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?
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
