particular student body voted to use the specific words chosen that directly supports the concept of democracy and freedom of speech. The very fact that parents of students who disliked the church had the ability to voice their opinions shows the power of individual philosophical communication justice to continually facilitate discussion and debate. When Jackson high school administrators ordered the shirts to be returned that terminated the form of public and individual discussion, which led to a decrease in individual freedom of expression. While individual people do have the right to voice their opinions the idea that a minority can control a majority (as shown that the majority of students in each class voted for the words to be displayed on the back of the shirts in a democratic process) shows a lack of freedom in terms of the individual expressions of the students who chose the shirts in the first place.
It is for these reasons why the individual process for communication justice is appropriate and best to use in preserving the individual freedom of speech for the Jackson High School students. If the final decision to keep or recall the shirts were based fully on the individual philosophy of communication justice the outcome would be that the students would be able to have and wear their individual shirts as a way of showing their individual freedom of expression. If students chose not the wear the shirts then it would also be a statement that supported the same personal freedom of expression.
The last case titled, “Second Thoughts About Kids and Cell Phones” also ties into the idea of an individual communication justice philosophy. As stated previously, the individual philosophy gives each person the freedom to decide what to read, hear, view and say (Tedford 434). I can understand the argument that the girl who had her picture taken experienced a violation of personal privacy in that her nude pictures ended up being sent all around the high school she attended. However, as the individual philosophy will state, persons have the freedom to choose what they read, hear, view and say. If other students chose to view her nude photographs via their cellular phones then they are in no way violating that philosophical understanding. The individual philosophy of communication justice is also what allowed the student to express herself in terms of nude photographs in the first place. It also allowed her to speak out about it after the event occurred.
If this philosophical understanding of communication justice was fully realized the outcome would result in several different events. For one, the girl who exposed herself has the right or freedom of personal expression. Art can also be in the form of photographs, whether they are nude or not. Instead of her being charged with “sexual abuse of children and dissemination of child pornography when she posted nude pictures of herself online” freedom of individual expression under the 1st amendment would protect her from those allegations. It would do this by establishing that other students are the cause for the reason why her nude photos were distributed around campus. That is also a protection of 1st amendment rights through the individual philosophical form of communication justice. The second result is that the person responsible for initially beginning the distribution of those photographs would be charged with the personal defacement of property. This is a much different outcome then what actually occurred. In the end, the event facilitated a discussion on the topic that proved to be fruitful for a society understanding of how to handle further situations involving these issues.
Bibliography
"Federal Judge: Man's anti-war T-shirts express 'core political speech'" Associated Press 21 Aug. 2008. Congresscheck.com. 20 Apr. 2009
Gibbs, Nancy. "Second Thoughts About Kids and Cell Phones." Time Magazine 5 Mar. 2009. 20 Apr. 2009
Tedford, Thomas L. Freedom of speech in the United States. 5th ed. State College, Pa: Strata Pub., Inc., 2005.
Thompson, Lynn. "Jackson student leaders want shirts back after slogans called
offensive. "Seattle Times 27 Mar. 2009. 20 Apr. 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
