Peter Anderson: Question 2
Do you agree with Justice Stevens and the ACLU when they say
that "in a matter of constitutional tradition, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it?
To begin with, I will identify the Communications Decency Act of 1996, or CDA. The CDA was a first attempt by Congress to regulate pornography that appears on the Internet. This Act attempted to regulate indecency towards children and obscenity in cyberspace on the Internet. It criminalized those putting materials on line that were considered to be obscene or indecent targeted at those under the age of 18.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion. He wrote, "Regardless of whether the CDA is so vague that it violates the Fifth Amendment, the many ambiguities concerning the scope of its coverage render it problematic for purposes of the First Amendment". He goes on to state, "The CDA is a content based regulation of speech. The vagueness of such a regulation raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech".
I agree with Justice Stevens to a certain degree. We must protect our freedom of speech and press. We have entered into a world that did not exist when the First Amendment was written. It stands to reason that we must conform to what are our rights as described to us in the Constitution. Protecting these rights is a work in progress when we consider the Internet and the potential of child pornography and endangerment. We must find a line that protects our freedoms and our childrens welfare as well.
Do you think that the CDA provides a positive service in terms of regulating the Internet for minors?
I believe that the intent to protect is a positive service. Is it effective? No, not always. However, as stated above, we are still in the infancy stage of Internet access and content. Will we learn from our mistakes? Yes. Will the CDA protect our minors to the full extent of their scope? Probably not yet. Is it a reputable task? Of course. We find ourselves in a grey area of political and moral debate.
As stated in our text, (page 423), "The Internet boasts several unique features, it has low entry barriers, it lacks gatekeepers, it is not easily controlled and it is not bound by the physical world. Nevertheless, most legislation and court decisions involving freedom of speech have extended old precedenters to this vibrant new medium". To protect and preserve is our overall intent. I believe we are on the correct path in this endeavor.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
CMJR 450 - Blog Question for Week 8
Nyanko-Yuki: Question 2
As our text states,(page 248) "... a social movement need not establish that it, its cause, or its methods are without flaw but only that it is larger than an institution or opposing movements claims, that it is more honorable than institutions of countermovements, etc."
What do you do when a social movement and opposing movement have equal support, i.e., Pro-life vs. Pro-choice? It is my opinion when this occurs that we, as individuals, are influenced by what each persuasive argument is presented in defense of or opposition of the issue. This particular issue is fueled by moral and religious conflict. It has been the topic of medical and ethical discussions around the world. Roe vs. Wade changed the dynamics of abortion when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of legalized abortion. The controversy continues from both sides.
Do you think one movement is more "just" than the other? In fact, yes I do. Pro-Choice allows victims of rape and incest to seek professional medical care at an incredibly difficult time in the life of the victim. We cannot morally judge in these cases, as the resulting pregnancies are horrific for innocent victims.
What beliefs and/or ethics support your views? I was raised Catholic and, thus, am aware that the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is against God's law. I believe that life does begin at conception and those who argue that point are kidding themselves. However, I have never been in a position where I have had to make this type of choice. I would like to believe that I would be wise enough and thoughtful enough to avoid an unwanted pregnancy with all the birth control that is available to us in these times. I feel that there are those among us who actually consider abortion a form of birth control. I know of several individuals who have had 3or 4 abortions. It does make me wonder if perhaps individuals would be more mindful of contraception if abortions weren't so assessible.
Does it always have to be black or white, or should ethical values be viewed in grey? Ethical values are never black or white. There are always extenuating circumstances that can effect the choices we are faced with. Our individual ethical values are the result of our upbringing, education, religious background, ethnic background and life experiences. Our moral and ethical values can evolve as we experience life situations. With age comes wisdom and with wisdom comes the ability to make thoughtful choices regarding social movements. I am the same person I was at 15. However, my opinions and direction change from day to day as I acquire more knowledge and responsibility. I would expect this to be the same for all of us. Certainly our ethical values are "grey", but as we mature and acquire knowledge, the black and white vision of our society becomes more apparent.
As our text states,(page 248) "... a social movement need not establish that it, its cause, or its methods are without flaw but only that it is larger than an institution or opposing movements claims, that it is more honorable than institutions of countermovements, etc."
What do you do when a social movement and opposing movement have equal support, i.e., Pro-life vs. Pro-choice? It is my opinion when this occurs that we, as individuals, are influenced by what each persuasive argument is presented in defense of or opposition of the issue. This particular issue is fueled by moral and religious conflict. It has been the topic of medical and ethical discussions around the world. Roe vs. Wade changed the dynamics of abortion when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of legalized abortion. The controversy continues from both sides.
Do you think one movement is more "just" than the other? In fact, yes I do. Pro-Choice allows victims of rape and incest to seek professional medical care at an incredibly difficult time in the life of the victim. We cannot morally judge in these cases, as the resulting pregnancies are horrific for innocent victims.
What beliefs and/or ethics support your views? I was raised Catholic and, thus, am aware that the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is against God's law. I believe that life does begin at conception and those who argue that point are kidding themselves. However, I have never been in a position where I have had to make this type of choice. I would like to believe that I would be wise enough and thoughtful enough to avoid an unwanted pregnancy with all the birth control that is available to us in these times. I feel that there are those among us who actually consider abortion a form of birth control. I know of several individuals who have had 3or 4 abortions. It does make me wonder if perhaps individuals would be more mindful of contraception if abortions weren't so assessible.
Does it always have to be black or white, or should ethical values be viewed in grey? Ethical values are never black or white. There are always extenuating circumstances that can effect the choices we are faced with. Our individual ethical values are the result of our upbringing, education, religious background, ethnic background and life experiences. Our moral and ethical values can evolve as we experience life situations. With age comes wisdom and with wisdom comes the ability to make thoughtful choices regarding social movements. I am the same person I was at 15. However, my opinions and direction change from day to day as I acquire more knowledge and responsibility. I would expect this to be the same for all of us. Certainly our ethical values are "grey", but as we mature and acquire knowledge, the black and white vision of our society becomes more apparent.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
CMJR 494 - Week 7
Religious-Moral Heresy: Obscenity, Indecency, and Pornography
Where should legal lines be drawn for "worthless" speech?
When I hear the word "heresy", my mind wanders into the dark ages where religious zealots were burned at the stake for taking a stand against the Christian Church. This definition is probably the result of many movies and stories developed over a period of my lifetime that creates an impression of what this term means.
Upon researching the word, it comes from a latin translation of a Greek word that means "choosing, choice, course of action". The encyclopedia's definition is, "the rejection of one or more established beliefs of a religious body, or adherence to 'other beliefs'." Heretics were a group of people wherein their beliefs were challenged by Church authority.
The First Amendment guarantees our freedom of speech and press. Our right to reveal and receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth is a free society's fundamental right. My research found, "It is primarily with regard to the entertaining function of expression that the law of obscenity is concerned, inasmuch as the Court has rejected any concept of "ideological" obscenity. However, this function is not the reason why obscenity is outside the protection of the First Amdnement, although the Court has never really been clear about what that reason is".
It is 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 children alike are constitutionally suspect".
Pornography has and will remain a part of life all over the world. Human nature determines that pornography is an industry that has and will remain a source of adult entertainment and for profit organizations. The line is drawn with regard to child pornography. It is outside the coverage of the First Amendment. Child pornography is "the pictorial representation of children in films or still photographs in a variety of sexual activities of exposures of the genitals". Again, the governments interest is to protect the well being, both physical and psychological of children.
Our text reads (page 131), "Hicklin rule: the test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall".
So, where should lines be drawn for worthless speech? If we abide by the First Amdendment, the line should be drawn if the well being, both physical and psychological, of children is in effect. The definitions of obscene, indecent and pornographic depend on the individual's private and personal perceptions. We are a world of luck, both good and bad, personal choice and decisions. We are who we are, based on the years behind us: Who we have become and what we choose to value.
The First Amendment allows for freedom of speech and press. Good or bad. Is it fair to choose for one another what our interpretation of good or bad is? Is it fair for the government to dictate what we can or should not read or watch? Does our First Amendment protect our children?
Does our First Amendment sometimes fail us or the individuals who wrote it in good faith?
These are questions we must ask ourselves. Our answers are the core to who we are.
Where should legal lines be drawn for "worthless" speech?
When I hear the word "heresy", my mind wanders into the dark ages where religious zealots were burned at the stake for taking a stand against the Christian Church. This definition is probably the result of many movies and stories developed over a period of my lifetime that creates an impression of what this term means.
Upon researching the word, it comes from a latin translation of a Greek word that means "choosing, choice, course of action". The encyclopedia's definition is, "the rejection of one or more established beliefs of a religious body, or adherence to 'other beliefs'." Heretics were a group of people wherein their beliefs were challenged by Church authority.
The First Amendment guarantees our freedom of speech and press. Our right to reveal and receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth is a free society's fundamental right. My research found, "It is primarily with regard to the entertaining function of expression that the law of obscenity is concerned, inasmuch as the Court has rejected any concept of "ideological" obscenity. However, this function is not the reason why obscenity is outside the protection of the First Amdnement, although the Court has never really been clear about what that reason is".
It is 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 children alike are constitutionally suspect".
Pornography has and will remain a part of life all over the world. Human nature determines that pornography is an industry that has and will remain a source of adult entertainment and for profit organizations. The line is drawn with regard to child pornography. It is outside the coverage of the First Amendment. Child pornography is "the pictorial representation of children in films or still photographs in a variety of sexual activities of exposures of the genitals". Again, the governments interest is to protect the well being, both physical and psychological of children.
Our text reads (page 131), "Hicklin rule: the test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall".
So, where should lines be drawn for worthless speech? If we abide by the First Amdendment, the line should be drawn if the well being, both physical and psychological, of children is in effect. The definitions of obscene, indecent and pornographic depend on the individual's private and personal perceptions. We are a world of luck, both good and bad, personal choice and decisions. We are who we are, based on the years behind us: Who we have become and what we choose to value.
The First Amendment allows for freedom of speech and press. Good or bad. Is it fair to choose for one another what our interpretation of good or bad is? Is it fair for the government to dictate what we can or should not read or watch? Does our First Amendment protect our children?
Does our First Amendment sometimes fail us or the individuals who wrote it in good faith?
These are questions we must ask ourselves. Our answers are the core to who we are.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
CMJR 450 - Week 6
Non-violence, Violence, and Terrorism. What kind of rhetorical action produces change?
There are non-violent Activists surrounding the globe today relaying a mission to pursuade change with peaceful rationale using perspectives of the media and public relations together with effective rhetorical speech communication. What is the effective of non-violent rhetorical action and does it, in fact produce change? We saw this action in the sixties in the form of peaceful sit-ins bringing attention to a cause and with a genuinely good effect. In the text (page 273) it is written that "most social movement leaders and members espouse nonviolent means to bring about or resist change for philosophical and pragmatic reasons. They have a profound respect for law and order and struggle with the notion of nonviolent civil disobedience". It is my opinion that non-violent rhetorical action has a power to motivate peaceful action.
Comparitively, violent rhetorical action can produce action in a much different manner. Martin Luther King stated it so beautifully in 1963 (page 274), "We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force". It is most apparent that the violent rhetorical action and acts of the Civil War ended in the freedom of slavery. Is there ever true justification for war? Sadly, the answer is yes. When situations reach a point of intolerable cruelty and unjustice, is it violence that can and will create change. This, in my opinion, is morally justified in the name of freedom.
How do we see Terrorism in the social movements that we are witness to? The events of 9/11 will remain forever in the hearts and minds of the entire world. In the text, (page 299), is reads "terrorism is nothing more than a label applied to violence for political advantage". (page 301) "An action to induce fear and persuasive pressures among audiences other than those attacked". Although difficult to comprehend, our definition is jaded when religious wars are proclaimed. John L. Esposito writes, "Islamic law states that it is a Muslim's duty to wage war not only against those who attack Muslim territory, but also against those who refuse Muslim rule". (page 310) Islam is a "community of believers in a special covenant with God that transcended all other allegiences". (page 310) Is it, therefore, a holy act to invoke terrorism in the name of one's God? Some say yes. I have a very difficult time relenting to such a concept.
Today we are witness to the events of piracy on the high seas. This type of terrorism is for pure monetary gain and cannot be tolerated. Motivation is the key to the understanding of this story that is playing out as I write this paper. It is by their actions that we ask ourselves what message and meaning does piracy generate and communicate to our world as a whole? I believe the answer lies in the poverty and signorance of a young generation of rebels who respond to the suggested power of wealth and indifference. Sadly, there are no winners in this reincarnation of piracy in today's world.
So, what kind of rhetorical action produces change? I believe that non-violent, violent and terrorist rhetoric produce change at some level. As simple as a "cause and effect" type of action brings about change, albeit it good or bad change. This type of rhetorical action has produced change in the world since the beginning of time. As far as our history is written, we are witness to this change. We live our individual lives as a result of those changes.
There are non-violent Activists surrounding the globe today relaying a mission to pursuade change with peaceful rationale using perspectives of the media and public relations together with effective rhetorical speech communication. What is the effective of non-violent rhetorical action and does it, in fact produce change? We saw this action in the sixties in the form of peaceful sit-ins bringing attention to a cause and with a genuinely good effect. In the text (page 273) it is written that "most social movement leaders and members espouse nonviolent means to bring about or resist change for philosophical and pragmatic reasons. They have a profound respect for law and order and struggle with the notion of nonviolent civil disobedience". It is my opinion that non-violent rhetorical action has a power to motivate peaceful action.
Comparitively, violent rhetorical action can produce action in a much different manner. Martin Luther King stated it so beautifully in 1963 (page 274), "We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force". It is most apparent that the violent rhetorical action and acts of the Civil War ended in the freedom of slavery. Is there ever true justification for war? Sadly, the answer is yes. When situations reach a point of intolerable cruelty and unjustice, is it violence that can and will create change. This, in my opinion, is morally justified in the name of freedom.
How do we see Terrorism in the social movements that we are witness to? The events of 9/11 will remain forever in the hearts and minds of the entire world. In the text, (page 299), is reads "terrorism is nothing more than a label applied to violence for political advantage". (page 301) "An action to induce fear and persuasive pressures among audiences other than those attacked". Although difficult to comprehend, our definition is jaded when religious wars are proclaimed. John L. Esposito writes, "Islamic law states that it is a Muslim's duty to wage war not only against those who attack Muslim territory, but also against those who refuse Muslim rule". (page 310) Islam is a "community of believers in a special covenant with God that transcended all other allegiences". (page 310) Is it, therefore, a holy act to invoke terrorism in the name of one's God? Some say yes. I have a very difficult time relenting to such a concept.
Today we are witness to the events of piracy on the high seas. This type of terrorism is for pure monetary gain and cannot be tolerated. Motivation is the key to the understanding of this story that is playing out as I write this paper. It is by their actions that we ask ourselves what message and meaning does piracy generate and communicate to our world as a whole? I believe the answer lies in the poverty and signorance of a young generation of rebels who respond to the suggested power of wealth and indifference. Sadly, there are no winners in this reincarnation of piracy in today's world.
So, what kind of rhetorical action produces change? I believe that non-violent, violent and terrorist rhetoric produce change at some level. As simple as a "cause and effect" type of action brings about change, albeit it good or bad change. This type of rhetorical action has produced change in the world since the beginning of time. As far as our history is written, we are witness to this change. We live our individual lives as a result of those changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
