Response to Sophie Chapter 7
I agree cigarette advertising has gone the way of the dodo. And to be honest I am not a smoker and really did not notice this particular product being sucked into the void of anti-commercialism until I read the passage in our text book about the cigarette ban being (at first) put into effect to curb advertising around schools and other public places in which children congregate.
In response to Sophie’s question on whether or not this ban would hold up to the 4th part of the commercial speech test I really don’t believe it does especially when you hold it up against the lifted ban on casino advertisements in states where gambling was legal. (The reasoning for the ban was to curb potential addiction to gambling.)
It seems to me that as long as an activity is legal (from what the case studies suggest) the advertising of the activity should not be restricted. It is up to each individual after proper warning to make up their own minds as to if they want to engage in such an activity.
So in light of the non-existent cigarette ads I believe that the 4th part of the test is violated especially when you hold the dangers of drinking up to those of smoking. Many more people die of alcohol related issues than die from cigarettes. Perhaps this form of advertising is allowed to continue because the states have a vested interest in continuing the unabated advertisement of liquor, which comes in the form of, DUI fines, alcohol treatment programs, ignition interlock systems, etc.
Also the lack of advertising hasn’t seemed to slow down the rate of teen smoking the only thing that has done that is due in large part to anti-smoking campaigns that have been primarily geared towards parents and exigency for them to stop smoking. (Especially, since most teens who smoke primarily get the cigarettes from parents or relatives who smoke.)
Friday, May 29, 2009
response to chapter 5
Response to CMJR 494/450 Chapter 5 question 2
The crux of the question is how can a person pre-determine the effect a piece of writing will have on another person and will that exposure cause them to go through with committing the crime which is being portrayed in the work.
I actually thought about this particular scenario while reading about the Paladin v Rice case in Chapter 3 and have outlined my response below.
My opinion is that if people already harbor the intent to commit a crime that they are going to go through with it. And yes some people such as the Columbine killers or the reader of the Hit Man manual will search out any means they can to plan and implement their crimes it does not mean that because these publications are/were in existence that they were the prime catalyst in going through with the criminal activity.
It is not the responsibility of the government to be the harbinger’s of what society is allowed to be exposed to. That is why we have criminal laws and a penal system to deal with those who misuse information. Many of the materials that are referenced by criminals before the commission of an offense have a primary purpose of being educational. Are we going to ban police or military manuals just because a sub-set of the population has gained access to these materials and used them to become better criminals? What about reference materials which deal with poisons? Take those away and what will be left for our toxicologists? I am not saying that the general population really needs access to materials that deal with how to build a bomb or hijack a plane but we are an information driven society and if you block certain materials from the pool than it makes it easier to keep blocking and then we are back in the era of book burning.
I do know that when reading books or watching movies people like to fantasize about living the life of the characters, they may wonder what it feels like to kill someone or get revenge on an ex-girlfriend or being an untouchable drug lord. Yet imagination is much different than reality and again those who do not have criminal instincts are going to close the book and return to their normal everyday lives those who are inclined to criminality are going to take notes close the book and start living that life.
The crux of the question is how can a person pre-determine the effect a piece of writing will have on another person and will that exposure cause them to go through with committing the crime which is being portrayed in the work.
I actually thought about this particular scenario while reading about the Paladin v Rice case in Chapter 3 and have outlined my response below.
My opinion is that if people already harbor the intent to commit a crime that they are going to go through with it. And yes some people such as the Columbine killers or the reader of the Hit Man manual will search out any means they can to plan and implement their crimes it does not mean that because these publications are/were in existence that they were the prime catalyst in going through with the criminal activity.
It is not the responsibility of the government to be the harbinger’s of what society is allowed to be exposed to. That is why we have criminal laws and a penal system to deal with those who misuse information. Many of the materials that are referenced by criminals before the commission of an offense have a primary purpose of being educational. Are we going to ban police or military manuals just because a sub-set of the population has gained access to these materials and used them to become better criminals? What about reference materials which deal with poisons? Take those away and what will be left for our toxicologists? I am not saying that the general population really needs access to materials that deal with how to build a bomb or hijack a plane but we are an information driven society and if you block certain materials from the pool than it makes it easier to keep blocking and then we are back in the era of book burning.
I do know that when reading books or watching movies people like to fantasize about living the life of the characters, they may wonder what it feels like to kill someone or get revenge on an ex-girlfriend or being an untouchable drug lord. Yet imagination is much different than reality and again those who do not have criminal instincts are going to close the book and return to their normal everyday lives those who are inclined to criminality are going to take notes close the book and start living that life.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Chapter 6 Questions
Questions from Chapter 6
1. In the case of Paul Robert Cohen and his infamous jacket I believe that the court did the right thing by not convicting him for his message. If Cohen had verbally spoken this particular sentiment in the lobby of the Los Angeles County Courthouse I do not believe he would have been arrested and charged with a crime.
But since the reverberation of his words were not verbally expressed and allowed to dissipate immediately many believed that he posed a public nuisance and even accused him of holding his audience captive to said message.
Are we only allowed to express a minority opinion, or hold a silent protest, or ask people to stop and think about current social atrocities when there is a group? In an era when anti-war protests were taking place every minute of every day in every city why was Cohen singled out? Is it because he was a single at a time when people didn’t believe that one person could facilitate dialogue and potentially stir debate on an issue that many Americans don’t take much time to question? – Apparently, one person could make a nuisance.
I believe the Supreme Court made the right decision based on the fact that Americans are allowed to assemble to hold public protests as long as they don’t interfere with other’s ability to go about their duties and as long as it doesn’t turn violent. Cohen should have never been arrested on the basis of a message that was written on his jacket because his speech did not meet the imminent danger test and did not reach a point of incitement among his audience and he also did not engage in “fighting words” as defined by Chaplinsky.
Upon further investigation it seems as if the government was partially convicting Cohen on the basis of bad tendency (that a person may be convicted of a conspiracy to obstruct recruiting by words of persuasion – Justice Holmes citing Schenk) as it came out of the Espionage Act of 1917 which “made it illegal to encourage insubordination in the armed forces or to promote resistance to the draft”- yet masking it through the newly adopted incitement standard.
Who can say that Cohen’s jacket was worthless speech? To Cohen and his fellow anti-war supporters his speech did have social value – it was pertinent – and it did help the public by stirring debate which would lead to truth. Yet, before Cohen’s case the government viewed his speech as worthless – not because of the message but because of the language used in transmitting the message – after Cohen’s case the government changed its views in regards to explicit (foul) language by stating “that even shocking language can serve a dual communication function: the cognitive, in which ideas are expressed, and the emotive, in which deep personal emotions are expressed.”
If Cohen’s jacket was worthless speech then can’t we argue that the peace symbol was worthless speech? It advocated the same principles that Cohen believed in and stood for, it asked people to turn their backs on fighting and take up more passive methods of settling the conflict; it was definitely against the government’s agenda. It, like Cohen’s jacket, silently asked the American people to take a stand by not supporting our countries war effort, to question the draft and to seek out loopholes to keep young men out of the military.
2. “Speech is often provocative and challenging.” Justice Douglas in the decision of Terminiello
This is a case in which I did not agree with the speaker to have been brought to trial and convicted by a lower court.
While it is true that Father Terminiello did hold unpopular views in regards to Jewish people he was well within his rights to speak when invited to Chicago by a group holding his same belief system.
As I do not have both sides of the case here in this book I am not aware of any intended incitement to provocation on the Father’s or sponsoring group’s part. What is clear is that almost double the amount of protesters as listeners arrived with the explicit purpose of doing harm to the members of the Christian Veterans of America and its guest speaker. There is no other purpose in my mind for bringing weapons such as bottles, ice picks, and bricks to a completely legal gathering of individuals. Here is a case in which the police force failed to protect the speaker, (even in the face of being attacked by protestors) and instead arrested the Father citing a Chicago ordinance that states “ ’All persons who shall make, aid, countenance, or assist in making any improper noise, riot, disturbance, breach of the peace’ shall be guilty of disorderly conduct”.
Disorderly conduct? For speaking? This could never have been proven in the first place based on the fact that the protestor’s had no real knowledge of what was going to be said inside the meeting hall, they had no clue as to what materials would be presented or even if any action would be called for – they were only able to assume based on prior dealings with the group and on public reputation of the Father.
It is important to look back and ask the building which side of its walls was the glass shattered? Did the violent, pre-meditated actions of the protestor’s aid to the fervor of those inside the building – who may have feared for their own safety? It is important to know how misinformation can misguide so many.
1. In the case of Paul Robert Cohen and his infamous jacket I believe that the court did the right thing by not convicting him for his message. If Cohen had verbally spoken this particular sentiment in the lobby of the Los Angeles County Courthouse I do not believe he would have been arrested and charged with a crime.
But since the reverberation of his words were not verbally expressed and allowed to dissipate immediately many believed that he posed a public nuisance and even accused him of holding his audience captive to said message.
Are we only allowed to express a minority opinion, or hold a silent protest, or ask people to stop and think about current social atrocities when there is a group? In an era when anti-war protests were taking place every minute of every day in every city why was Cohen singled out? Is it because he was a single at a time when people didn’t believe that one person could facilitate dialogue and potentially stir debate on an issue that many Americans don’t take much time to question? – Apparently, one person could make a nuisance.
I believe the Supreme Court made the right decision based on the fact that Americans are allowed to assemble to hold public protests as long as they don’t interfere with other’s ability to go about their duties and as long as it doesn’t turn violent. Cohen should have never been arrested on the basis of a message that was written on his jacket because his speech did not meet the imminent danger test and did not reach a point of incitement among his audience and he also did not engage in “fighting words” as defined by Chaplinsky.
Upon further investigation it seems as if the government was partially convicting Cohen on the basis of bad tendency (that a person may be convicted of a conspiracy to obstruct recruiting by words of persuasion – Justice Holmes citing Schenk) as it came out of the Espionage Act of 1917 which “made it illegal to encourage insubordination in the armed forces or to promote resistance to the draft”- yet masking it through the newly adopted incitement standard.
Who can say that Cohen’s jacket was worthless speech? To Cohen and his fellow anti-war supporters his speech did have social value – it was pertinent – and it did help the public by stirring debate which would lead to truth. Yet, before Cohen’s case the government viewed his speech as worthless – not because of the message but because of the language used in transmitting the message – after Cohen’s case the government changed its views in regards to explicit (foul) language by stating “that even shocking language can serve a dual communication function: the cognitive, in which ideas are expressed, and the emotive, in which deep personal emotions are expressed.”
If Cohen’s jacket was worthless speech then can’t we argue that the peace symbol was worthless speech? It advocated the same principles that Cohen believed in and stood for, it asked people to turn their backs on fighting and take up more passive methods of settling the conflict; it was definitely against the government’s agenda. It, like Cohen’s jacket, silently asked the American people to take a stand by not supporting our countries war effort, to question the draft and to seek out loopholes to keep young men out of the military.
2. “Speech is often provocative and challenging.” Justice Douglas in the decision of Terminiello
This is a case in which I did not agree with the speaker to have been brought to trial and convicted by a lower court.
While it is true that Father Terminiello did hold unpopular views in regards to Jewish people he was well within his rights to speak when invited to Chicago by a group holding his same belief system.
As I do not have both sides of the case here in this book I am not aware of any intended incitement to provocation on the Father’s or sponsoring group’s part. What is clear is that almost double the amount of protesters as listeners arrived with the explicit purpose of doing harm to the members of the Christian Veterans of America and its guest speaker. There is no other purpose in my mind for bringing weapons such as bottles, ice picks, and bricks to a completely legal gathering of individuals. Here is a case in which the police force failed to protect the speaker, (even in the face of being attacked by protestors) and instead arrested the Father citing a Chicago ordinance that states “ ’All persons who shall make, aid, countenance, or assist in making any improper noise, riot, disturbance, breach of the peace’ shall be guilty of disorderly conduct”.
Disorderly conduct? For speaking? This could never have been proven in the first place based on the fact that the protestor’s had no real knowledge of what was going to be said inside the meeting hall, they had no clue as to what materials would be presented or even if any action would be called for – they were only able to assume based on prior dealings with the group and on public reputation of the Father.
It is important to look back and ask the building which side of its walls was the glass shattered? Did the violent, pre-meditated actions of the protestor’s aid to the fervor of those inside the building – who may have feared for their own safety? It is important to know how misinformation can misguide so many.
Sexting response to Mike B
In response to Mike Bs questions on Sexting…..
First of all, children should not be distributing nude or semi-nude photos of themselves for any reason to any person.
Now having said that I understand that kids are under immense pressure to push the sexual envelope to keep their boyfriend/girlfriend – in every generation there has been a sexual ante - which has kept parents, school officials and rule makers/enforcers on their toes in regards to combating the potentially dangerous behaviors.
Sex ed., PSA’s, statutory rape laws and free clinics (where your name is not needed and parental consent is not sought) all sprung up over the years to offer help and education for sexually active youth. However, never before has there been anything even close to legal intervention proposed or sought out against teens who have intentionally sent out explicit photos of themselves to what began as one person but ended up being disseminated throughout an entire school and/or social network (either physical or on-line).
I am not sure how I feel about these kids being branded as sex offenders for sending the photos and thus initiating the primary act of unlawful behavior but if it can be proven in court that the recipient has maliciously distributed said images to other individuals , (regardless of age) then they should face the consequences. To me child pornography – even if the participant was initially complacent in the act is still child pornography.
However, having said that if this is going to be a consequence that teens will potentially face then they need to be made educated as to the proper use of cell phones and how not to get caught up in this type of behavior, kids need to know what to do if someone sends them a sext unsolicited, and they need to know that there will be harsh penalties incurred if they are found to have these types of images on their phones – (sidenote – as I sit here writing this there is a PSA on t.v. talking about teen gambling and how to combat it – this would seem like something we need in order to educate teens in the ever expanding world of technology).
Sexting is not a one time and it’s over deal! Images last forever. You can lock them into your phone so that they won’t be accidentally erased, if your kid has an iPhone or Smart Phone they can download the photos from the phone onto their computer – or any computer – and where from there will that image end up? Put an image on your blog, MySpace, Facebook, etc. and they can all be easily lifted by anyone who happens upon your site.
There are some potential solutions to combating the sexting phenomenon without branding a kid for life. These solutions would be to add a device control to your child’s phone that would not allow them to take or send photos (this would be similar to controls already in use that regulate the hours your child can use their phone or receive text messages), also PSA’s are a good education tool. Another way to go would be to take these kids that are in the legal system now for sexting and require them to go to schools and talk about the dangers of sexting and the potential consequences it could mean to their lives (i.e. school, college, and professional).
First of all, children should not be distributing nude or semi-nude photos of themselves for any reason to any person.
Now having said that I understand that kids are under immense pressure to push the sexual envelope to keep their boyfriend/girlfriend – in every generation there has been a sexual ante - which has kept parents, school officials and rule makers/enforcers on their toes in regards to combating the potentially dangerous behaviors.
Sex ed., PSA’s, statutory rape laws and free clinics (where your name is not needed and parental consent is not sought) all sprung up over the years to offer help and education for sexually active youth. However, never before has there been anything even close to legal intervention proposed or sought out against teens who have intentionally sent out explicit photos of themselves to what began as one person but ended up being disseminated throughout an entire school and/or social network (either physical or on-line).
I am not sure how I feel about these kids being branded as sex offenders for sending the photos and thus initiating the primary act of unlawful behavior but if it can be proven in court that the recipient has maliciously distributed said images to other individuals , (regardless of age) then they should face the consequences. To me child pornography – even if the participant was initially complacent in the act is still child pornography.
However, having said that if this is going to be a consequence that teens will potentially face then they need to be made educated as to the proper use of cell phones and how not to get caught up in this type of behavior, kids need to know what to do if someone sends them a sext unsolicited, and they need to know that there will be harsh penalties incurred if they are found to have these types of images on their phones – (sidenote – as I sit here writing this there is a PSA on t.v. talking about teen gambling and how to combat it – this would seem like something we need in order to educate teens in the ever expanding world of technology).
Sexting is not a one time and it’s over deal! Images last forever. You can lock them into your phone so that they won’t be accidentally erased, if your kid has an iPhone or Smart Phone they can download the photos from the phone onto their computer – or any computer – and where from there will that image end up? Put an image on your blog, MySpace, Facebook, etc. and they can all be easily lifted by anyone who happens upon your site.
There are some potential solutions to combating the sexting phenomenon without branding a kid for life. These solutions would be to add a device control to your child’s phone that would not allow them to take or send photos (this would be similar to controls already in use that regulate the hours your child can use their phone or receive text messages), also PSA’s are a good education tool. Another way to go would be to take these kids that are in the legal system now for sexting and require them to go to schools and talk about the dangers of sexting and the potential consequences it could mean to their lives (i.e. school, college, and professional).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
