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
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
CMJR 494 Week 8 Questions
Questions for Week 8 from Chapter 5 in “Freedom of Speech in the United States”
1) Since George Carlin’s monologue, “Filthy Words” much has changed in terms of what is now considered obscene language over the airwaves. With the invent of select radio shows such as the Howard Stern show where he has porn stars and other celebrities come and talk over the air waves it seems that just about any kind of profane and disgusting speech is allowed to be broadcasted. Now, radio talk show hosts can pretty much swear on demand saying obscene and vulgar things about pretty much anyone one they want and it is alright. Yet, while the lines are becoming blurred in terms of what is considered obscene speech, there are still distinguishable lines that do exist. Take Don Imus and the “Nappy headed Ho” comment that cost him his job as a radio host and forced him off the air. My question is: If the line is blurry and profane and disgusting speech in terms of obscene expression has become more about “sensual and erotic images” (pg 121) where would you draw the line? If Howard Stern can have a radio show with porn stars getting naked and doing all kinds of sexual things to each other (and he even has a pay per view late night radio show that is broadcast via television so people can actually see the sexual acts being done in the studio) how can this be allowed? Yet, Don Imus makes a comment about some Rutgers women basketball players and loses his job due to the obscene nature of his language. Where is the line then? Does it have to be related to racist comments? If so, why don’t all the other radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and various others get kicked off the air for racist comments? Once you answer those questions consider the 3rd category of obscenity. Is it still a legitimate claim for obscene speech then? Even though it has been more identified with sensual and erotic content can simple language in the form of spoken words be enough to be considered obscene?
2) On page 132 of the text in the paragraph titled, The foundation Is Laid for the “Roth Test” Judge Bok states that there must be, “a reasonable and demonstrable cause to believe that a crime or misdemeanor has been committed or is about to be committed as the perceptible result of the publication and distribution of the writing in question…The causal connection between the book and the criminal behavior must appear beyond a reasonable doubt” (Pg 132). I would agree with this statement as I think most people would when it comes to determining if a work is obscene based upon it causing “a danger of incitement to criminal conduct”. If any person knows for sure that a certain work is going to cause someone to commit a sexual crime based upon being exposed to that specific work it would be crazy not to declare that work obscene. However, how can any single person 1) determine the intent or effect that a piece of literature has on another individual or 2) determine that even if that individual has the intent to commit a sexual crime based upon exposure to a work they will actually go through with committing the act? What do the words, “Beyond a reasonable doubt” mean to you and how do you think that literature in terms of writing or any form of art can be classified to evoke an intent to commit a sexual crime that can be known by anyone else other than the person intending to commit that crime? If you knew someone had every intention to commit a sexual crime based on their exposure to a certain form of media could you then condemn that literary or video work from being seen by everybody? If so, why or why not? Can you provide any recent examples such as copy cat killings or sexual crimes that have been committed based on any form of literary work?
3) Last week I was intrigued by Gary Atkins’ presentation about definitions of Child Pornography and worldwide ages of consent relating to having sex. I found it very interesting that even though an American citizen may travel outside of the United States, the same sexual consent laws still apply even in an international setting and the same applies for foreign citizens when the come to visit the United States. I have several questions based upon the class discussion. 1) How much of a role do you think biology plays or should play in determining the legal age for two consenting people to have sex? 2) Based upon different cultural understandings of consent relating to sex, can you still hold someone from one culture accountable in another culture for any violation of sexual consent laws they may have committed in a different country? For example the legal age of sexual consent in Washington State is 16/18 meaning that it is legal for a 16-year-old male to have sex with an 18-year-old female. In the Philippines it is legal for a 12-year-old male to have sex with an 18-year-old female. If an 18-year-old female citizen of the Philippines comes to the United States and has sex with a 12-year-old male can you hold her accountable and charge her with rape? Or do you excuse her because according to her cultural understanding it is accepted even though she was in the United States when the sexual act was committed? If the scenario was reversed and an 18-year-old male had sex with a 12-year-old female would it make a difference? Based upon this knowledge does your answer about how much biology should be involved in determining the age of consent change? If so why or why not?
1) Since George Carlin’s monologue, “Filthy Words” much has changed in terms of what is now considered obscene language over the airwaves. With the invent of select radio shows such as the Howard Stern show where he has porn stars and other celebrities come and talk over the air waves it seems that just about any kind of profane and disgusting speech is allowed to be broadcasted. Now, radio talk show hosts can pretty much swear on demand saying obscene and vulgar things about pretty much anyone one they want and it is alright. Yet, while the lines are becoming blurred in terms of what is considered obscene speech, there are still distinguishable lines that do exist. Take Don Imus and the “Nappy headed Ho” comment that cost him his job as a radio host and forced him off the air. My question is: If the line is blurry and profane and disgusting speech in terms of obscene expression has become more about “sensual and erotic images” (pg 121) where would you draw the line? If Howard Stern can have a radio show with porn stars getting naked and doing all kinds of sexual things to each other (and he even has a pay per view late night radio show that is broadcast via television so people can actually see the sexual acts being done in the studio) how can this be allowed? Yet, Don Imus makes a comment about some Rutgers women basketball players and loses his job due to the obscene nature of his language. Where is the line then? Does it have to be related to racist comments? If so, why don’t all the other radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and various others get kicked off the air for racist comments? Once you answer those questions consider the 3rd category of obscenity. Is it still a legitimate claim for obscene speech then? Even though it has been more identified with sensual and erotic content can simple language in the form of spoken words be enough to be considered obscene?
2) On page 132 of the text in the paragraph titled, The foundation Is Laid for the “Roth Test” Judge Bok states that there must be, “a reasonable and demonstrable cause to believe that a crime or misdemeanor has been committed or is about to be committed as the perceptible result of the publication and distribution of the writing in question…The causal connection between the book and the criminal behavior must appear beyond a reasonable doubt” (Pg 132). I would agree with this statement as I think most people would when it comes to determining if a work is obscene based upon it causing “a danger of incitement to criminal conduct”. If any person knows for sure that a certain work is going to cause someone to commit a sexual crime based upon being exposed to that specific work it would be crazy not to declare that work obscene. However, how can any single person 1) determine the intent or effect that a piece of literature has on another individual or 2) determine that even if that individual has the intent to commit a sexual crime based upon exposure to a work they will actually go through with committing the act? What do the words, “Beyond a reasonable doubt” mean to you and how do you think that literature in terms of writing or any form of art can be classified to evoke an intent to commit a sexual crime that can be known by anyone else other than the person intending to commit that crime? If you knew someone had every intention to commit a sexual crime based on their exposure to a certain form of media could you then condemn that literary or video work from being seen by everybody? If so, why or why not? Can you provide any recent examples such as copy cat killings or sexual crimes that have been committed based on any form of literary work?
3) Last week I was intrigued by Gary Atkins’ presentation about definitions of Child Pornography and worldwide ages of consent relating to having sex. I found it very interesting that even though an American citizen may travel outside of the United States, the same sexual consent laws still apply even in an international setting and the same applies for foreign citizens when the come to visit the United States. I have several questions based upon the class discussion. 1) How much of a role do you think biology plays or should play in determining the legal age for two consenting people to have sex? 2) Based upon different cultural understandings of consent relating to sex, can you still hold someone from one culture accountable in another culture for any violation of sexual consent laws they may have committed in a different country? For example the legal age of sexual consent in Washington State is 16/18 meaning that it is legal for a 16-year-old male to have sex with an 18-year-old female. In the Philippines it is legal for a 12-year-old male to have sex with an 18-year-old female. If an 18-year-old female citizen of the Philippines comes to the United States and has sex with a 12-year-old male can you hold her accountable and charge her with rape? Or do you excuse her because according to her cultural understanding it is accepted even though she was in the United States when the sexual act was committed? If the scenario was reversed and an 18-year-old male had sex with a 12-year-old female would it make a difference? Based upon this knowledge does your answer about how much biology should be involved in determining the age of consent change? If so why or why not?
Monday, May 18, 2009
CMJR 450- Week 8 Response
Response to “Nyanko-Yuki” Blog Question #1:
Question 1: Today, when you turn on the news, what do you get – crime, disasters, and deaths. Why do you think these topics have become so interesting (or hot topics) for us? Many newspapers, broadcasted news, and internet news sites focus on tragic and disaster stories. There might be something important that the public should hear about. Truly news-worthy things are getting dropped by editors for stories that will interest (or entertain) the public. Where do social movements fall in today’s category of “new-worthy” topics. According to our text (in chapter 14) it is very difficult for non-profits, social movements, and protests to get decent coverage. “[N]early all media are controlled by corporations, and the electronic media are licensed by the government. There is little inclination to report on social agitators or to see them as newsworthy.” (PASM, pg.327) Do you think it is fair for social movements to be kept from the public? How can social movements get news coverage while keeping a non-violent profile?
My Response:
It is true that most of the time we turn on the television we get crime, disasters and death. We typically also get a little bit of weather and sports coverage but that is a topic for another discussion. I do not necessarily think these topics have become interesting or hot topics for us, I think that we have fallen into a world that uses sensationalism to sell airtime to advertising companies. The more viewers you have the more the time slot costs and money is what makes the world go round. Lets face it, that is just the way it is.
In case most people haven’t noticed we are surrounded with exceptions to the rule. The norm is typically never shown and what is shown are the outliers in a society based on norms. We don’t even think about it but these unique circumstances are all around us every day. In most of the advertisements, television commercials for products, bill boards, you name it, we are surrounded by people born with the genetic exceptions of having 6 pack abs, abnormally white and perfect teeth, perfect skin, model like complexion, perfect hair, the list goes on and on. Thanks to adobe photo shop and the ability to literally airbrush out all the imperfections in any human person, it is no wonder we expect such perfection.
I know that this doesn’t pertain to this class but I have had multiple classes that discuss how some models don’t look the same in person then in pictures and do you know what advertisers do? They literally take 3 or 4 different body parts from different people (i.e. a specific kind of nose, bust size, smile and eyes) and use Photoshop to create an image that is really 4 different people photo shopped into 1 supermodel. We are creating actual people in advertisements that look nothing like their true identity because we have this desire to seek perfection in an imperfect world. The only way to create this kind of demand for perfection is to show imperfection and that is what crime, disasters and murder establish. Those categories establish the deviants and reinforce what we consider to be the norm, that murder is bad, disaster is bad and crime is bad.
I’m also taking a sociology class and from the studies of people like Erving Goffman what is occurring is a form of dramaturgy. We are constantly actors, giving different performances and we will do just about anything as the audience to pretend that even when actors fall out of character we still save face pretending that everything is alright. I believe this is what’s happening with the news as well. We see disaster and tragedy and we watch it because we are constantly living in this world where by seeing disaster and tragedy we can pretend that everything is still perfect. By watching disaster in the form of crime, murder and natural disasters we automatically as human beings identify what is the opposite of these things. Therefore, by watching these things on the news we 1) see things that aren’t typical and it naturally interests us and 2) watch them knowing that we could see those things and that our lives are actually just fine.
I agree that some news is important and the public should hear about it, but we have become consumed as a society and culture that wants to hear about how bad things are so we can see how good we have it in our own lives. Yes, there is news people should hear about and yes 3 or 4 major corporate conglomerate and telecommunication giants own all the broadcast sources of mainstream media in the world (i.e. Rupert Murdoch) but the fact is that what we are watching now sells time slots. If you take those same non-profits or social movements and then subject them to the lens of what we are interested in (i.e. crime, disaster and death) I guarantee you they will get coverage. This is why when social movements that are peaceful in nature solicit unjustified violence they get media coverage. Earth First is an example of how this tactic can be successful.
I also think it is very important how media is understood and discussed. It is true that corporate conglomerates own the main media sources such as television, newspapers, movies, radio channels, magazines and some Internet sites. However, the beauty is the size and reach of the Internet. Thanks to sites such as YouTube, Facebook, Myspace and various other Internet sites (those are only a few main ones) anyone can broadcast just about anything they want to send out in the form of a digital message. This is one of the reasons why the Obama campaign was so successful in getting people to donate money and put together rallies. The Obama campaign realized the power of the Internet to form groups and organize people. In reading Nyanko-Yuki’s question again, if the public wants to hear about something it is their job to find out about it. Most people know that their news isn’t 100% accurate and if they want to find out something they can always resort to the Internet.
Today social-movements fall into the category of, figure out a good way to sell your organization and your cause and people will want to find out more about you. It is now the job of these social movements to broadcast their cause and create their own coverage. Just because the 9 O’clock news doe not publish their story does not mean they can’t be viewed to heard about. Yes, the book does say that it is difficult for non-profits, social movements, and protests to get decent coverage but with the right form of advocacy they can get coverage by the mainstream media as well. If you have enough hits on any one of those sites, organize a massive demonstration where 1000’s of people are present and then use the right PR campaign, you will no doubt get coverage. It may not be the best coverage but people can find out about your cause and get involved. As a social movement can you ask for more than that?
I don’t think that social movements should be kept from the pubic and I do feel that there could be more coverage but you don’t need a major source of mainstream media to cause social transformation. If a social movement can cause resistance from the controlling institution in any number of ways we discussed in class: evasion, counter-persuasion, coercive persuasion or adjustment those social movements will have their coverage and they have the potential to get news coverage even when keeping a non-violent emphasis. Social movements that have been successful in doing this include Earth First and several others we have discussed in class. In short, I think it takes a very special kind of organization and a comprehensive understanding of the media system in order to see results but hey, no one said social change was going to be easy or timely.
Question 1: Today, when you turn on the news, what do you get – crime, disasters, and deaths. Why do you think these topics have become so interesting (or hot topics) for us? Many newspapers, broadcasted news, and internet news sites focus on tragic and disaster stories. There might be something important that the public should hear about. Truly news-worthy things are getting dropped by editors for stories that will interest (or entertain) the public. Where do social movements fall in today’s category of “new-worthy” topics. According to our text (in chapter 14) it is very difficult for non-profits, social movements, and protests to get decent coverage. “[N]early all media are controlled by corporations, and the electronic media are licensed by the government. There is little inclination to report on social agitators or to see them as newsworthy.” (PASM, pg.327) Do you think it is fair for social movements to be kept from the public? How can social movements get news coverage while keeping a non-violent profile?
My Response:
It is true that most of the time we turn on the television we get crime, disasters and death. We typically also get a little bit of weather and sports coverage but that is a topic for another discussion. I do not necessarily think these topics have become interesting or hot topics for us, I think that we have fallen into a world that uses sensationalism to sell airtime to advertising companies. The more viewers you have the more the time slot costs and money is what makes the world go round. Lets face it, that is just the way it is.
In case most people haven’t noticed we are surrounded with exceptions to the rule. The norm is typically never shown and what is shown are the outliers in a society based on norms. We don’t even think about it but these unique circumstances are all around us every day. In most of the advertisements, television commercials for products, bill boards, you name it, we are surrounded by people born with the genetic exceptions of having 6 pack abs, abnormally white and perfect teeth, perfect skin, model like complexion, perfect hair, the list goes on and on. Thanks to adobe photo shop and the ability to literally airbrush out all the imperfections in any human person, it is no wonder we expect such perfection.
I know that this doesn’t pertain to this class but I have had multiple classes that discuss how some models don’t look the same in person then in pictures and do you know what advertisers do? They literally take 3 or 4 different body parts from different people (i.e. a specific kind of nose, bust size, smile and eyes) and use Photoshop to create an image that is really 4 different people photo shopped into 1 supermodel. We are creating actual people in advertisements that look nothing like their true identity because we have this desire to seek perfection in an imperfect world. The only way to create this kind of demand for perfection is to show imperfection and that is what crime, disasters and murder establish. Those categories establish the deviants and reinforce what we consider to be the norm, that murder is bad, disaster is bad and crime is bad.
I’m also taking a sociology class and from the studies of people like Erving Goffman what is occurring is a form of dramaturgy. We are constantly actors, giving different performances and we will do just about anything as the audience to pretend that even when actors fall out of character we still save face pretending that everything is alright. I believe this is what’s happening with the news as well. We see disaster and tragedy and we watch it because we are constantly living in this world where by seeing disaster and tragedy we can pretend that everything is still perfect. By watching disaster in the form of crime, murder and natural disasters we automatically as human beings identify what is the opposite of these things. Therefore, by watching these things on the news we 1) see things that aren’t typical and it naturally interests us and 2) watch them knowing that we could see those things and that our lives are actually just fine.
I agree that some news is important and the public should hear about it, but we have become consumed as a society and culture that wants to hear about how bad things are so we can see how good we have it in our own lives. Yes, there is news people should hear about and yes 3 or 4 major corporate conglomerate and telecommunication giants own all the broadcast sources of mainstream media in the world (i.e. Rupert Murdoch) but the fact is that what we are watching now sells time slots. If you take those same non-profits or social movements and then subject them to the lens of what we are interested in (i.e. crime, disaster and death) I guarantee you they will get coverage. This is why when social movements that are peaceful in nature solicit unjustified violence they get media coverage. Earth First is an example of how this tactic can be successful.
I also think it is very important how media is understood and discussed. It is true that corporate conglomerates own the main media sources such as television, newspapers, movies, radio channels, magazines and some Internet sites. However, the beauty is the size and reach of the Internet. Thanks to sites such as YouTube, Facebook, Myspace and various other Internet sites (those are only a few main ones) anyone can broadcast just about anything they want to send out in the form of a digital message. This is one of the reasons why the Obama campaign was so successful in getting people to donate money and put together rallies. The Obama campaign realized the power of the Internet to form groups and organize people. In reading Nyanko-Yuki’s question again, if the public wants to hear about something it is their job to find out about it. Most people know that their news isn’t 100% accurate and if they want to find out something they can always resort to the Internet.
Today social-movements fall into the category of, figure out a good way to sell your organization and your cause and people will want to find out more about you. It is now the job of these social movements to broadcast their cause and create their own coverage. Just because the 9 O’clock news doe not publish their story does not mean they can’t be viewed to heard about. Yes, the book does say that it is difficult for non-profits, social movements, and protests to get decent coverage but with the right form of advocacy they can get coverage by the mainstream media as well. If you have enough hits on any one of those sites, organize a massive demonstration where 1000’s of people are present and then use the right PR campaign, you will no doubt get coverage. It may not be the best coverage but people can find out about your cause and get involved. As a social movement can you ask for more than that?
I don’t think that social movements should be kept from the pubic and I do feel that there could be more coverage but you don’t need a major source of mainstream media to cause social transformation. If a social movement can cause resistance from the controlling institution in any number of ways we discussed in class: evasion, counter-persuasion, coercive persuasion or adjustment those social movements will have their coverage and they have the potential to get news coverage even when keeping a non-violent emphasis. Social movements that have been successful in doing this include Earth First and several others we have discussed in class. In short, I think it takes a very special kind of organization and a comprehensive understanding of the media system in order to see results but hey, no one said social change was going to be easy or timely.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
450 Response for week 7
Response to “Communicate. Create change. Love” Blog Question #1:
Question 1) Think of a well-recognized speech that you are familiar with or would like to read/listen to such as Martin Luther king JR’s I Have a Dream or Cesar Chavez’s Commonwealth Club Address (May be interesting to analyze a speech given in recent history). Each of these speeches had a tremendous impact on a large portion of the population and helped move the respective cause each speaker is fighting for a number of steps further towards its success. In the third chapter of the text “Persuasion and Social Movements,” the authors quote William Gamson who classifies social movements as “struggles over the definition and construction of social reality.” How does the speech you are analyzing construct the social reality at the time it was given? What is the exact problem the speaker addresses and how is language used to create the way the intended audience views the given problem?
I choose to analyze Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address given on January 20, 2009:
For an actual copy of the text please go to http://obamaspeeches.com/P-Obama-Inaugural-Speech-Inauguration.htm
The background for this speech is fairly straightforward. Barack Obama is the first African American president to take the oath of office in the history of the United States and he is coming in at a time when our country has been at war in Iraq at a tremendous cost that is literally beginning to tear the US economy apart. The speech president Obama gives constructs the social reality in several different ways. First I want to discuss the music chosen for the ceremony because as chapter 3 discusses, “Institutions have long utilized music for a variety of persuasive purposes, and they are leery of its use in the hands of social agitators” (Pg. 54). Plato even said that, “any music innovation is full of danger to the whole state, and ought to be prohibited” (Pg. 54). While President Obama is not an institution, his organization and campaign was centered around the idea of social change in America. It is due to this respect that I feel the music selection at the Inaugural Address is very important. The bands chosen to perform at the address were as follows: The United States Marine Band, The San Francisco Boys Chorus, The San Francisco Girls Chorus and Aretha Franklin. I feel that these were definitely chosen for a specific reason to construct a social reality during President Obama’s address.
The United States Marine Band is known for performing at formal events and ceremonies celebrating Americas tradition of independence and honoring those that serve. This group was chosen for the specific purpose of preserving the classic tradition of what every single American President has enjoyed as a formal ceremony performed by the fighting men and women of this country. The band played four “ruffles and flourishes” as they always do followed by “Hail to the Chief” after Obama gave his address.
The next two choices in the San Francisco boys and girls chorus were much different in nature. The chorus is known for singing in front of presidents and political officials. Together the boys chorus of 200 boys ranging from ages 5 to 18 sang with the girls chorus of 300 girls ranging from 7 to 18 years old. Together they sang “America The Beautiful”. This was another serious performance that is formal in nature and neutral in terms of what anyone would expect to occur at a presidential Inaugural address. It was with Aretha Franklin singing "My Country 'Tis of Thee" that a different kind of message was established.
There is not doubt in my mind that Aretha was chosen to represent the African American heritage of soul music and bring an aura of something new and refreshing to what has always been such a formal occurrence. She was also chosen to show the merging between a traditional white, Anglo-Saxon culture and Americans of color. This is the kind of image Barack Obama has created and maintained throughout his presidential campaign. He was serious enough to talk about serious, hard-hitting issues such as terrorism, the economy or the Iraq war but also likes to hoop it up on the weekends, walk the dog and spend time with his family. This also became part of the image he projected of himself all throughout the campaign. He literally was a representation of the kind of change that America needs and he is an outstanding example of why American can provide opportunities that can not be matched any where else in the world. That is the image and social reality that he created through his climb to the presidency. A serious man that is also down to earth and realizes what issues the American people struggle with on their level.
I am running out of room but I want to talk about the speech briefly. The word humble was carefully chosen. You would think that for the first African American president of the United States “humble” would hardly be the word that would be used. He also says to be “mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors”. Again this has multiple meanings, it could mean all the American men and women that have made the USA what it is and it can also refer to African Americans that endured slavery. The one word that comes to mind in reading this is that President Obama is classy. It is this classy, outspoken, serious but humble man that represents the new face of the United States and that is the social reality he is creating.
He is creating a place where everyone can relate to him and that your ancestors regardless of race, class and history have earned a place to make the USA the wonderful place that it has become. This is the social reality that Obama is creating in this speech as well. The speech is 3 pages long and this analysis is only based on the first several paragraphs but if you continue to look at the content of the text, the combination of music and the way in which it was delivered this is the social reality that Obama is defining. He is defining a unified, harmonious United States that is willing to work together to solve the problems that lie before him. He also puts the responsibility to create this social change on “this generation of Americans”.
Then Obama goes on to discuss economic hardship and that no matter what class you may be in, what industry or job you are in, everyone is feeling the pinch of the economic crisis and we must take action now. Part of the persuasive functions of social movement mentioned in chapter 3 is that, “Social movement persuaders portray a vision of the future that instills a sense of urgency in audience to organize and do something now before it is too late” (Pg 55). These themes are interwoven all throughout Obama’s speech and it is truly a masterpiece that would require many pages to fully break down. With that being said, I feel this is a good start in looking at this speech in terms of how Obama created a social reality and has been successful in getting people to take action and make changes.
Question 1) Think of a well-recognized speech that you are familiar with or would like to read/listen to such as Martin Luther king JR’s I Have a Dream or Cesar Chavez’s Commonwealth Club Address (May be interesting to analyze a speech given in recent history). Each of these speeches had a tremendous impact on a large portion of the population and helped move the respective cause each speaker is fighting for a number of steps further towards its success. In the third chapter of the text “Persuasion and Social Movements,” the authors quote William Gamson who classifies social movements as “struggles over the definition and construction of social reality.” How does the speech you are analyzing construct the social reality at the time it was given? What is the exact problem the speaker addresses and how is language used to create the way the intended audience views the given problem?
I choose to analyze Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address given on January 20, 2009:
For an actual copy of the text please go to http://obamaspeeches.com/P-Obama-Inaugural-Speech-Inauguration.htm
The background for this speech is fairly straightforward. Barack Obama is the first African American president to take the oath of office in the history of the United States and he is coming in at a time when our country has been at war in Iraq at a tremendous cost that is literally beginning to tear the US economy apart. The speech president Obama gives constructs the social reality in several different ways. First I want to discuss the music chosen for the ceremony because as chapter 3 discusses, “Institutions have long utilized music for a variety of persuasive purposes, and they are leery of its use in the hands of social agitators” (Pg. 54). Plato even said that, “any music innovation is full of danger to the whole state, and ought to be prohibited” (Pg. 54). While President Obama is not an institution, his organization and campaign was centered around the idea of social change in America. It is due to this respect that I feel the music selection at the Inaugural Address is very important. The bands chosen to perform at the address were as follows: The United States Marine Band, The San Francisco Boys Chorus, The San Francisco Girls Chorus and Aretha Franklin. I feel that these were definitely chosen for a specific reason to construct a social reality during President Obama’s address.
The United States Marine Band is known for performing at formal events and ceremonies celebrating Americas tradition of independence and honoring those that serve. This group was chosen for the specific purpose of preserving the classic tradition of what every single American President has enjoyed as a formal ceremony performed by the fighting men and women of this country. The band played four “ruffles and flourishes” as they always do followed by “Hail to the Chief” after Obama gave his address.
The next two choices in the San Francisco boys and girls chorus were much different in nature. The chorus is known for singing in front of presidents and political officials. Together the boys chorus of 200 boys ranging from ages 5 to 18 sang with the girls chorus of 300 girls ranging from 7 to 18 years old. Together they sang “America The Beautiful”. This was another serious performance that is formal in nature and neutral in terms of what anyone would expect to occur at a presidential Inaugural address. It was with Aretha Franklin singing "My Country 'Tis of Thee" that a different kind of message was established.
There is not doubt in my mind that Aretha was chosen to represent the African American heritage of soul music and bring an aura of something new and refreshing to what has always been such a formal occurrence. She was also chosen to show the merging between a traditional white, Anglo-Saxon culture and Americans of color. This is the kind of image Barack Obama has created and maintained throughout his presidential campaign. He was serious enough to talk about serious, hard-hitting issues such as terrorism, the economy or the Iraq war but also likes to hoop it up on the weekends, walk the dog and spend time with his family. This also became part of the image he projected of himself all throughout the campaign. He literally was a representation of the kind of change that America needs and he is an outstanding example of why American can provide opportunities that can not be matched any where else in the world. That is the image and social reality that he created through his climb to the presidency. A serious man that is also down to earth and realizes what issues the American people struggle with on their level.
I am running out of room but I want to talk about the speech briefly. The word humble was carefully chosen. You would think that for the first African American president of the United States “humble” would hardly be the word that would be used. He also says to be “mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors”. Again this has multiple meanings, it could mean all the American men and women that have made the USA what it is and it can also refer to African Americans that endured slavery. The one word that comes to mind in reading this is that President Obama is classy. It is this classy, outspoken, serious but humble man that represents the new face of the United States and that is the social reality he is creating.
He is creating a place where everyone can relate to him and that your ancestors regardless of race, class and history have earned a place to make the USA the wonderful place that it has become. This is the social reality that Obama is creating in this speech as well. The speech is 3 pages long and this analysis is only based on the first several paragraphs but if you continue to look at the content of the text, the combination of music and the way in which it was delivered this is the social reality that Obama is defining. He is defining a unified, harmonious United States that is willing to work together to solve the problems that lie before him. He also puts the responsibility to create this social change on “this generation of Americans”.
Then Obama goes on to discuss economic hardship and that no matter what class you may be in, what industry or job you are in, everyone is feeling the pinch of the economic crisis and we must take action now. Part of the persuasive functions of social movement mentioned in chapter 3 is that, “Social movement persuaders portray a vision of the future that instills a sense of urgency in audience to organize and do something now before it is too late” (Pg 55). These themes are interwoven all throughout Obama’s speech and it is truly a masterpiece that would require many pages to fully break down. With that being said, I feel this is a good start in looking at this speech in terms of how Obama created a social reality and has been successful in getting people to take action and make changes.
494- Week 7 Response to Joe's Blog questions
The first question Joe asks is: “Where should legal lines be drawn for ‘worthless’ speech”? I believe the answer to that question lies in a concrete definition of what constitutes ‘worthless’ or obscene. It requires an understanding that what is considered to be obscenity centers around the idea of what can be understood or labeled as “worthless”. As I have been reading chapter 5 one continuous thought keeps coming back into my mind. The idea that in countless case studies I have been reading, all the supreme court justices could not come up with a majority consensus on what constitutes ‘obscene material’. Countless times the sentence, “…the justices revealed clearly the semantic problem inherent in their definition of “obscenity,” for the six who formed the majority could not agree on a majority opinion” comes into the picture after each court hearing involving ‘obscene material’ or as the Roth test deems as ‘worthless’ in nature (Pg. 135). I do not feel that a simple, “I know it when I see it” (pg 136) kind of attitude is adequate in defining obscene material or speech deemed ‘worthless’.
Again it comes down to personal values. Perhaps I am a positivist in that I try to find ‘worth’ in everything I read, listen to or experience whether that be in media, relationships or any other aspect of real world interaction. I think each and every interaction or encounter with whatever we experience can offer some kind of ‘worth’. That can include serious issues such as speech & obscenity or issues far less serious such as finding worth in watching a cheesy class b horror movie. The content and messages were meant to do something or evoke something, if not in the author’s mind but also in the viewer’s mind, otherwise they would not be there in the first place. Once again, in terms of drawing a legal line for “worthless” speech, I believe the answer lies in the consensus of the society in which the speech in question is necessary in order to determine what is “worthless”.
What makes this idea interesting is that if you take the same definition of one society and move it to another, often the same laws do not apply. Hence the level of inter-state Supreme Court conflict in terms of a concrete ruling for differently tried cases involving obscenity or ‘worthless’ speech. It is for this reason that I believe it is almost impossible to distinguish whether something is “worthless” or not. If the basis for legal argumentation and the creation of laws is taken from norms or ideals that are supported by a ruling consensus or power how is a concrete definition ever possible? Take those laws elsewhere and you can often find different interpretations about validity and truth. I learned a long time ago that a truth is an agreed upon definition, supported by a majority power in society and then taught to others as a societal truth. Thus, I think in asking the question about where legal lines should be drawn for what is considered to be ‘worthless’ speech, Joe has found one of the many legal loop holes that exist in a legal world that is not black or white but gray.
As for the brief discussion of obscenity as pertaining to child pornography and obscenity being the exception of what is protected under the first amendment, I have several responses. First, in the statement that Joe makes about it being written, “The government has a compelling interest in the protection of children from seeing or hearing indecent material, but total bans applicable to adults and child alike are constitutionally suspect” there are several ideas that are problematic to me. The first question I have is how indecent material is defined and by who? The second question I have is, how does a government protect children from seeing or hearing indecent material when the children are the producers and consumers of their own indecent material as defined so far in the cases of ‘sexting’? Additionally, how does the government intend to protect children from hearing or seeing indecent material when those children accused of sexting are prosecuted as adults and labeled as sex offenders for the rest of their lives? That is directly contributing to the seeing or hearing of indecent material, not to mention physical and psychological violation of children. What do you think these children will experience when they are jailed and put in the bin with other “real” sex offenders?
It is true that pornography has and will always remain a part of life all over the world. However, what constitutes pornography in different parts of the world and determines what is acceptable or unacceptable is something entirely different. It would be literally, impossible to determine or define those terms on a global or cultural level. Sure, you might have some agreement but it would not be concrete and it would change according to situation.
Another underlying idea is that pornography is an industry that remains a source for adult entertainment and for profit organizations. Perhaps Joe is a bit out of the loop on this one but due to the increase of home video and ability for the average person to make, edit and publish their own home made adult movies, pictures and etc, the porn industry has seen the largest declines in profit since it’s creation. Not to mention now you have underage teens producing their own content and then distributing it via the web in the form of private or personal webpage subscriptions. You don’t have to be adult to do that either. Sexting is only one aspect of how this private way of experiencing human nudity has become public and mainstream. It is this kind of deregulation spawned by the internet that has actually significantly increased or led to the problem of sexting in the first place. This brings me to my next point about what constitutes child pornography.
If child pornography is, “the pictorial representation of children in films or still photographs in a variety of sexual activities of exposures of the genitals” how are we defining children exactly? Some would say teens under the age of 18 but if you look at the advances in technology and how teens under the age of 18 are actually producing their own sexual content how can you determine that it isn’t a form of personal expression? If a 16 or 17 year old girl or boy wants to send a “special” text/ picture message to their significant other who are we to stop them and with picture messaging along with sex education classes what do you expect to happen? If these same children are protected under the same constitution that condemns them when they use the new technology they have to produce their own content what are we saying exactly? Are we saying that adults are free to express their sexuality and freedom of speech but children aren’t because it is the job of the government to determine what their rights are under the first amendment? It was only a matter of time until children under the age of 18 began using their first amendment constitution rights. The question now is: What do we do about it? Do we view sexting as obscene or non-obscene and do we grant these so called children the right of personal expression through the creation and distribution of nude photographs or videos? Personally, I consider pornography to be any sexual act relating to having oral, anal or vaginal sex. Everything else is just sexual exploration. That is another reason why I don’t believe the Hicklin rule applies here. But I’ve run out of space so perhaps I will discuss this more in another blog.
Again it comes down to personal values. Perhaps I am a positivist in that I try to find ‘worth’ in everything I read, listen to or experience whether that be in media, relationships or any other aspect of real world interaction. I think each and every interaction or encounter with whatever we experience can offer some kind of ‘worth’. That can include serious issues such as speech & obscenity or issues far less serious such as finding worth in watching a cheesy class b horror movie. The content and messages were meant to do something or evoke something, if not in the author’s mind but also in the viewer’s mind, otherwise they would not be there in the first place. Once again, in terms of drawing a legal line for “worthless” speech, I believe the answer lies in the consensus of the society in which the speech in question is necessary in order to determine what is “worthless”.
What makes this idea interesting is that if you take the same definition of one society and move it to another, often the same laws do not apply. Hence the level of inter-state Supreme Court conflict in terms of a concrete ruling for differently tried cases involving obscenity or ‘worthless’ speech. It is for this reason that I believe it is almost impossible to distinguish whether something is “worthless” or not. If the basis for legal argumentation and the creation of laws is taken from norms or ideals that are supported by a ruling consensus or power how is a concrete definition ever possible? Take those laws elsewhere and you can often find different interpretations about validity and truth. I learned a long time ago that a truth is an agreed upon definition, supported by a majority power in society and then taught to others as a societal truth. Thus, I think in asking the question about where legal lines should be drawn for what is considered to be ‘worthless’ speech, Joe has found one of the many legal loop holes that exist in a legal world that is not black or white but gray.
As for the brief discussion of obscenity as pertaining to child pornography and obscenity being the exception of what is protected under the first amendment, I have several responses. First, in the statement that Joe makes about it being written, “The government has a compelling interest in the protection of children from seeing or hearing indecent material, but total bans applicable to adults and child alike are constitutionally suspect” there are several ideas that are problematic to me. The first question I have is how indecent material is defined and by who? The second question I have is, how does a government protect children from seeing or hearing indecent material when the children are the producers and consumers of their own indecent material as defined so far in the cases of ‘sexting’? Additionally, how does the government intend to protect children from hearing or seeing indecent material when those children accused of sexting are prosecuted as adults and labeled as sex offenders for the rest of their lives? That is directly contributing to the seeing or hearing of indecent material, not to mention physical and psychological violation of children. What do you think these children will experience when they are jailed and put in the bin with other “real” sex offenders?
It is true that pornography has and will always remain a part of life all over the world. However, what constitutes pornography in different parts of the world and determines what is acceptable or unacceptable is something entirely different. It would be literally, impossible to determine or define those terms on a global or cultural level. Sure, you might have some agreement but it would not be concrete and it would change according to situation.
Another underlying idea is that pornography is an industry that remains a source for adult entertainment and for profit organizations. Perhaps Joe is a bit out of the loop on this one but due to the increase of home video and ability for the average person to make, edit and publish their own home made adult movies, pictures and etc, the porn industry has seen the largest declines in profit since it’s creation. Not to mention now you have underage teens producing their own content and then distributing it via the web in the form of private or personal webpage subscriptions. You don’t have to be adult to do that either. Sexting is only one aspect of how this private way of experiencing human nudity has become public and mainstream. It is this kind of deregulation spawned by the internet that has actually significantly increased or led to the problem of sexting in the first place. This brings me to my next point about what constitutes child pornography.
If child pornography is, “the pictorial representation of children in films or still photographs in a variety of sexual activities of exposures of the genitals” how are we defining children exactly? Some would say teens under the age of 18 but if you look at the advances in technology and how teens under the age of 18 are actually producing their own sexual content how can you determine that it isn’t a form of personal expression? If a 16 or 17 year old girl or boy wants to send a “special” text/ picture message to their significant other who are we to stop them and with picture messaging along with sex education classes what do you expect to happen? If these same children are protected under the same constitution that condemns them when they use the new technology they have to produce their own content what are we saying exactly? Are we saying that adults are free to express their sexuality and freedom of speech but children aren’t because it is the job of the government to determine what their rights are under the first amendment? It was only a matter of time until children under the age of 18 began using their first amendment constitution rights. The question now is: What do we do about it? Do we view sexting as obscene or non-obscene and do we grant these so called children the right of personal expression through the creation and distribution of nude photographs or videos? Personally, I consider pornography to be any sexual act relating to having oral, anal or vaginal sex. Everything else is just sexual exploration. That is another reason why I don’t believe the Hicklin rule applies here. But I’ve run out of space so perhaps I will discuss this more in another blog.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
494- Week 6 Responses
Kelly Stone’s Question:
1) In 1996, the Child Pornography Prevention (CPPA) "[...] made it a federal crime to reproduce, distribute, sell, receive, or possess child pornography as defined by the CPPA" (151). The CPPA prohibited, "[...] youthful-looking adults playing the parts of minors in sexual situations, as well as computer-generated images in which no child was actually involved" (151). Later, the Supreme Court declared the CPPA unconstitutional, as they felt the provisions were "overbroad." Justice Kennedy argued that "[v]irtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children, as were the materials in Ferber" (152). I agree that virtual pornography is not "intrinsically related" to child abuse; however, since it is still child pornography, I believe some sort of restriction should be made on this type of film/"art." I know that this can be a slippery slope, though, as there are many films and pieces of art involving children and sexual engagements.
Q: What do you think about the provisions of the CPPA? Do you think that they took it too far, and that virtual child pornography should not be considered criminal?
My Answer to Kelly’s Question: Sorry for the long email.
I would also agree that virtual pornography is not “intrinsically related” to child abuse and that since it is still child pornography it should have some form of regulation. I do believe the provisions of the CPPA went a bit too far but they bring up a very relevant point about virtual child pornography and whether it should be considered criminal. I do not think it should be considered criminal but consider my thoughts for a moment.
Depending on the effectiveness of the messages in how they are produced, distributed and interpreted, virtual pornography has the capability to encourage society or youth to develop a more accepted/ desensitized emotional response to that specific form of media. While there is nothing intrinsically related or wrong with “youthful-looking adults playing the parts of minors in sexual situations, as well as computer- generated images in which no child was actually involved” my question would be what does this form of digital media encourage? If that form of media reaches an older audience it has the potential to encourage sexual stimulation for people over the age of 18 and association of desire with younger looking teenagers. This in tern could lead to an accepted or desired norm that develops in people over the age of 18 about having younger partners of the opposite sex as sexual partners.
At the same time, if younger teenagers under the age of 18 are surrounded with images or virtual content that is manufactured through a computer and computer generated images (CGI), what’s to stop them from seeing the behavior as acceptable or associating interest in sexual curiosity with the non-human images? They might think that if it is alright for teenagers over the age of 18 that look young to have sexual relationships then why would it not be alright if they were explorative in their sexual questions as well?
I think popular culture has a lot to do with this and if we really take a look at the images, messages and ideas that surround us on a daily basis we see a crowd of constantly portrayed younger crowd trying to perpetually act older than they are. In the United States we have the highest rates of teen pregnancy, STD’s and divorce than any other developed nation in the world. Doesn’t that say something about how norms in this country are beginning to change in terms of how a constantly portrayed world of images that revolved around sex can affect a society?
In answering the question of how to regulate or put restrictions on the kind of content that Kelly mentions in her blog I think the answer is simple…education. If you really want to get a society to accept or understand how certain norms are affecting the world around then and get that society to be competent several movements need to occur. For one, the issue needs to be addressed and brought in the spotlight, not hidden in the darkness of guilt and shame if young teenagers have an interest in sex they don’t want to express for fear of embarrassment. Secondly, this discussion in this blog needs to be integrated in how we teach our children and young teens, as well as people over the age of 18 how to understand the topic or view it. By doing this it reinforces societal norms about the topic allowing for majority power to determine what IS acceptable and preserves freedom of artistic expression in the form of the digital media in question still possible. Additionally, people should be informed of what consequences they can suffer if they dabble in this category of child pornography. The should be informed of what they rights are and what constitutes child pornography to avoid future conflicts and establish a new norm in that area as well.
With the new advances in technology and GCI people are becoming their own producers, distributors and broadcasters of digital media. They will constantly be creating in some aspect and I feel that if those violations or if the media they produce result in a measurable account of acts committed in the name of those digital representations of minors, the producers of that content need to be prosecuted.
1) In 1996, the Child Pornography Prevention (CPPA) "[...] made it a federal crime to reproduce, distribute, sell, receive, or possess child pornography as defined by the CPPA" (151). The CPPA prohibited, "[...] youthful-looking adults playing the parts of minors in sexual situations, as well as computer-generated images in which no child was actually involved" (151). Later, the Supreme Court declared the CPPA unconstitutional, as they felt the provisions were "overbroad." Justice Kennedy argued that "[v]irtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children, as were the materials in Ferber" (152). I agree that virtual pornography is not "intrinsically related" to child abuse; however, since it is still child pornography, I believe some sort of restriction should be made on this type of film/"art." I know that this can be a slippery slope, though, as there are many films and pieces of art involving children and sexual engagements.
Q: What do you think about the provisions of the CPPA? Do you think that they took it too far, and that virtual child pornography should not be considered criminal?
My Answer to Kelly’s Question: Sorry for the long email.
I would also agree that virtual pornography is not “intrinsically related” to child abuse and that since it is still child pornography it should have some form of regulation. I do believe the provisions of the CPPA went a bit too far but they bring up a very relevant point about virtual child pornography and whether it should be considered criminal. I do not think it should be considered criminal but consider my thoughts for a moment.
Depending on the effectiveness of the messages in how they are produced, distributed and interpreted, virtual pornography has the capability to encourage society or youth to develop a more accepted/ desensitized emotional response to that specific form of media. While there is nothing intrinsically related or wrong with “youthful-looking adults playing the parts of minors in sexual situations, as well as computer- generated images in which no child was actually involved” my question would be what does this form of digital media encourage? If that form of media reaches an older audience it has the potential to encourage sexual stimulation for people over the age of 18 and association of desire with younger looking teenagers. This in tern could lead to an accepted or desired norm that develops in people over the age of 18 about having younger partners of the opposite sex as sexual partners.
At the same time, if younger teenagers under the age of 18 are surrounded with images or virtual content that is manufactured through a computer and computer generated images (CGI), what’s to stop them from seeing the behavior as acceptable or associating interest in sexual curiosity with the non-human images? They might think that if it is alright for teenagers over the age of 18 that look young to have sexual relationships then why would it not be alright if they were explorative in their sexual questions as well?
I think popular culture has a lot to do with this and if we really take a look at the images, messages and ideas that surround us on a daily basis we see a crowd of constantly portrayed younger crowd trying to perpetually act older than they are. In the United States we have the highest rates of teen pregnancy, STD’s and divorce than any other developed nation in the world. Doesn’t that say something about how norms in this country are beginning to change in terms of how a constantly portrayed world of images that revolved around sex can affect a society?
In answering the question of how to regulate or put restrictions on the kind of content that Kelly mentions in her blog I think the answer is simple…education. If you really want to get a society to accept or understand how certain norms are affecting the world around then and get that society to be competent several movements need to occur. For one, the issue needs to be addressed and brought in the spotlight, not hidden in the darkness of guilt and shame if young teenagers have an interest in sex they don’t want to express for fear of embarrassment. Secondly, this discussion in this blog needs to be integrated in how we teach our children and young teens, as well as people over the age of 18 how to understand the topic or view it. By doing this it reinforces societal norms about the topic allowing for majority power to determine what IS acceptable and preserves freedom of artistic expression in the form of the digital media in question still possible. Additionally, people should be informed of what consequences they can suffer if they dabble in this category of child pornography. The should be informed of what they rights are and what constitutes child pornography to avoid future conflicts and establish a new norm in that area as well.
With the new advances in technology and GCI people are becoming their own producers, distributors and broadcasters of digital media. They will constantly be creating in some aspect and I feel that if those violations or if the media they produce result in a measurable account of acts committed in the name of those digital representations of minors, the producers of that content need to be prosecuted.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Response to "Fear spoils freedom's promise"
Question: What are the most pressing communication justice issues today?
Answer:
Some people might argue that we are less free in terms of how we can voice our opinions today than ever before. Between the increasing number on online forums & blogs such as this one, people can say what they want about almost anything. As Paul K. McMasters states, "Constant and rapid advances in new forms of media provoke new modes os speech and thus more anxiety". Whether that information is correct or not is a different story but it can still be broadcast via the internet.
At the same time I have difficulty in understanding why these new modes of speech cause more anxiety? The same anxiety and political pressures of what is seen as socially acceptable has always been there. The difference is that now you can say something and everyone with access to the internet can read it and make a judgment about what you say as being politically correct or incorrect. Perhaps this is the anxiety that McMasters is referring to in his article?
For me the most pressing communication justice issue today is the censorship of what people say by government organizations. Yes, some people are going to be racist, sexist, crude & a whole host of other labels but in the United States its still their right to voice their opinion. The most pressing justice issue is the thought that what people say can now be taken off the internet, the web page closed down and the person prosecuted to the full extent of the law for using the internet as a mass communication device to harbor ill will toward other people. Who has the power to determine that? It is the reason why humanity still debate today. Why should one government organization be able to have so much power that they shut that information off? That is no different than when our founding fathers gave public speeches in the square the only difference is that the square is now the world wide web. Somebody, some where is always going to get offended and I will grant you that some subjects such as racist remarks, broadcasting of porn and etc are most definitely questionable in terms of being politically correct. That is still the right of the individual to say what they feel. I think that with the internet more people have been silenced than heard. After all "when we encounter speech that doesn't square with our view of the world, we prefer punishment to persuasion". That still doesn't make the punishment justified.
In the end I agree that some kind of REGULATION is needed, but my question is: who would the watch dogs be without freedom of speech? How could anyone possibly influence or impact the government if that government were to turn bad and they had COMPLETE REGULATION OF THE MEDIA? Can you say George Orwell "1984" big brother is watching? You know how the saying goes: "ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY". So, why give that to a government? Besides, if a government organization were to limit or define what "indecencies, violence, hate speech, commercial speech and dissent" are what would we have to talk about? The fact is that people will always voice their opinions, if you take them off the internet they will organize and give public speeches. In one way or another people will always be heard. I consider our founding fathers to be VERY SMART INDIVIDUALS, and yes media has changed but hate speech or not, it should still be allowed. If not for the reason of generating debate on the topic as to what is right or wrong it should be allowed because it gives us something to talk about. These discussions are the very basis that allow certain societies to create conceptions of what is socially acceptable or not acceptable. When you take that away you actually create more chaos then good. In the article I think Hugo Black sums it up best. " If we are to pass on that great heritage of freedom, we must return to the original language of the Bill of Rights. We must not be afraid to be free".
Answer:
Some people might argue that we are less free in terms of how we can voice our opinions today than ever before. Between the increasing number on online forums & blogs such as this one, people can say what they want about almost anything. As Paul K. McMasters states, "Constant and rapid advances in new forms of media provoke new modes os speech and thus more anxiety". Whether that information is correct or not is a different story but it can still be broadcast via the internet.
At the same time I have difficulty in understanding why these new modes of speech cause more anxiety? The same anxiety and political pressures of what is seen as socially acceptable has always been there. The difference is that now you can say something and everyone with access to the internet can read it and make a judgment about what you say as being politically correct or incorrect. Perhaps this is the anxiety that McMasters is referring to in his article?
For me the most pressing communication justice issue today is the censorship of what people say by government organizations. Yes, some people are going to be racist, sexist, crude & a whole host of other labels but in the United States its still their right to voice their opinion. The most pressing justice issue is the thought that what people say can now be taken off the internet, the web page closed down and the person prosecuted to the full extent of the law for using the internet as a mass communication device to harbor ill will toward other people. Who has the power to determine that? It is the reason why humanity still debate today. Why should one government organization be able to have so much power that they shut that information off? That is no different than when our founding fathers gave public speeches in the square the only difference is that the square is now the world wide web. Somebody, some where is always going to get offended and I will grant you that some subjects such as racist remarks, broadcasting of porn and etc are most definitely questionable in terms of being politically correct. That is still the right of the individual to say what they feel. I think that with the internet more people have been silenced than heard. After all "when we encounter speech that doesn't square with our view of the world, we prefer punishment to persuasion". That still doesn't make the punishment justified.
In the end I agree that some kind of REGULATION is needed, but my question is: who would the watch dogs be without freedom of speech? How could anyone possibly influence or impact the government if that government were to turn bad and they had COMPLETE REGULATION OF THE MEDIA? Can you say George Orwell "1984" big brother is watching? You know how the saying goes: "ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY". So, why give that to a government? Besides, if a government organization were to limit or define what "indecencies, violence, hate speech, commercial speech and dissent" are what would we have to talk about? The fact is that people will always voice their opinions, if you take them off the internet they will organize and give public speeches. In one way or another people will always be heard. I consider our founding fathers to be VERY SMART INDIVIDUALS, and yes media has changed but hate speech or not, it should still be allowed. If not for the reason of generating debate on the topic as to what is right or wrong it should be allowed because it gives us something to talk about. These discussions are the very basis that allow certain societies to create conceptions of what is socially acceptable or not acceptable. When you take that away you actually create more chaos then good. In the article I think Hugo Black sums it up best. " If we are to pass on that great heritage of freedom, we must return to the original language of the Bill of Rights. We must not be afraid to be free".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
