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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As I made reference in my response to Venus’s analysis, I agree that the laws governing the communication of our society should prioritize the civil liberties of an individual, even if their voice conflicts with the masses.
ReplyDeleteOur nation epitomizes the individual. We strive to set ourselves apart, to be noticeable and irreplaceable. America believes that the individual has a certain amount of power in society. Although, the masses bring about more attention and arguably a larger movement, individuals like Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, and President Obama are individuals who move masses. Contemplating the influence of these single individuals I firmly believe the protection of communication be served first and foremost to the individual
My understanding of the rights and potential rights of filmmakers in Dubai is strained. Similarly to Feggi, I believe that free speech should be protected in Dubai as it is in the United States and Europe. I am confused however if according to The Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19, “everyone has the right to…hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” why in fact are filmmakers in Dubai censored?
If in fact there exists the human right to “impart information and ideas through any media” then how can Dubai limit the production of local films? Examining the text of The Declaration of Human Rights I stand firmly that native filmmakers in Dubai be allowed to create and educate their audiences without censorship from the government.
I am unsure of my stance in allowing outside filmmakers to enter Dubai and make films not in accordance with the country’s cultural beliefs. Although agree with Feggi that allowing films to be produced in Dubai could offer a unique opportunity to educate the outside world about the culture and beauty of the country, it seems ethnocentric and intrusive for a developed nation, like America or England to enter Dubai and not adhere to the cultural norms and traditions. I am unsure if I believe a case like Burstyn v. Wilson or Epperson v. Arkansas can be extended internationally. Although both cases realized that no religious or specific cultural beliefs could be used as grounds for censorship, America has made a clear distinction between Church and State. For those countries who believe Church and State are one – the rules change, and it is not the responsibility, nor within the jurisdiction of America to implement laws that would alleviate communication restrictions.
Feggi, in her analysis of the filmmakers in Dubai, mentions that these Dubai filmmakers should have the same rights of free speech as those who are in Europe or in the United States. As she further (and rightly) explains, this is not a big probability, that filmmakers in Dubai would have the same rights of free speech. I agree with her on this premise, that culture plays a critical role in this case. But the line is drawn to divide those who are in agreement with the separation of church and state, and those who say that the two are one. Because of this structural reason, perhaps is it not the business of the government. Though documents like the Bible or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights might state that we have the same rights and are entitled to life and liberty, what happens when we put that in context of a country’s culture and belief system? Though the government may try to enforce beliefs on a person, I agree with Feggi that we should have protection under the freedom of speech and thought and religion, to form opinions on how much the government can play a role on our individual lives. However, when it comes to arguing that people should have the same rights of free speech everywhere, where is that line drawn when US filmmakers want to barge into a foreign country to shoot films for our entertainment? We must be careful in determining whether it is justified or not then, to say that everyone in this case has the right to say whatever they please.
ReplyDeleteI think Feggi’s analysis is centered on the idea that laws governing communication cross culturally should primarily protect the ideas of free speech and religion within those cultures. She uses the Universal Declaration of Human Rights very well in expressing her opinion. I also like the fact that she points out how Dubai is drawing in more tourist attention and also attempting to expand it’s horizons in order to grow a little further as a nation or at least draw more international attention (for example: Marvel Comics theme park, opening in 2012: http://tinyurl.com/yd9ur59). An area I don’t think she really fleshed out much was how cultural differences could impact this expansion. She uses the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a way to argue that all people should be able to express themselves and she also mentions the Burstyn vs. Wilson case, but the downside to using those two cases are, that the universal Declaration of Human Rights is more like a framework by which most nations should base laws upon, it doesn’t mean they are bound to it, and the Burstyn vs. Wilson case pertained only to America, not cross culturally. Feggi does make light of the fact that a Muslim nation is different from one of Western culture, but her explanations kind of make it seem as though both should be governed by the same beliefs, when in reality they could be seen as opposites. In other words, I think though it’s nice to think they should be held accountable by the similar laws, it’s still two different cultures.
ReplyDelete