If any of you attended the University of Illinois Homecoming Parade this past weekend, you might have noticed something: Chief Illiniwek wasn't only there is spirit.... school officials overturned a ban on any likeness of Illiniwek, an American Indian in a feathered headdress, in floats; the decision allows pictures to be used(1). Considering The Chief had his last dance the February and Illiniwek merchandise, which generates hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, is gradually being fazed out, it is surprising that the school would allow images of the Chief at a public school event(2).Preventing his image, the school decided, would be restricting free speech. "It's a freedom of speech, freedom of expression issue," university spokeswoman Robin Kaler said Sunday. "The university places great value on those two things"(1).
Chief Illiniwek has been under attack for years; many people, especially Native Americans, find our recently deceased mascot racist and offensive. Many schools face the same situation. The University of Mississippi has lost their age-old mascot too; Colonel Reb was stripped of his official mascot status and was ban from the football field. Col. Reb was deemed a relic of a racist past and the Colonel's demotion caused a controversy similar to ours(3). So are these mascots honorable and historic or racist and offensive?
This question has provoked a lot of controversy and a great deal of expressed opinions. Dan Maloney and Logan Ponce, two students who portrayed the Chief as part of the Marching Illini's halftime performance at football and basketball games, filed a law suit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (N.C.A.A.). The N.C.A.A. was preventing our university from hosting any postseason N.C.A.A. sporting events until we got rid of The Chief. For a while, our officials stood by our Chief and this stand prevented us from hosting two low-profile postseason events. But due to mounting political pressure, the university retired the 81 year-old mascot(3) and the students lost their job. Maloney and Ponce felt that being forced to abandon their positions as chief violated, among other things, their freedom of speech and freedom of expression(2). The students filed this lawsuit in February 2007, so I don't know the outcome, but it should be interesting to see how it turns out.
The N.C.A.A. is a voluntary organization through which the nation's colleges and universities govern their athletics program, but it is not run by the government(6). If they aren't happy with us then we miss out on a lot of opportunities and potentially a lot of money, and lets face, it since we are not a private school we want that money therefore the Chief goes.
Many students were infuriated with the decision to get rid of the chief and they used good-old Facebook as their safety valve, so they created a group called "If They Get Rid of the Chief I’m Becoming a Racist”(3). As in any Facebook group people post comments for everyone to see, and don't always realize how public their comment really is. In once specific case a student wrote that “apparently the leader of this movement is of Sioux decent... the Sioux are the ones that killed off the Illini Indians [sic], so she’s just trying to finish what her ancestors started. I say we throw a tomahawk [sic] into her face” (3). Obviously this student was letting some steam off, but in the process the American Indian Studies Program faculty and staff at the Native American House took notice and publicly asked the university to ‘initiate disciplinary proceedings’ against the student who posted the comments. So in response to that, Richard Herman, our chancellor, sent an email stating he “can not and will not tolerate such violent threats. The University will take all legal and disciplinary actions available in response to the threatening messages"(3). Since the student's comments were directed at the leader of the movement but didn't automatically start a riot, it is debatable if this is fighting words or just hate speech. According to Greg Lukianoff, president of FIRE (the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) the university was exploiting the Illiniwek situation to potentially punish speech that is protected by the First Amendment and that “this is an attempt to punish students for speech that some people found offensive under the guise of protecting students from threats"(3).
A few years before this issue went public U of I school officials had a freedom of speech issue themselves when they were told they couldn't stop faculty and students from contacting athletic recruits to discourage them from attending the school because of its American Indian mascot(5). As you can see the Chief is a hot topic, inciting all kinds of interesting 1st Amendment debates. But even through all of the debates, it's doubtful if the Chief will ever come back, so I guess we should just transform all of our frustration into energy spent creating a new mascot. We could have the Chef (the easy way out- just drop the "i"), we could be the rail splitters, or, my all time favorite, the FARM BOT.......you decide.
*Check out "An Argument for FARM BOT" on YouTube, its
hilarious --->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUvOSwiliBg*
Sources:
1.) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/illinois/chi-ap-il-chiefilliniwek-ho,0,7671633.story
2.)http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/education/2007/02/16/
3.)http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/7759.html?PHPSESSID=.
4.)http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2007/02/15/ui_students_file_suit_to_save_chief
5.)http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13619
6.)http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4j3CQHJgFjGpvqRqCKOcAFvfV-P_NxU_QD9gtzQiHJHRUUAbGvNAw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfTFU!?CONTENT_URL=http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/about_ncaa/
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Girls Gone Wild
"Girls Gone Wild" producer Joe Francis has released about 80 different "Girls Gone Wild" videos and is worth millions of dollars, but he could be facing a very long time in jail.(1) His films of young women exposing their breasts and being shown in other sexually provocative situations have earned him about $29 million dollars.(2) Most of his videos are filmed on Spring Break or during Mardi Grass when young girls are thoroughly liquored up and looking for attention. Francis has recently been charged with tax evasion, having a contraband (illegal prescription drugs) in prison, and contempt. But his most serious offences are the two felony charges he is facing for "using minors in a sexual performances and two misdemeanor prostitution charges."(3) As you can see he has a lot he needs to sort out. But he did achieve one victory when he successfully sued Panama City Beach in 2003 for First Amendment violations after the city threatened to ban him from filming spring break.(3)
To be quite honest, I don't see how"Girls Gone Wild" is a productive part of our society, but I can not deny that these videos should be legal. When I read that Francis won his battle against the Panama City Beach Court, it reminded me of the readings from last week, specifically the case of Barnhart v. Paisano Publications, LLC. In 2004 Tonya Barnhart attended the Toop's Troops Second Annual Pig roast where many of the attendants were drinking and having a good time. At some point she was told she could get Mardi Grass-like beads in exchange for exposing her chest, so she took advantage of the good deal and flashed some of the attendants; bartering at its best. Unannounced to her, photographer Bill Cromwell snapped a photo of her and a couple of months later that photo graced the pages of Easyriders magazine. Barnhart was outraged and filed a case of invasion of privacy against the magazine.(4)
I haven't seen Francis' best sellers "Spring Break" or "Mardi Grass," but it is to my understanding that a lot of scenes are filmed in public places like beaches & night clubs which is exactly what Panama City Beach was trying to prevent for spring break '03. The "Girls Gone Wild" crew is present during public celebrations of these holidays, so they should be able to film whatever happens. Just like Tonya Barnhart's situation, they are really just "giving publicity to what is already public and what anyone would be free to see."(4) Barnhart claimed that her privacy was invaded by Easyriders, but due to the public nature of the event she attended and where she exposed herself the court found no proof and did not punish Paisano Publications.(4) The ruling of this case is the same idea that gives Girls Gone Wild the freedom to film the public; even if their subjects don't want to be on tape. Panama City Beach was not allowed to ban Francis from taping the public celebration of spring break because the First Amendment give him the right, as the press, to publish public facts and scenes. In some sense, banning him would be a form of prior restraint and would prevent him from contributing to the marketplace of ideas.
But once these acts are filmed in private, the consent of the women is vital for publication otherwise it is invasion of privacy. On top of the rest of his problems, two women are suing Francis for publishing footage of them with out their consent. The two women claim that they "were enticed to board a Girls Gone Wild tour bus with the promise of free clothing. Once on board, they allegedly were given alcoholic drinks even though both were younger than 21. The camera men then coerced the women into exposing themselves and engaging in sexual activities, but repeatedly stated they would not use footage in a video. However, the footage appeared on two separate Girls Gone Wild DVDs."(5) In my personal opinion, its laughable to think these women went on the GIRLS GONE WILD TOUR BUS for "free clothing," and just so happened to engage in sexual acts in front of a camera and didn't think it would ever come back to haunt them. But by law, this is invasion of their privacy. Rather than revealing private, embarrassing facts, they were private, embarrassing acts that Francis did not have permission to publish. It's obvious why these women feel the footage is embarrassing, and it is reasonable that they wouldn't want the public to see it. They were filmed in the privacy of a bus and did not consent or compensate from the commercial use of this footage.
Joe Francis and his multi-million dollar company are a good example of when the press can and can not use the First Amendment for their defense. It is perfectly O.K. for Girls Gone Wild to sell a DVD of crazy, drunken girls at a Mardi Grass parade in the streets of Louisiana, but on the other hand they cross the line when publishing film taken in private without the consent of the girls. So I suppose the lesson is: Don't do anything in public that you aren't O.K with the world seeing, and don't get on a Girls Gone Wild tour bus even if there is "free clothing" on board.
1.)http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1256270/bio
2.) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278375,00.html
3.)http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-Girls-Gone-Wild.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
4.)http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/publications/opinions/Opinions/barnhartopinion.17oct06.pdf
5.)http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-06-13-joe-francis_N.htm
To be quite honest, I don't see how"Girls Gone Wild" is a productive part of our society, but I can not deny that these videos should be legal. When I read that Francis won his battle against the Panama City Beach Court, it reminded me of the readings from last week, specifically the case of Barnhart v. Paisano Publications, LLC. In 2004 Tonya Barnhart attended the Toop's Troops Second Annual Pig roast where many of the attendants were drinking and having a good time. At some point she was told she could get Mardi Grass-like beads in exchange for exposing her chest, so she took advantage of the good deal and flashed some of the attendants; bartering at its best. Unannounced to her, photographer Bill Cromwell snapped a photo of her and a couple of months later that photo graced the pages of Easyriders magazine. Barnhart was outraged and filed a case of invasion of privacy against the magazine.(4)
I haven't seen Francis' best sellers "Spring Break" or "Mardi Grass," but it is to my understanding that a lot of scenes are filmed in public places like beaches & night clubs which is exactly what Panama City Beach was trying to prevent for spring break '03. The "Girls Gone Wild" crew is present during public celebrations of these holidays, so they should be able to film whatever happens. Just like Tonya Barnhart's situation, they are really just "giving publicity to what is already public and what anyone would be free to see."(4) Barnhart claimed that her privacy was invaded by Easyriders, but due to the public nature of the event she attended and where she exposed herself the court found no proof and did not punish Paisano Publications.(4) The ruling of this case is the same idea that gives Girls Gone Wild the freedom to film the public; even if their subjects don't want to be on tape. Panama City Beach was not allowed to ban Francis from taping the public celebration of spring break because the First Amendment give him the right, as the press, to publish public facts and scenes. In some sense, banning him would be a form of prior restraint and would prevent him from contributing to the marketplace of ideas.
But once these acts are filmed in private, the consent of the women is vital for publication otherwise it is invasion of privacy. On top of the rest of his problems, two women are suing Francis for publishing footage of them with out their consent. The two women claim that they "were enticed to board a Girls Gone Wild tour bus with the promise of free clothing. Once on board, they allegedly were given alcoholic drinks even though both were younger than 21. The camera men then coerced the women into exposing themselves and engaging in sexual activities, but repeatedly stated they would not use footage in a video. However, the footage appeared on two separate Girls Gone Wild DVDs."(5) In my personal opinion, its laughable to think these women went on the GIRLS GONE WILD TOUR BUS for "free clothing," and just so happened to engage in sexual acts in front of a camera and didn't think it would ever come back to haunt them. But by law, this is invasion of their privacy. Rather than revealing private, embarrassing facts, they were private, embarrassing acts that Francis did not have permission to publish. It's obvious why these women feel the footage is embarrassing, and it is reasonable that they wouldn't want the public to see it. They were filmed in the privacy of a bus and did not consent or compensate from the commercial use of this footage.
Joe Francis and his multi-million dollar company are a good example of when the press can and can not use the First Amendment for their defense. It is perfectly O.K. for Girls Gone Wild to sell a DVD of crazy, drunken girls at a Mardi Grass parade in the streets of Louisiana, but on the other hand they cross the line when publishing film taken in private without the consent of the girls. So I suppose the lesson is: Don't do anything in public that you aren't O.K with the world seeing, and don't get on a Girls Gone Wild tour bus even if there is "free clothing" on board.
1.)http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1256270/bio
2.) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278375,00.html
3.)http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-Girls-Gone-Wild.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
4.)http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/publications/opinions/Opinions/barnhartopinion.17oct06.pdf
5.)http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-06-13-joe-francis_N.htm
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Blogging About Blogs
As I was reading my daily celeb gossip today, it struck me: blogging is about the most exercised outlet for free speech around: almost everybody has a blog, including me which is funny because I would have never pictured myself with one. But back to my celeb gossip exampl;, I was on Perez Hilton's website.(1) No not Paris Hilton, the ever popular Perez Hilton is a 29 year-old gay guy who blogs about celebrities. He "doodles childish slurs like 'slut' on pictures of Kristen Dunst, gushes over his favorite bands, and questions the sexuality of different stars."(2) Personally, I find him hilarious. Although he may not display free speech at its finest, the mere fact that he has a nationally popular website dedicated to making fun of others shows just how often people are taking advantage of their freedom of speech through blogs, and his own new found celebrity shows just how much of an affect is it having on society.
As this craze really took off, London's BBC exclaimed, "Why, we are all journalists now!"(3) The idea that every citizen can be a journalists has changed the way people recieve and judge information. For example, every time I look for sources instead of articles, blogs pop up. Just last year (2006) statistics show that "A new blog is created every second, adding to the 37 million that already exist, according to David Sifry, founder of the Technorati weblog data-set and link tracker/search engine."(3) This new little world has been dubbed a "blogsphere." The Blog Herald is a website that was developed in 2003 "as a premium source of blog and blogging related news for bloggers. It was the first blog dedicated exclusively to the news of the blogosphere and remains the longest (and largest) standing resource of its kind."(4) But how much good does this "blogosphere" bring?
This new communication medium has made freedom of expression easier than it's ever been, but it has its drawbacks. Blogs have been "implicated in destroying friendships and ruining job prospects, and could interfere in other important arenas;"(5) just like Facebook, people don't really realize that speech they put up on the internet is available for everyone to read. These bloggers might regret so freely and openly expressing their feelings.
In May of this year one doctor in Boston, Mass. incurred negative effects fromblogging. Robert P. Lindeman, an ivy-league educated doctor, was on trial in the Suffolk Superior Court for a malpractice suit. The suit involved the death of a 12 year-old boy that Lindeman failed to diagnose with diabeties and sadly he died six weeks later. During this case Lindeman kept a blog, under the name Lindeman Flea, about the details of the trial; he "wrote about meeting with an expert on juries who advised him how to act when he was cross- examined. Flea was instructed to angle his chair slightly toward the jury, keep his hands folded in his lap, and face the jury when answering questions, slowly. "(5) He was told that his fate, like other doctors in malpractice suits, would be judged upon his character. He didn't realize that anyone knew about his anonymous blogs. Once his blog was exposed to the jury he was characterized as a "an arrogant, uncaring jerk" and the case was settled the next day.(5)
Reno v. ACLU (6) showed us that the internet is the greatest avenue to free speech and so it should have the greatest protection. Since there is no scarce spectrum anyone can be their own publisher and anyone has access to others. What these millions of bloggers don't realize is that just because we have this amazing outlet for our speech, it isn't always consequence free. We are at liberty to say anything we like, but it might come back to haunt us.
Souces:
1. http://perezhilton.com/
2. http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/05/14/102815.php
3. http://www.worldpress.org/2373.cfm
4. http://www.blogherald.com/about
5.http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/05/31/blogger_unmasked_court_case_upended/
6. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-511.ZS.html
As this craze really took off, London's BBC exclaimed, "Why, we are all journalists now!"(3) The idea that every citizen can be a journalists has changed the way people recieve and judge information. For example, every time I look for sources instead of articles, blogs pop up. Just last year (2006) statistics show that "A new blog is created every second, adding to the 37 million that already exist, according to David Sifry, founder of the Technorati weblog data-set and link tracker/search engine."(3) This new little world has been dubbed a "blogsphere." The Blog Herald is a website that was developed in 2003 "as a premium source of blog and blogging related news for bloggers. It was the first blog dedicated exclusively to the news of the blogosphere and remains the longest (and largest) standing resource of its kind."(4) But how much good does this "blogosphere" bring?
This new communication medium has made freedom of expression easier than it's ever been, but it has its drawbacks. Blogs have been "implicated in destroying friendships and ruining job prospects, and could interfere in other important arenas;"(5) just like Facebook, people don't really realize that speech they put up on the internet is available for everyone to read. These bloggers might regret so freely and openly expressing their feelings.
In May of this year one doctor in Boston, Mass. incurred negative effects fromblogging. Robert P. Lindeman, an ivy-league educated doctor, was on trial in the Suffolk Superior Court for a malpractice suit. The suit involved the death of a 12 year-old boy that Lindeman failed to diagnose with diabeties and sadly he died six weeks later. During this case Lindeman kept a blog, under the name Lindeman Flea, about the details of the trial; he "wrote about meeting with an expert on juries who advised him how to act when he was cross- examined. Flea was instructed to angle his chair slightly toward the jury, keep his hands folded in his lap, and face the jury when answering questions, slowly. "(5) He was told that his fate, like other doctors in malpractice suits, would be judged upon his character. He didn't realize that anyone knew about his anonymous blogs. Once his blog was exposed to the jury he was characterized as a "an arrogant, uncaring jerk" and the case was settled the next day.(5)
Reno v. ACLU (6) showed us that the internet is the greatest avenue to free speech and so it should have the greatest protection. Since there is no scarce spectrum anyone can be their own publisher and anyone has access to others. What these millions of bloggers don't realize is that just because we have this amazing outlet for our speech, it isn't always consequence free. We are at liberty to say anything we like, but it might come back to haunt us.
Souces:
1. http://perezhilton.com/
2. http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/05/14/102815.php
3. http://www.worldpress.org/2373.cfm
4. http://www.blogherald.com/about
5.http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/05/31/blogger_unmasked_court_case_upended/
6. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-511.ZS.html
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Lies are Constitutional!?!?
The 2008 Presidential Elections are creeping up quickly and the outcome of Rickert v. Washington will have a major effect on the outcome of the election. As of last Thursday (10/04/07) the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it is unconstitutional to punish political candidates for lying about each other. Previously, many states enforced laws that prevented falsehood in the marketplace of ideas, but now politicians are "given the green light to lie about their opponents by the Washington Supreme Court."(1) Potential candidates like Hillary Clinton or John McCain are free to say anything they think the public should know.
Rickert v. Washington began in 2002 with two opposing politicians: Marilou Rickert and Tim Sheldon. Rickert, a Green Party member, was running for the State Senate and Tim Sheldon, a democrat, was the challenging incumbent. In order to promote herself, Rickert approved a campaign brochure that stated Sheldon had “voted to close a facility for the developmentally challenged," and after his reelection Sheldon went to the state’s Public Disclosure Commission.(2)
There were State laws that prevented Rickert from sending out such brochures, but this case changed those laws. Taking a libertarian shift, the Courts decided that these laws are unconstitutional; now Marilou Rickert and all other political candidates are allowed to lie about each other, as long as neither actual malice nor defamation is present. In case you didn't know actual malice is when the defendant, in fact, has serious doubts to the truth, and defamation is false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another and the plaintiff must prove that their reputation has been damaged.(1)
This case almost mirrors New York Times Co. v Sullivan, so, considering that case's outcome, I was surprised that these laws even existed. Dissenting Justice Barbara Madsen fears that the recent ruling is an "invitation to lie,"(3) But in order to decipher truth it is the public's job to sift through ALL of the ideas in the marketplace; it is not the government's job to do that for us. Candidates should be afforded their right to the First Amendment whether their statments are true or false; the goal is that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."(4) If we only protect "true" speech, then we are really only protecting acceptable speech, which defeats the point of even having the First Amendment. As Madison states, "Some degree of abuse if inseparable from the proper used of everything."(4) The point is not to have "true" speech, it is to have free speech, so as rational citizens, we should be allowed to arrive at our own idea of truth. To protect freedom is to protect falsehood.
Besides, how do we know what the candidates are saying is false? The government should not be asking the speaker to defend themselves, but rather we should be asking the government why they want to restrict the speech. The government is our servant and if we allow them to place that burden on the speaker, we back freedom into a corner.
Also, falsehood is a means of producing the truth. John Stuart Mill wrote a book called Utilitarianism, and in this excerpt I think he explains this concept the best:
"A test of right and wrong must be the means, one would think, of ascertaining what is right or wrong, and not a consequence of having already ascertained it."(5)
If we allow the government to "ascertain" the truth for us, we, as citizens, will be stripped of our opportunity to discover truth for ourselves. Justice James Johnson supports Mill's opinion by stating that, “The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment.”(1) Democracy is based on the idea that people are rational and are capable of defining their own truth, and if we doubt the people we destroy democracy.
So when the election comes around, keep in mind that although America has its faults, cases like Rickert v Washington show that democracy and freedom are still intact. In order to obtain freedom we must take risks and we must have faith, for "freedom is not for the faint of heart."(6)
Sources:
1.) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/us/07lying.html
2.) http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/777691.opn.pdf
3.)http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/777691.no1.pdf
4.)http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=376&invol=254
5.)http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.html
6.) Helle, Steven. JOUR 199. University of Illinois. Fall 2007.
Rickert v. Washington began in 2002 with two opposing politicians: Marilou Rickert and Tim Sheldon. Rickert, a Green Party member, was running for the State Senate and Tim Sheldon, a democrat, was the challenging incumbent. In order to promote herself, Rickert approved a campaign brochure that stated Sheldon had “voted to close a facility for the developmentally challenged," and after his reelection Sheldon went to the state’s Public Disclosure Commission.(2)
There were State laws that prevented Rickert from sending out such brochures, but this case changed those laws. Taking a libertarian shift, the Courts decided that these laws are unconstitutional; now Marilou Rickert and all other political candidates are allowed to lie about each other, as long as neither actual malice nor defamation is present. In case you didn't know actual malice is when the defendant, in fact, has serious doubts to the truth, and defamation is false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another and the plaintiff must prove that their reputation has been damaged.(1)
This case almost mirrors New York Times Co. v Sullivan, so, considering that case's outcome, I was surprised that these laws even existed. Dissenting Justice Barbara Madsen fears that the recent ruling is an "invitation to lie,"(3) But in order to decipher truth it is the public's job to sift through ALL of the ideas in the marketplace; it is not the government's job to do that for us. Candidates should be afforded their right to the First Amendment whether their statments are true or false; the goal is that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."(4) If we only protect "true" speech, then we are really only protecting acceptable speech, which defeats the point of even having the First Amendment. As Madison states, "Some degree of abuse if inseparable from the proper used of everything."(4) The point is not to have "true" speech, it is to have free speech, so as rational citizens, we should be allowed to arrive at our own idea of truth. To protect freedom is to protect falsehood.
Besides, how do we know what the candidates are saying is false? The government should not be asking the speaker to defend themselves, but rather we should be asking the government why they want to restrict the speech. The government is our servant and if we allow them to place that burden on the speaker, we back freedom into a corner.
Also, falsehood is a means of producing the truth. John Stuart Mill wrote a book called Utilitarianism, and in this excerpt I think he explains this concept the best:
"A test of right and wrong must be the means, one would think, of ascertaining what is right or wrong, and not a consequence of having already ascertained it."(5)
If we allow the government to "ascertain" the truth for us, we, as citizens, will be stripped of our opportunity to discover truth for ourselves. Justice James Johnson supports Mill's opinion by stating that, “The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment.”(1) Democracy is based on the idea that people are rational and are capable of defining their own truth, and if we doubt the people we destroy democracy.
So when the election comes around, keep in mind that although America has its faults, cases like Rickert v Washington show that democracy and freedom are still intact. In order to obtain freedom we must take risks and we must have faith, for "freedom is not for the faint of heart."(6)
Sources:
1.) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/us/07lying.html
2.) http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/777691.opn.pdf
3.)http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/777691.no1.pdf
4.)http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=376&invol=254
5.)http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.html
6.) Helle, Steven. JOUR 199. University of Illinois. Fall 2007.
Monday, October 1, 2007
"Power to the People"
As I was trying to rack my brain for a blogging subject, I overheard an add for "Across the Universe," a major motion picture consisting of all Beatles covers, which, naturally, I am dying to see, but college life has made that difficult. So I began thinking about the political impact The Beatles had on American culture and John Lennon's very public anti-war campaign whose messages of peace hold relevance to our current situation in Iraq.
As I researched Lennon I saw that he had to overcome many obstacles in-order express his negative feelings towards the Vietnam War. All through out history the government has done everything in its power to prevent public criticism of themselves, and in Lennon's case, as in the case of many young Muslim men today, deportation has become a way to prevent this critical speech. In essence, the government has found a way to enact prior restraint.
Back in 1972, Lennon was technically deported from the United States because the U.S. Government was aware of and felt threatened by his peace campaign. As he did in Amsterdam and Canada, Lennon intended on doing a "bed-in" in Washington D.C., where he and Yoko Ono would lay in a hotel bed while reporters would come to their room and interview them about their anti-war politics. It was at the "bed-in" in Montreal that he and Yoko recorded "Give Peace a Chance"(1). Instead of singing the age old "We Shall Over Come," modern Americans could now sing "Give Peace a Chance," and it was that kind of anti-war publicity that the American Government wanted to prevent ( 2). John Lennon was iconic both musically and politically, and everything he said had a profound affect on his millions of American fans. He had the power to publicly express the disapproval that he and thousands of young Americans felt towards U.S. involvement in Vietnam. So to mobilize his peace campaign, Lennon planned on touring the U.S., giving war rallies and setting up voter registration at his concerts (3).
President Richard Nixon and his Republican congress were quite aware of Lennon's peace campaign and its potential effectiveness. Considering 1972 would be the first year 18 year-olds had the right to vote, young Americans would be given the chance to create the change they wanted. Nixon knew that the youth of America did not support him and desperately wanted to stay in office ; therefore, he sent Lennon back to Britain. The government didn't actually walk-up to him and kick him out, but they "found" a reason why his visa could not be renewed, and ultimately deported him (1).
The government found a way to regulate Lennon's speech (music lyrics/comments in interviews) through prior restraint. I realize that the government wasn't necessarily violating the First Amendment because Lennon was not a U.S. citizen and there was no state action, but deporting Lennon to prevent his speech defies the very principal that makes the First Amendment effective. The First Amendment can not be productive if the government is allowed to prevent speech with political merit just because it wouldn't be beneficial for them. In the beginning, prior restraint consisted of things like licensing and taxation, but as the world evolved, less obvious forms of prior restraint have formed destructing the principals of the First Amendment. Subsequent punishment is said to be a form of prior restraint because it deters the speaker from speaking, and, in a sense, deportation can be used as prior restraint because it physically deters threatening speakers.
Sir William Blackstone, which the Framers of the U.S. Constitution idolized as much as young people idolized John Lennon, stated in his Commentaries on the Laws of England that "laying no previous restraints upon publications" was a key to maintaining a free state. Deporting Lennon and preventing his anti-war expressions in America is the epitome of "previous restraints," and violates the public's right to receive that speech (4).
Many Americans felt the same as Lennon and supported his peace efforts; by preventing his presence in America and ultimately his speech, the government was also limiting the marketplace of ideas. Sadly our government is doing the same thing today. The U.S. Government's INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) have been rounding up young Muslim men and deporting them (1). More and more the war in Iraq is beginning to share characteristics with the Vietnam War; just this past January President George Bush unveiled his plan to send 20,000 more troops into Iraq (5). Everywhere I turn there is a different advertisement encouraging young people to join The U.S. Military, but, on the other hand, many foreign artists and musicians are not allowed to obtain visas into The U.S.. Americans are being denied the opportunity to hear these artists and their messages; eliminating diversity and ultimately narrowing the marketplace of ideas (1).
As I researched Lennon I saw that he had to overcome many obstacles in-order express his negative feelings towards the Vietnam War. All through out history the government has done everything in its power to prevent public criticism of themselves, and in Lennon's case, as in the case of many young Muslim men today, deportation has become a way to prevent this critical speech. In essence, the government has found a way to enact prior restraint.
Back in 1972, Lennon was technically deported from the United States because the U.S. Government was aware of and felt threatened by his peace campaign. As he did in Amsterdam and Canada, Lennon intended on doing a "bed-in" in Washington D.C., where he and Yoko Ono would lay in a hotel bed while reporters would come to their room and interview them about their anti-war politics. It was at the "bed-in" in Montreal that he and Yoko recorded "Give Peace a Chance"(1). Instead of singing the age old "We Shall Over Come," modern Americans could now sing "Give Peace a Chance," and it was that kind of anti-war publicity that the American Government wanted to prevent ( 2). John Lennon was iconic both musically and politically, and everything he said had a profound affect on his millions of American fans. He had the power to publicly express the disapproval that he and thousands of young Americans felt towards U.S. involvement in Vietnam. So to mobilize his peace campaign, Lennon planned on touring the U.S., giving war rallies and setting up voter registration at his concerts (3).
President Richard Nixon and his Republican congress were quite aware of Lennon's peace campaign and its potential effectiveness. Considering 1972 would be the first year 18 year-olds had the right to vote, young Americans would be given the chance to create the change they wanted. Nixon knew that the youth of America did not support him and desperately wanted to stay in office ; therefore, he sent Lennon back to Britain. The government didn't actually walk-up to him and kick him out, but they "found" a reason why his visa could not be renewed, and ultimately deported him (1).
The government found a way to regulate Lennon's speech (music lyrics/comments in interviews) through prior restraint. I realize that the government wasn't necessarily violating the First Amendment because Lennon was not a U.S. citizen and there was no state action, but deporting Lennon to prevent his speech defies the very principal that makes the First Amendment effective. The First Amendment can not be productive if the government is allowed to prevent speech with political merit just because it wouldn't be beneficial for them. In the beginning, prior restraint consisted of things like licensing and taxation, but as the world evolved, less obvious forms of prior restraint have formed destructing the principals of the First Amendment. Subsequent punishment is said to be a form of prior restraint because it deters the speaker from speaking, and, in a sense, deportation can be used as prior restraint because it physically deters threatening speakers.
Sir William Blackstone, which the Framers of the U.S. Constitution idolized as much as young people idolized John Lennon, stated in his Commentaries on the Laws of England that "laying no previous restraints upon publications" was a key to maintaining a free state. Deporting Lennon and preventing his anti-war expressions in America is the epitome of "previous restraints," and violates the public's right to receive that speech (4).
Many Americans felt the same as Lennon and supported his peace efforts; by preventing his presence in America and ultimately his speech, the government was also limiting the marketplace of ideas. Sadly our government is doing the same thing today. The U.S. Government's INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) have been rounding up young Muslim men and deporting them (1). More and more the war in Iraq is beginning to share characteristics with the Vietnam War; just this past January President George Bush unveiled his plan to send 20,000 more troops into Iraq (5). Everywhere I turn there is a different advertisement encouraging young people to join The U.S. Military, but, on the other hand, many foreign artists and musicians are not allowed to obtain visas into The U.S.. Americans are being denied the opportunity to hear these artists and their messages; eliminating diversity and ultimately narrowing the marketplace of ideas (1).
Nixon was not the first president to use deportation to prevent government criticism, and Bush will not be the last, so Americans have to realize that the information they are not getting is as important as the information they are getting. Information is power and the use of it gives the "Power to the People"(6).
(If anyone is interested: The original recording of "Give Peace a Chance" is found at <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-NRriHlLUk>.
Sources:
1.) 'The U.S. vs. John Lennon." <http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10982>.
2.) "Power to the People; The Lost John Lennon Interview." <http://www.counterpunch.org/lennon12082005.html>.
3.) "View from Lodi, CA: John Lennon, Deportation, and War." <http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/lennon.htm>.
4.) "Commentaries on the Laws of England: Sir William Blackstone." <http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/>.
5.) "Official: Bush plans 20,000 more troops for Iraq." <http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/09/iraq.bush/index.html>.
6.) "John Lennon Lyrics; Power to the People." <http://www.lyricsfreak.com/l/lennon+john/power+to+the+people_20082519.html>.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)