First day when I know that I need to take Communication Law, I just panicked and did not know whether I can survive for this class or not. Turn out to be, I love this class because I learn so many interesting cases, which I did not know that these things are existed. At first, I did not really believe in freedom of speech because Indonesia does not really have one. However, after joint the class, and learnt cases from others, I do believe in Freedom of speech that each of us has the freedom to express our thoughts freely. I hope that Indonesia will develop laws that will support and give us the freedom of speech.
Furthermore, I do understand that each country will not have a same law of freedom of speech. As we already learnt, USA has different law with German, Japan, and British Columbia. One of the many reasons that differentiate the law is our culture because culture plays important role in our law. However, living in Indonesia is quite hard because we do not really have our freedom of speech. One biggest reason is that Indonesia is a Muslim country, and Islam has so many restrictions, so we do not have freedom to express ourselves; therefore, I am hoping that Indonesia will have a law that will protect our freedom of speech bases on our culture.
There are so many cases that attracts my attention, and one thing that I think it’s important is that everyone should have freedom of speech no matter how old is he/she. For most of the time, age is the key to decide whether he will have the freedom of speech or not. I think each one of us has our own freedom from the time we born; therefore, there are no exceptions between ages. Thomas I. Emerson believes in protecting free speech because it’s important overall.
Other than ages, pornography is also another problem in Indonesia. Films’ producers in Indonesia have produced so many great movies. However, 6 out of 10 movies that produced are banned by the Muslim’ organization. There is one film called Basah or Wet in English translation. The movie was banned because the movie contains sexual incitement. Basically, the movie is purposely made to teach teenagers about sex, but the Muslim’ organizations just did not care and banned it. It is one of the biggest problems in Indonesia, there are so many restrictions that limit ourselves to create and express our ideas. This case reminds me of Castillo v. Texas about our rights to sexual speech. Those films’ producers have a great purpose and want to touch the sensitive topics, and bring it out there, so people know and learn about sex. I think the movie should not be banned because they have their freedom to express themselves just like manga, which is contained others’ expression through pictures; even if it has sexual content.
And to support this problem in Indonesia, I will support with my favorite philosopher, who is Edwin Baker’s liberty theory of freedom of speech. Baker argues that freedom of speech is not primarily a means to a marketplace of ideas, or truth, or democracy. Instead, he argues the view that liberty of speech is integral to individual self-fulfillment and so needs to be treated as a universal right of human dignity (Tedbaker and Herbeck 441). Baker believes in two key values which are self-fulfillment and participation in change. And these two values founded on respect for individual equality. He also believes that our speeches go beyond text, and include artistic expression and expressive conduct.
Baker does not protect violent or coercive expression that will cause direct and actual harm. His statement supports my next argument. I believe in Cohen v. California, Cohen wore a t-shirt that is written “Fuck the Draft” into LA County Courthouse. His shirt might offend some people; however, his shirt did not harm people directly. It is include as expression of his ideas and emotions, and it is not an action because he did not harm people. Under Baker, sexual materials are based on individual self-fulfillment, and First Amendment should protect right of individuals to make own choices about creating or receiving sexual materials. Therefore, based on Baker, we will be protected to express our ideas, as long as we’re not harming other people.
Lastly, other interesting part that I learn in class is where is the “burden” should be place? Is it plaintiff or defender? From my point of view, we need to make it equal between plaintiff and defender. We cannot put the entire burden to only one person. Plaintiff, who starts the civil action, should try their best to proof his points of why he sued the defendant. And on the other hand, defender, who is being sued, should protect himself from all charges; and proof that he is not guilty. By putting the burden equally, I think the case will be clearer because the judge can see from both sides’ evidences. Therefore, the final decision will be easier to make.
Overall, I’m glad to learn many cases about the United States, and really understand each one of them. I never thought that freedom of speech is so important. I am excited because I have my own freedom of speech, which allows me to express my ideas with any mediums freely. After all, it is one of my favorite classes, and I can relate almost every theory to my own life.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Robert J Stevens should be Protected.
The case started in 1999, when the congress made it a crime to sell “crush video”, and other pictures of unlawful cruelty to animals. There is one guy name Robert J. Stevens, who was in jailed for 37 months. He was charged because he sold illegal dog’s fighting video [1].
Based on my opinion, Stevens should not be punished. He should be protected because he was not the one who produced or made the video. The video was made in Japan, where animal fighting is legal. He just sold the video in the United States but he did not involve in making the video. Based on Stevens’ lawyers, “It is hard to imagine, how the punishment of depictions of conduct which occurred a long time ago, at a time when it was not even illegal, or in a country where it is not illegal, can prevent animal cruelty here and now, at a time and a place where it is illegal” [2]. I am agree with his lawyer because the video was made in Japan, where animal cruelty is protected, and when he sold it here, it became his and consumers’ freedom of speech.
Under Kingsley Intl Pictures v. Regents, 1959, Stevens will be protected. Kingsley v. Regents contains, “non-confirming viewpoints and dissents concerning sexual morality are protected as political speech so long as communicated in a non-obscene way”. The video might offend people but it is not harm anyone, and Stevens did not purposely sold to offend other people. The U.S. court applies strict scrutiny for Stevens’ case, and I agree with it. Strict scrutiny arises when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, or when the government action involves the use of a “suspect classification” such as race or national origin that may render it void under the Equal Protection Clause. “Government must prove it has a compelling reason to regulate or punish the speech and restriction not overly broad or vague and advances government interest.” I think Stevens did not cause an immediate action, which will not harm anyone, and the definition of animal cruelty is still too broad.
To support my statement, I will use Edwin Baker’s Liberty theory of freedom of speech. Based on Baker, freedom of speech is not primarily a means to a marketplace of ideas, or truth, or democracy. Instead, he argues the view that liberty of speech is integral to individual self-fulfillment and so needs to be treated as a universal right of human dignity. He will also protect a sexual/obscene material (Tedford and Herbeck 441). Therefore, it is Stevens’ freedom to sell the video, and based on my opinion, people will watch the video at their house and their own time. We all know from Stanley v. Georgia 1969 that we all have “the right to privacy in one’s own home insures the right for adults to read or observe what they please” and “A state has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch”. With Baker’s theory and Stanley v. Georgia, Stevens should be protected.
On the other hand, I do not protect animal cruelty. I think Supreme Court need to specify the law, and state that whether it is a picture, movie, or other mediums that contain animal cruelty should be illegal. For me, animal is a special living thing that should be protected and we needed to put our attention seriously for animals’ problem. Even though, we cannot equalize between animal with human, they need our protection, and animal fighting should be banned.
Furthermore, I will not protect animal cruelty; even though, the movie/picture shows an artistic or creative side (SLAPs), it should be banned. Zechariah Chafee is suggested that speech could be divided into “worthwhile” and “worthless” categories. “Worthwhile” speech about government matters receiving almost absolute protection and “Worthless” speech about private concerns receiving far less protection (Tedford and Herbeck 435). I think Chafee will not protect animal cruelty. He sees animal cruelty as a “worthless” speech and will not be protected. It is like Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, where Chafee will not protect “fighting words”; therefore, animal cruelty will not be protected [3].
Overall, I will protect Stevens because he did not do anything wrong. Sold a video is his freedom, and under Kingsley Intl Pictures v. Regents, he will be protected. Even though, I protect Stevens, I will not protect animal cruelty, the same way as child pornography. Animal should be protected, and animal fighting should be banned in the United States.
Based on my opinion, Stevens should not be punished. He should be protected because he was not the one who produced or made the video. The video was made in Japan, where animal fighting is legal. He just sold the video in the United States but he did not involve in making the video. Based on Stevens’ lawyers, “It is hard to imagine, how the punishment of depictions of conduct which occurred a long time ago, at a time when it was not even illegal, or in a country where it is not illegal, can prevent animal cruelty here and now, at a time and a place where it is illegal” [2]. I am agree with his lawyer because the video was made in Japan, where animal cruelty is protected, and when he sold it here, it became his and consumers’ freedom of speech.
Under Kingsley Intl Pictures v. Regents, 1959, Stevens will be protected. Kingsley v. Regents contains, “non-confirming viewpoints and dissents concerning sexual morality are protected as political speech so long as communicated in a non-obscene way”. The video might offend people but it is not harm anyone, and Stevens did not purposely sold to offend other people. The U.S. court applies strict scrutiny for Stevens’ case, and I agree with it. Strict scrutiny arises when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, or when the government action involves the use of a “suspect classification” such as race or national origin that may render it void under the Equal Protection Clause. “Government must prove it has a compelling reason to regulate or punish the speech and restriction not overly broad or vague and advances government interest.” I think Stevens did not cause an immediate action, which will not harm anyone, and the definition of animal cruelty is still too broad.
To support my statement, I will use Edwin Baker’s Liberty theory of freedom of speech. Based on Baker, freedom of speech is not primarily a means to a marketplace of ideas, or truth, or democracy. Instead, he argues the view that liberty of speech is integral to individual self-fulfillment and so needs to be treated as a universal right of human dignity. He will also protect a sexual/obscene material (Tedford and Herbeck 441). Therefore, it is Stevens’ freedom to sell the video, and based on my opinion, people will watch the video at their house and their own time. We all know from Stanley v. Georgia 1969 that we all have “the right to privacy in one’s own home insures the right for adults to read or observe what they please” and “A state has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch”. With Baker’s theory and Stanley v. Georgia, Stevens should be protected.
On the other hand, I do not protect animal cruelty. I think Supreme Court need to specify the law, and state that whether it is a picture, movie, or other mediums that contain animal cruelty should be illegal. For me, animal is a special living thing that should be protected and we needed to put our attention seriously for animals’ problem. Even though, we cannot equalize between animal with human, they need our protection, and animal fighting should be banned.
Furthermore, I will not protect animal cruelty; even though, the movie/picture shows an artistic or creative side (SLAPs), it should be banned. Zechariah Chafee is suggested that speech could be divided into “worthwhile” and “worthless” categories. “Worthwhile” speech about government matters receiving almost absolute protection and “Worthless” speech about private concerns receiving far less protection (Tedford and Herbeck 435). I think Chafee will not protect animal cruelty. He sees animal cruelty as a “worthless” speech and will not be protected. It is like Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, where Chafee will not protect “fighting words”; therefore, animal cruelty will not be protected [3].
Overall, I will protect Stevens because he did not do anything wrong. Sold a video is his freedom, and under Kingsley Intl Pictures v. Regents, he will be protected. Even though, I protect Stevens, I will not protect animal cruelty, the same way as child pornography. Animal should be protected, and animal fighting should be banned in the United States.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Castillo v. Texas
In today blog post, I will write arguments that overturn the Texas State Court of Appeals decision. First of all, I will elaborate the case of Jesus Castillo. It happened back in 2000, Castillo worked as a clerk in Keith’s Comics. One day there was an undercover police who came to the store, and intended to do an inspection. The police investigate the store, and he came to a section where he saw a sign that written “Adult Only” and Under 18 cannot enter the room. The police bought one comic book, which title “Demon Beast Invasion”. The comic itself contains adultery content, such as, pornography and sexual imaginary [1]. Castillo was convicted with two counts of misdemeanor obscenity for selling adult comics. However, the situation should be highlighted that the police saw the comic under the adult section, where children under 18 cannot find them. Finally, the district attorney says, “I don't care what type of evidence or what type of testimony is out there, use your rationality, use your common sense. Comic books … are for kids" [2]. The district attorney’s statement leads to Castillo’s punishment. He was in jail for 180 days, a $ 4000 fine, and year probation.
Based on my opinion, I think Castillo should not be punished because of many reasons. First of the reason is that the location of where the comic is located. When the police entered the section is clearly stated that the place is for adult only. The sign clearly states, “the “adults-only” section contained sexually explicit material. Further, the record reflects the comic book contained a “not for children” warning label, and there was testimony that all the materials in the “adults-only” section contained sexually explicit material” [3]. Before the police entered the room, he knew exactly what he will find inside the room. From my perspective, Keith’s Comics did a great job in separating the comics into adult and children section. Because of this separation, children will not find the comics that contain adultery content. Furthermore, for me comic is not only for children. Therefore, I do not agree with the prosecutor argument, who said comic books are only for children. I, as adult, still read comic because I find myself enjoying reading manga. I agree with the two comic books’ experts who came to defense Castillo – Scott McCloud and Susan Napier.
Based on Scott McCloud, who is an apologist and a comic historian, comics have serious value, which make them deserve a First Amendment protection. McCloud writes, “The artform — the medium — known as comics is a vessel which can hold any number of ideas and images. The 'content' of those images and ideas is, of course, up to creators, and we all have different tastes. The trick is to never mistake the message for the messenger" [4]. Comic is one place where people can express their ideas through images. Comics’ audience is largely adult. Comic is also a major source of national culture, and it is a form of political and creative expression. Therefore, comics are expression of other people that should be protected, as long as it not threatens individuals. Comics can also be place for others to learn other’s culture. Nowadays, comics come from all over the world. It can be one medium to learn others’ perspective and culture, yet comics are also fun to read.
The second defender is Susan Napier, who is an expert in Asian literature at the University of Texas. She emphasizes, “that Japanese culture is fascinated by bizarre creatures, metamorphoses and the apocalypse, and that Demon Beast Invasion deals with these topics in "beautifully drawn" scenes of suspense and romance. Thus, Napier testified, the comic had artistic value, literary value, and — because of its treatment of the desire for power — even political value” [5]. Therefore, each individual have different point of view on how they look comics. Comics become a place where people share their artistic value, and people, who love manga, will appreciate.
To support my statement, I will use Miller v. California (1973). In Miller v. California, they have the new definition for obscenity. It stated that Obscenity is an average person applying community standards finds Work as whole appeals to prurient interest, and it depicts in a patently offensive way sexual conduct outlawed by a specific state law, and it lacks SLAPS. In this law, they protect all sexual speech by privacy right as long as no captive audience and no children, and there are no separations between political and sexual speech; same rules that apply to one should apply to other. Based on Napier, majority of comics contain SLAPS (serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value). Therefore, comics should be protected under the First Amendments.
Furthermore, for this case, I will use Edwin Baker: A Liberty Theory of Freedom of Speech. Baker argues the idea that “freedom of speech is not primarily a means to a marketplace of ideas, or truth, or democracy. Instead, he urges the view that liberty of speech is integral to individual self-fulfillment and so needs to be treated as a universal right of human dignity” (441. Tedford and Herbeck). Baker will support the idea of free expression. Each individual have their rights to express their creativity with any medium to satisfy our self-fulfillment, such as, painting, image, or words. He will also protect a sexual/obscene material. He argues that First Amendment should protect right of individuals to make own choices about creating or receiving sexual materials; therefore, it is one’s decision to consume sexual materials in comics or other mediums. However, he will not protect violence, coercive activity, or violation of the rights of others.
Overall, I will overturn Texas State Court of Appeals decision because it is one’s freedom to express his creativity and to consume sexual content.
Based on my opinion, I think Castillo should not be punished because of many reasons. First of the reason is that the location of where the comic is located. When the police entered the section is clearly stated that the place is for adult only. The sign clearly states, “the “adults-only” section contained sexually explicit material. Further, the record reflects the comic book contained a “not for children” warning label, and there was testimony that all the materials in the “adults-only” section contained sexually explicit material” [3]. Before the police entered the room, he knew exactly what he will find inside the room. From my perspective, Keith’s Comics did a great job in separating the comics into adult and children section. Because of this separation, children will not find the comics that contain adultery content. Furthermore, for me comic is not only for children. Therefore, I do not agree with the prosecutor argument, who said comic books are only for children. I, as adult, still read comic because I find myself enjoying reading manga. I agree with the two comic books’ experts who came to defense Castillo – Scott McCloud and Susan Napier.
Based on Scott McCloud, who is an apologist and a comic historian, comics have serious value, which make them deserve a First Amendment protection. McCloud writes, “The artform — the medium — known as comics is a vessel which can hold any number of ideas and images. The 'content' of those images and ideas is, of course, up to creators, and we all have different tastes. The trick is to never mistake the message for the messenger" [4]. Comic is one place where people can express their ideas through images. Comics’ audience is largely adult. Comic is also a major source of national culture, and it is a form of political and creative expression. Therefore, comics are expression of other people that should be protected, as long as it not threatens individuals. Comics can also be place for others to learn other’s culture. Nowadays, comics come from all over the world. It can be one medium to learn others’ perspective and culture, yet comics are also fun to read.
The second defender is Susan Napier, who is an expert in Asian literature at the University of Texas. She emphasizes, “that Japanese culture is fascinated by bizarre creatures, metamorphoses and the apocalypse, and that Demon Beast Invasion deals with these topics in "beautifully drawn" scenes of suspense and romance. Thus, Napier testified, the comic had artistic value, literary value, and — because of its treatment of the desire for power — even political value” [5]. Therefore, each individual have different point of view on how they look comics. Comics become a place where people share their artistic value, and people, who love manga, will appreciate.
To support my statement, I will use Miller v. California (1973). In Miller v. California, they have the new definition for obscenity. It stated that Obscenity is an average person applying community standards finds Work as whole appeals to prurient interest, and it depicts in a patently offensive way sexual conduct outlawed by a specific state law, and it lacks SLAPS. In this law, they protect all sexual speech by privacy right as long as no captive audience and no children, and there are no separations between political and sexual speech; same rules that apply to one should apply to other. Based on Napier, majority of comics contain SLAPS (serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value). Therefore, comics should be protected under the First Amendments.
Furthermore, for this case, I will use Edwin Baker: A Liberty Theory of Freedom of Speech. Baker argues the idea that “freedom of speech is not primarily a means to a marketplace of ideas, or truth, or democracy. Instead, he urges the view that liberty of speech is integral to individual self-fulfillment and so needs to be treated as a universal right of human dignity” (441. Tedford and Herbeck). Baker will support the idea of free expression. Each individual have their rights to express their creativity with any medium to satisfy our self-fulfillment, such as, painting, image, or words. He will also protect a sexual/obscene material. He argues that First Amendment should protect right of individuals to make own choices about creating or receiving sexual materials; therefore, it is one’s decision to consume sexual materials in comics or other mediums. However, he will not protect violence, coercive activity, or violation of the rights of others.
Overall, I will overturn Texas State Court of Appeals decision because it is one’s freedom to express his creativity and to consume sexual content.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Bragg v. LSU and City of Baton Rouge
For my second post, I chose The Bragg v. LSU and City of Baton Rouge
A young man, whose name is Jefferson Davis Bragg, made a controversial action at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. Bragg came to his first orientation and wore a T-shirt with an image of the Confederate flag and words “Fuck Integration”. The bottom part of the T-shirt also had “The Ninth Ward got what it deserved” written on it. The T-shirt that he wore was inappropriate and violated LSU’s dress code. The University officers and vice president acted quickly, and told Bragg to go back to his dorm and change his clothes; however, Bragg did not listen and shouted loudly, “Sonunvabitch, I have a right to say what I want to say.” Bragg also gathered a group of white students, and together they boycotted any classes that involved African-American culture. His action made offended many, and those students began shouting at him. Bragg action continued. Later that night, he used a rope and noose to hang an image of the University president, who is an African-American. He hung his image on an oak tree next to the university’s Memorial Chapel. Bragg was suspended, and the police officers charged him of “the threatening to cause bodily harm” to the university president.
Reading Bragg’s case, I wanted him to lose. Based on our discussion in class, I realized that he can win the case easily. We, as individuals, have our freedom of speech, which allows us to say and write anything we want. Based on Thomas I. Emerson’s theory: The Expression-Action Theory, he clearly writes, “freedom of expression includes the right to form and hold beliefs on any subject and to communicate those beliefs to others by whatever medium one chooses” (438, Tedford and Herbeck). Emerson's theory is a democratic way to express ourselves to achieve self-fulfillment. However, based on Emerson, not all speech is about expression, sometimes they are also over the line and turns into an action. Expression is fully protected and action can be controlled. What Bragg has done was an action that can be controlled. He was expressing himself; however, he was just over the line. The officers politely told him to go back and change his clothes but refused to and shouted at the officers. The “Sonuavabitch” statement is an offensive word that can offend an individual as well as a group of people. His action, which was noose hangs his president effigy, was also an unreasonable action that can be punished. Emerson writes, “when words are spoken face to face, in a direct encounter, so as to provoke a fight, the speech becomes conduct that is part of an act of violence and can be punished” (439, Tedford and Herbeck). What Bragg had done was violence because he said his statement directly in front of anyone within listening distance.
Furthermore, his also wore a T-shirt that said “Fuck Integration” and “The Ninth Ward got what it deserved”, is one speech that would allow to be punished. Based on “Bad Tendency”, “Punish words that might offend or harm, esp. “weak” women, youth, and national security” (60, Tedford and Herbeck). I think Bragg should be punished because he wore and said many “fighting words” that may offend and harm people. Although his statement was not an immediate problem; however, it was harm, offend, and no respect to people surround him.
Under Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (169, Tedford and Herbeck) there is two level theory freedom of speech. The two levels are worthwhile and worthless speech. Based on Chaplinsky v. N.H., Bragg’s statement was involved in worthless speech because he said “fighting words”. He provoked bad language that had the possibility to incite violence. The Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy said:
"No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation" (169, Tedford and Herbeck).
Bragg’s action should be punished because he addressed an offensive and hurtful words to a group of people within the school. In addition, he made a lot of noise and exclamation in his presence. Based on Chaplinsky v. N.H. all action that Bragg did would allow him to be punished. The “Fuck Integration” on his T-shirt, “The Ninth Ward Got What it . . .” the Confederate flag on T-shirt, and hanging effigy of university president should be punished. All the actions that he did were over the line, and it caused threat to the people around him.
Lastly, the level of scrutiny is a substantial reason needed or an intermediate scrutiny. He had a “clear & present danger” (49, Tedford and Herbeck). As I already mentioned above, Bragg's action offended and might have harmed so many people (students and professors) who surrounded him. He also offended the president of the University, who is an African-American. Based on Virginia v. Black, he could be punished because he targeted someone and intimidated his principal. He also urged other white students to boycott classes that included African-American culture. His action was clear, and he presented danger for people who surrounded him, especially African-American people; for example, there must be African American students in the university who will feel offended by Bragg’s action. If the police officers did not take his action seriously, there could have been big possibilities for him to do something that will harm someone’s life.
In conclusion, I do believe that Bragg should be punished for what he had done. His action was too much. He offended so many people, and clearly presented a danger in the university area. I know that an individual has a freedom to express his or herself, but in this case he presented a threat for the people around him and disturbed the peace.
A young man, whose name is Jefferson Davis Bragg, made a controversial action at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. Bragg came to his first orientation and wore a T-shirt with an image of the Confederate flag and words “Fuck Integration”. The bottom part of the T-shirt also had “The Ninth Ward got what it deserved” written on it. The T-shirt that he wore was inappropriate and violated LSU’s dress code. The University officers and vice president acted quickly, and told Bragg to go back to his dorm and change his clothes; however, Bragg did not listen and shouted loudly, “Sonunvabitch, I have a right to say what I want to say.” Bragg also gathered a group of white students, and together they boycotted any classes that involved African-American culture. His action made offended many, and those students began shouting at him. Bragg action continued. Later that night, he used a rope and noose to hang an image of the University president, who is an African-American. He hung his image on an oak tree next to the university’s Memorial Chapel. Bragg was suspended, and the police officers charged him of “the threatening to cause bodily harm” to the university president.
Reading Bragg’s case, I wanted him to lose. Based on our discussion in class, I realized that he can win the case easily. We, as individuals, have our freedom of speech, which allows us to say and write anything we want. Based on Thomas I. Emerson’s theory: The Expression-Action Theory, he clearly writes, “freedom of expression includes the right to form and hold beliefs on any subject and to communicate those beliefs to others by whatever medium one chooses” (438, Tedford and Herbeck). Emerson's theory is a democratic way to express ourselves to achieve self-fulfillment. However, based on Emerson, not all speech is about expression, sometimes they are also over the line and turns into an action. Expression is fully protected and action can be controlled. What Bragg has done was an action that can be controlled. He was expressing himself; however, he was just over the line. The officers politely told him to go back and change his clothes but refused to and shouted at the officers. The “Sonuavabitch” statement is an offensive word that can offend an individual as well as a group of people. His action, which was noose hangs his president effigy, was also an unreasonable action that can be punished. Emerson writes, “when words are spoken face to face, in a direct encounter, so as to provoke a fight, the speech becomes conduct that is part of an act of violence and can be punished” (439, Tedford and Herbeck). What Bragg had done was violence because he said his statement directly in front of anyone within listening distance.
Furthermore, his also wore a T-shirt that said “Fuck Integration” and “The Ninth Ward got what it deserved”, is one speech that would allow to be punished. Based on “Bad Tendency”, “Punish words that might offend or harm, esp. “weak” women, youth, and national security” (60, Tedford and Herbeck). I think Bragg should be punished because he wore and said many “fighting words” that may offend and harm people. Although his statement was not an immediate problem; however, it was harm, offend, and no respect to people surround him.
Under Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (169, Tedford and Herbeck) there is two level theory freedom of speech. The two levels are worthwhile and worthless speech. Based on Chaplinsky v. N.H., Bragg’s statement was involved in worthless speech because he said “fighting words”. He provoked bad language that had the possibility to incite violence. The Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy said:
"No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation" (169, Tedford and Herbeck).
Bragg’s action should be punished because he addressed an offensive and hurtful words to a group of people within the school. In addition, he made a lot of noise and exclamation in his presence. Based on Chaplinsky v. N.H. all action that Bragg did would allow him to be punished. The “Fuck Integration” on his T-shirt, “The Ninth Ward Got What it . . .” the Confederate flag on T-shirt, and hanging effigy of university president should be punished. All the actions that he did were over the line, and it caused threat to the people around him.
Lastly, the level of scrutiny is a substantial reason needed or an intermediate scrutiny. He had a “clear & present danger” (49, Tedford and Herbeck). As I already mentioned above, Bragg's action offended and might have harmed so many people (students and professors) who surrounded him. He also offended the president of the University, who is an African-American. Based on Virginia v. Black, he could be punished because he targeted someone and intimidated his principal. He also urged other white students to boycott classes that included African-American culture. His action was clear, and he presented danger for people who surrounded him, especially African-American people; for example, there must be African American students in the university who will feel offended by Bragg’s action. If the police officers did not take his action seriously, there could have been big possibilities for him to do something that will harm someone’s life.
In conclusion, I do believe that Bragg should be punished for what he had done. His action was too much. He offended so many people, and clearly presented a danger in the university area. I know that an individual has a freedom to express his or herself, but in this case he presented a threat for the people around him and disturbed the peace.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Blog Post # 1... (01/18)
For number one, I think “Laws governing communication should primarily protect an individual universal civil liberty even if asserted against the group”. I think individual needs freedom to say whatever they want. I come from Indonesia. For sixteen years of my life, I had spent in Jakarta, Indonesia. For those people, who do not know, Indonesia is the first largest Muslim population in the world. I am a Christian, and I know how difficult life is when I become the minority. Based on The Universal Declaration, Article number 18, I personally belief that we have the freedom to choose what we believed for. I know that in Indonesia, people do not believe such a thing. The government tries to persuade everybody to believe Islam, and sometimes they force us to become a Muslim. Based on our discussion in class about Burstyn vs. Wilson, the government should not take part with any religion problems because there is a separation of church and State; however, in Indonesia government is the one who control everything. Therefore, I need a protection for individual to have the freedom to say and choose their path of life. We, who are non Muslim, are minority in Indonesia, and I personally feel that we have been force to move into Islam. Religion will always become a big problem in Indonesia, and people, who believe in Jesus or other religion other than Muslim, will never have their freedom to declare what they believe in. Based on article number 19 from The Universal Declaration, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression”. Therefore, I need a protection for myself, so that I can express my opinion freely. With a law of communication I will feel protected. I will not feel fear to against the majority of Muslim in Indonesia because I know I have the right, and the freedom to express my own opinion.
From my own point of view, every people, no matter what his job is, should have the same right of free speech everywhere. I agree that filmmakers in Dubai should have the same rights of free speech as filmmakers’ from Europe and United States. However, in many countries it is so hard to have the same rights of free speech. For me, the country where the filmmakers come from is important. I do not fully believe that filmmakers in Dubai will have the same rights of free speech as in Europe or the United States. The reasons they will not have the same rights of free speech is because their country is less popular than Europe and United States. The majority of people who live in Dubai are Muslim; therefore, I believe that Muslim countries will not have the same rights of free speech as any other countries. The reasons why they do not have the same right are because of Muslim’s culture. Muslim’s culture has so many restrictions. Other countries also see Muslim’s countries as lower class, and that are the reasons why it is hard to have the same rights of free speech like in Europe or the United States.
I believe filmmakers in Dubai are talented. As U.S Supreme Court tells us in page 501 that “It cannot be doubted that motion pictures are a significant medium for the communication of ideas. Their importance as an organ of public opinion is not lessened by the fact that they are designed to entertain as well as to inform”. They have many great ideas that they want to express. From their great ideas we can learn so many things about Dubai. There is a possibility that we can learn about their culture and people. If they have the same rights, they can and will promote Dubai, so people will not under estimate Dubai. Nowadays, Dubai starts to grow up. Many foreign people come to Dubai for holiday. Dubai starts to attract tourist’s attention, and Dubai’s filmmakers can help Dubai to attract people’s attention even more. However, it is hard for them to make a movie, when the law does not support them. Based on The Universal Declaration, Article 1, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”. This article makes my argument stronger that from the very first time we born, we already have same rights like anybody else. In Article 27 (1) from The Universal Declaration of Human rights tell us that “Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.” This statement empowers us to believe that we have the same equal rights everywhere. Even though on article 27 (2), it is stated some limitation, but still, we have the same rights everywhere.
In conclusion, I want to empower all people from all over the country to seek the same rights of freedom of speech. I know that country like Indonesia, Dubai, Malaysia, and many others still suffer from freedom of speech; however, in Bible or even in the Universal Declaration is written that we all have the same equal rights from freedom of speech.
From my own point of view, every people, no matter what his job is, should have the same right of free speech everywhere. I agree that filmmakers in Dubai should have the same rights of free speech as filmmakers’ from Europe and United States. However, in many countries it is so hard to have the same rights of free speech. For me, the country where the filmmakers come from is important. I do not fully believe that filmmakers in Dubai will have the same rights of free speech as in Europe or the United States. The reasons they will not have the same rights of free speech is because their country is less popular than Europe and United States. The majority of people who live in Dubai are Muslim; therefore, I believe that Muslim countries will not have the same rights of free speech as any other countries. The reasons why they do not have the same right are because of Muslim’s culture. Muslim’s culture has so many restrictions. Other countries also see Muslim’s countries as lower class, and that are the reasons why it is hard to have the same rights of free speech like in Europe or the United States.
I believe filmmakers in Dubai are talented. As U.S Supreme Court tells us in page 501 that “It cannot be doubted that motion pictures are a significant medium for the communication of ideas. Their importance as an organ of public opinion is not lessened by the fact that they are designed to entertain as well as to inform”. They have many great ideas that they want to express. From their great ideas we can learn so many things about Dubai. There is a possibility that we can learn about their culture and people. If they have the same rights, they can and will promote Dubai, so people will not under estimate Dubai. Nowadays, Dubai starts to grow up. Many foreign people come to Dubai for holiday. Dubai starts to attract tourist’s attention, and Dubai’s filmmakers can help Dubai to attract people’s attention even more. However, it is hard for them to make a movie, when the law does not support them. Based on The Universal Declaration, Article 1, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”. This article makes my argument stronger that from the very first time we born, we already have same rights like anybody else. In Article 27 (1) from The Universal Declaration of Human rights tell us that “Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.” This statement empowers us to believe that we have the same equal rights everywhere. Even though on article 27 (2), it is stated some limitation, but still, we have the same rights everywhere.
In conclusion, I want to empower all people from all over the country to seek the same rights of freedom of speech. I know that country like Indonesia, Dubai, Malaysia, and many others still suffer from freedom of speech; however, in Bible or even in the Universal Declaration is written that we all have the same equal rights from freedom of speech.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
