During my research of how other countries deal with speech and regulating speech, I came across this case from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Mr. Norwood, a member of Parliament ironically, posted a sign in a window of his home with a picture of the twin towers burning with the words "Islam out of Britain - Protect the British People" along with a symbol of a crescent and star in a prohibition sign. A member of the public complained about the large poster in the window of Mr. Norwood's first floor flat and police removed it. Mr. Norwood was invited to go to the local police station for an interview after the removal but refused.
Mr. Norwood was then charged with "an aggravated offense under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, of displaying, with hostility towards a racial or religious group, any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by it."
Norwood then applied to the ECHR under Article 10 of the Convention (it doesn't say which convention specifically) claiming that the criminal proceedings against him violated his right to freedom of expression and under Article 14 claiming discrimination. In the end, the ECHR found that Norwood's rights were not violated and declared his application inadmissible.
Part of me agrees with section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and the speech regulations it imposes. Having lived in the United Kingdom both as a child and an adult, there is something to be said about how Brits handle themselves and what they will and will not tolerate. In fact when Westboro tried to bring their protests to Britain, they were banned from doing so under English law; Great Britain was not going to tolerate such blatant hateful rubbish on their soil. Yet the American in me is leery of such speech regulation because it requires the government and the courts to be fair and unbiased in it's application, something I don't trust either to do evenhandedly.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
The "Epic" - Part of "the record as a whole" or not?
The Supreme Court specifically states that it will not take into account the contents of the "Epic", the rant on Westboro's webpage attacking the Snyder family, despite the jury and the courts below discussing it in their decisions because the petitioner did not mention it in his writ for certiorari. Therefore, "[t]he epic is not properly before us and does not factor into our analysis." FN1
While the petitioner's brief may have only addressed claims dealing with the picketing, throwing out any claims to do with the online rant against the Snyders, should the epic have been thrown completely out of the record and not even viewed as evidence as to the specific intent of the church to prey on private citizens' pain and suffering as opposed to speech protected as matter of public interest? Rather should the Court have taken the epic as part of the record as a whole when determining whether the picketing near Snyder's funeral was a "subject of legitimate news interest, that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public," or a personal attack on private citizens?
Here are some of the contents of the epic as cited in Alito's dissent. I find it difficult to contemplate this lovely tidbit not being a part of the record that the Court claims it looked at as a whole.
“God blessed you, Mr. and Mrs. Snyder, with a resource and his name was Matthew. He was an arrow in your quiver! In thanks to God for the comfort the child could bring you, you had a DUTY to prepare that child to serve the LORD his GOD-PERIOD! You did JUST THE OPPOSITE-you raised him for the devil.
While the petitioner's brief may have only addressed claims dealing with the picketing, throwing out any claims to do with the online rant against the Snyders, should the epic have been thrown completely out of the record and not even viewed as evidence as to the specific intent of the church to prey on private citizens' pain and suffering as opposed to speech protected as matter of public interest? Rather should the Court have taken the epic as part of the record as a whole when determining whether the picketing near Snyder's funeral was a "subject of legitimate news interest, that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public," or a personal attack on private citizens?
Here are some of the contents of the epic as cited in Alito's dissent. I find it difficult to contemplate this lovely tidbit not being a part of the record that the Court claims it looked at as a whole.
“God blessed you, Mr. and Mrs. Snyder, with a resource and his name was Matthew. He was an arrow in your quiver! In thanks to God for the comfort the child could bring you, you had a DUTY to prepare that child to serve the LORD his GOD-PERIOD! You did JUST THE OPPOSITE-you raised him for the devil.
“Albert and Julie RIPPED that body apart and taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery. They taught him how to support the largest pedophile machine in the history of the entire world, the Roman Catholic monstrosity. Every dime they gave the Roman Catholic monster they condemned their own souls. They also, in supporting satanic Catholicism, taught Matthew to be an idolater.
“Then after all that they sent him to fight for the United States of Sodom, a filthy country that is in lock step with his evil, wicked, and sinful manner of life, putting him in the cross hairs of a God that is so mad He has smoke coming from his nostrils and fire from his mouth! How dumb was that?”
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Snyder v. Phelps - Which Justice(s) Got It Right?
I'm not going to lie, I felt kind of cool printing out the recent Supreme Court decision a mere two days after it was decided. I felt like I was on the cutting edge of a deeper understanding of the 1st Amendment and protected speech. I compare it to reading the new Harry Potter book as soon as it comes out or getting the U2 album I pre-ordered on iTunes nine hours before it's available to everyone else. (By the way, I have never read Harry Potter but I have pre-ordered a U2 album, among others, on iTunes.)
Justice Roberts' decision is not long, even with Justice Breyers' concurrence and Justice Alito's dissent. Roberts' sticks tightly to the issues in front of the court, openly declaring that Westboro's personal, vengeful message on their website directed at Matthew Snyder's parents, who they specifically mention by name in the posting referred to as "The Epic", was not brought to their attention in the petitioner's petition for certiorari. While the Court contends that the record would need to be looked at in the whole to decide whether or not Snyder has a claim for IIED that Westboro would not be able to use the 1st Amendment as a defense for, this piece of evidence is seen as a separate claim and not part of the record as a whole when judging Westboro's actions. I am not sure whether to be frustrated with the court for basically omitting evidence from the record or whether to be frustrated with Snyder's attorney who addressed the actions of the picketing in the petition and did not tie "The Epic" so closely into the evidence of IIED that it was so easy for the Court to ignore when viewing the record as a whole.
There is also a debate about where speech issues of public concern cross the line into a person's private life. While a funeral can be open to the public, allowing those who knew and loved the deceased to pay their final respects, a funeral remains a very private event for those closest to the deceased. The shock of losing a child, parent, sibling, spouse, or close friend provides a form of insulation that can lend itself to feeling very alone in the middle of a church filled with mourners. While the protestors were not yelling, were 1,000 feet away from the church on public land adjacent to a public street proclaiming what they believe are issues of public interest I cannot help but side with Alito in his dissent; this was not a matter of public interest but rather a specific attack on a private person. Westboro doesn't just show up at random soldier's funerals; they issue a press release in advance stating which individual's funeral they plan to protest and why to gain publicity and media attention. Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was chosen after Phelps heard about his funeral because Snyder was a soldier and a Catholic, both reasons according to Westboro why "God Hates America." As Alito points out in his dissent, the protestors could have gone anywhere along any of the over 4,000,000 miles of public streets in the U.S., on any day to utilize their 1st Amendment rights to address what they deem is a matter of "public interest", that the U.S. is overly tolerant of homosexuality which is why God is killing soldiers. They specifically target this funeral and found a loophole in the local law to stage their attack on the Snyder family during this private and emotional time in their lives, the burial of their son, in order to inflict emotional distress. It was not out of respect for the Snyder family that the group contact local law enforcement to make sure they did not encroach on their son's funeral; it was a calculated move on their part to disguise their rhetoric and hate speech as a First Amendment right to cause Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress on the Snyder family personally, and the Supreme Court fell right into their trap.
Justice Roberts' decision is not long, even with Justice Breyers' concurrence and Justice Alito's dissent. Roberts' sticks tightly to the issues in front of the court, openly declaring that Westboro's personal, vengeful message on their website directed at Matthew Snyder's parents, who they specifically mention by name in the posting referred to as "The Epic", was not brought to their attention in the petitioner's petition for certiorari. While the Court contends that the record would need to be looked at in the whole to decide whether or not Snyder has a claim for IIED that Westboro would not be able to use the 1st Amendment as a defense for, this piece of evidence is seen as a separate claim and not part of the record as a whole when judging Westboro's actions. I am not sure whether to be frustrated with the court for basically omitting evidence from the record or whether to be frustrated with Snyder's attorney who addressed the actions of the picketing in the petition and did not tie "The Epic" so closely into the evidence of IIED that it was so easy for the Court to ignore when viewing the record as a whole.
There is also a debate about where speech issues of public concern cross the line into a person's private life. While a funeral can be open to the public, allowing those who knew and loved the deceased to pay their final respects, a funeral remains a very private event for those closest to the deceased. The shock of losing a child, parent, sibling, spouse, or close friend provides a form of insulation that can lend itself to feeling very alone in the middle of a church filled with mourners. While the protestors were not yelling, were 1,000 feet away from the church on public land adjacent to a public street proclaiming what they believe are issues of public interest I cannot help but side with Alito in his dissent; this was not a matter of public interest but rather a specific attack on a private person. Westboro doesn't just show up at random soldier's funerals; they issue a press release in advance stating which individual's funeral they plan to protest and why to gain publicity and media attention. Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was chosen after Phelps heard about his funeral because Snyder was a soldier and a Catholic, both reasons according to Westboro why "God Hates America." As Alito points out in his dissent, the protestors could have gone anywhere along any of the over 4,000,000 miles of public streets in the U.S., on any day to utilize their 1st Amendment rights to address what they deem is a matter of "public interest", that the U.S. is overly tolerant of homosexuality which is why God is killing soldiers. They specifically target this funeral and found a loophole in the local law to stage their attack on the Snyder family during this private and emotional time in their lives, the burial of their son, in order to inflict emotional distress. It was not out of respect for the Snyder family that the group contact local law enforcement to make sure they did not encroach on their son's funeral; it was a calculated move on their part to disguise their rhetoric and hate speech as a First Amendment right to cause Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress on the Snyder family personally, and the Supreme Court fell right into their trap.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Thank You Westboro?
Today's SCOTUS 8-1 decision that the Westboro Baptist Church is protected by the 1st Amendment first struck me as abhorrent. Then I started thinking outside the box. If the bench can communicate to each other when they question counsel during hearings as well as communicate with the Legislature that they need Congress to legislate an issue and not leave it up to the Court to legislate, perhaps the Court is sending the American people a message with today's decision. Here's what I think the court is telling us:
"Listen America, if we rule against Westboro that what they are doing is not protected under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, we could possibly open up a pandora's box allowing the Court and Congress to begin regulating your rights just because someone doesn't like what you're saying or how you're saying it and we're not willing to go there. So here's the deal: we're going to protect their speech even though the majority of people find it to be hateful and downright wrong to the point of offensive because by doing so we're protecting your speech too. We've given you some fairly broad perimeters to work with to deal with this social boil on the butt of humanity in your own way using your own rights to say what you want and peaceably assemble. We believe in the American people's compassion and integrity to come together and put a stop to this madness using the same avenue being used to spew such hate in the first place. If we're willing to protect their speech regardless of whether or not we or the American people like it, think about what speech of your's we're willing to stand up for in your efforts to put an end to this. Look to groups like the Freedom Angels who rally around soldier's funerals to protect the families from more pain. Look to those who surrounded little Christina Green's funeral wearing angel wings so that no one at the funeral had to see such blind hatred toward their little one. Look to the Facebook groups who catch wind of possible places/events where Westboro may show up and organize a counter protest. You have the power to do this and by ruling for Westboro, as morally wrong as it may seem, we've actually given you even more tools at your disposal to literally stand up and say "As the American people, we will no longer tolerate this behavior.""
(I realize the words "social boil on the butt of humanity" are virtually impossible to imagine ever escaping the mouth of Ginsburg, however it's pretty funny to think of her throwing down like that.)
So that's it America. It's up to us and believe it or not, I think the Supreme Court has got our back.
"Listen America, if we rule against Westboro that what they are doing is not protected under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, we could possibly open up a pandora's box allowing the Court and Congress to begin regulating your rights just because someone doesn't like what you're saying or how you're saying it and we're not willing to go there. So here's the deal: we're going to protect their speech even though the majority of people find it to be hateful and downright wrong to the point of offensive because by doing so we're protecting your speech too. We've given you some fairly broad perimeters to work with to deal with this social boil on the butt of humanity in your own way using your own rights to say what you want and peaceably assemble. We believe in the American people's compassion and integrity to come together and put a stop to this madness using the same avenue being used to spew such hate in the first place. If we're willing to protect their speech regardless of whether or not we or the American people like it, think about what speech of your's we're willing to stand up for in your efforts to put an end to this. Look to groups like the Freedom Angels who rally around soldier's funerals to protect the families from more pain. Look to those who surrounded little Christina Green's funeral wearing angel wings so that no one at the funeral had to see such blind hatred toward their little one. Look to the Facebook groups who catch wind of possible places/events where Westboro may show up and organize a counter protest. You have the power to do this and by ruling for Westboro, as morally wrong as it may seem, we've actually given you even more tools at your disposal to literally stand up and say "As the American people, we will no longer tolerate this behavior.""
(I realize the words "social boil on the butt of humanity" are virtually impossible to imagine ever escaping the mouth of Ginsburg, however it's pretty funny to think of her throwing down like that.)
So that's it America. It's up to us and believe it or not, I think the Supreme Court has got our back.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Libel? Slander?
The following are the contents of a email I received from a friend, Michael Phelan, in 2005 when he was mad at me. He was a friend from my study abroad semester in Dublin, Ireland. He lived in the flat below mine and we became good friends, a friendship which continued after I returned home and resulted in him coming to stay with me for the summer. There was no romantic attraction; it was a plutonic friendship. I was excited for his visit as he was my best friend in the world. I had gone through a messy break-up that spring and was also mourning the loss of a close childhood friend's father who died of cancer a few months earlier.
I've deleted this a zillion times but when I search his name in my email account I was able to find it almost six years later. I have never spoken to this person since for obvious reasons.
Disclaimer: This is not a pretty email and it contains highly offensive/anti-semetic language. This email has also been edited to run in the allotted time slot.
--- On Mon, 8/8/05, mike phelan wrote:
In case you were wondering, here's what I looked like that summer. These were both taken in Chicago when I went to pick up my friend from the airport.
I've deleted this a zillion times but when I search his name in my email account I was able to find it almost six years later. I have never spoken to this person since for obvious reasons.
Disclaimer: This is not a pretty email and it contains highly offensive/anti-semetic language. This email has also been edited to run in the allotted time slot.
--- On Mon, 8/8/05, mike phelan wrote:
From: mike phelan
Subject: GOD BLESS YOU
To: "Sara McCormack"
Date: Monday, August 8, 2005, 1:55 PM
You are so far from the truth its scary because the truth about you is too unbearable to look at, everything you do is a denial of reality, a coverup, just like your overpriced useless makeup.here i'll put it in simple terms, a comparitive study, i hate being nasty, but you've reduced me to this, maybe you'll understand this type of low language, i tried.Mike SARAgood looking ......FAT, BLOTCHY SKIN, JEW NOSE, ICOULD GO ON BUT THE THOUGHT OF YOU IS NAUSEA INDUCING4.0 law student ......MAL EDUCATED, OVERPRICED, ARTS DEGREE=WORTHLESShappy ......socially apt ......ANGRY, SELF OBSESSED, 'THIS ONE TIME AT BAND CAMP' TYPE STORIES, PEOPLE LITERALLY CANT WAIT FOR YOU TO SHUT THE FUCK UPnot scared(emotionally) ......MENTALhealthy .......ULCER BITCH.........hard working-ok dumb bitch, FIRST CLASS HONOURS, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS???? I NEVER HAD PRIVATE SCHOOLING, I OVERCAME SO MUCH TO GET WHERE I AM, YOU COULD NEVER IMAGINE, I SAW MY DAD WORK NIGHTS FOR MINIMUM WAGE FOR FOUR YEARS< IT SAPPED ANY LIFE OR HAPPINESS HE HAD, I LET IT GET TO ME< BUT VOWED NEVER TO SELL MYSELF SHORT.My acievements,3rd overall european science olympiad, Turkey 2002-2003, suck my balls dumb fuck2002 best Irish speaker st kierans-oldest most established catholic school in Ireland, my teachers loved me, my math teacher told my mum i was the best he'd ever met.( oh and my parents didn't have the money to send me to Irish summer schools, which nearly half my calls had, so fuck you and fuck your meagre efforts at life, you're a failure because you are weak, i had nothing but acieved through my wit and sheer emotional strength, i SACRIFICED MY FIRST LOVE AND CLOSE FRIENDS....)first class honours= this is defined by irish universities as 'SUPREME' look it up if you dont believe me:-)IN LAW SCHOOL UCD, im off to sweden, dumb bitch, i have the world at my feet i can do whatever i fucking want, i have every opportunity in the world, AND I EARNED IT THROUGH WORK AND MERIT ALONE, UNDERSTAND DUMB BITCH?MARIE:SHE TOLD ME THAT SHE THINKS YOU'RE FUCKED IN THE HEAD AND THAT SHE COULDN'T GIVE A FIDDLERS FART IF SHE NEVER SAW YOUR JEW NOSED ROTUND FACE AGAINYOU ARE WASHED UP WHITE TRASH.JEN:NOW YOU'VE REALLY MADE ME ANGRY AND I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE TO LIVE TOGETHER, THE TRUTH ABOUT JEN IS THE SADDEST, AS I KNOW HOW MUCH YOU LIKE AND RESPECT HER, ALAS SARA, ITS ALMOST SICK HOW FAKE SHE IS TO YOU, PITY SHES NOT SMART ENOUGH, IT'LL ALL BLOW UP IN HER FACESARA, YOU REDUCED ME TO THIS SAD SAD LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION, IM A HAPPY PERSON AND HONESTLY TRIED TO OFFER MY HAND FOR FORGIVENESS, YOU SPIT IN MY FACE AGAIN AND AGAIN SO THERE IT IS,THE SAD TRUTH OF YOUR WHITE TRASH LIFEI NEVER WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN, DO NOT EVER CONTEMPLATE CONTACTING MY FAMILY, IAN AND ELAINE ESPECIALLY HATE YOU...... MY PARENTS.... I'LL SPARE THEM THE EMBARESSMENT.BY THE WAY WANDA MAY HAVE TOLD YOU..... IM HAVING THE TIME OF MY LIFE WITH SOME GREAT PEOPLE, I WATERSKI, GO DIRTBIKING, BASEBALL GAMES, LOTS OF GOLF, CLUBBING, FREE FOOD, FREE RENT,.....BUT ABOVE ALL THOSE TRIVIAL ACTIVITIES, THE FAMILY HOME I WORK AT.... THEY REALLY ENJOY MY COMPANY, THEY APPRECIATE MY WORK EHTIC(I GET 15 DOLLARS AN HOUR, ANDE HAVENT SPENT A CENT SINCE I LEFT YOUR SHITHOLE:-), I NEVER COMPLAIN, ONLY GOOD POSITIVE VIBES, THEY BRING MY FOR SPINS ON HARLEYS, MUSTANG, AND A CORVETTE,IVE MADE SOME REAL FRIENDS WHO ARE COMIN TO VISIT ME IN IRELAND NEXT AUGUST, BASICALLY YOU ARE THE FUCKING ANTICHRIST.WANDA:I LIKE WANDA, SO SUE ME BITCH, BUT IN YOUR FUCKED MIND IT MEANS:WHY DO BOYS PREFER JEN AND WANDA TO ME??????????ANSWER; YOU ARE A REPUGNANTLY UGLY, FAT SLOB.PS: ME AND WANDA NEVER WERE A ROMANTIC PROSPECT, I HAVE A GIRLFRIEND, HER NAME IS LAKRITSI, IT MEANS LIQUORICE IN FINNISH, I LOVE HER AND THINK ABOUT HER EVERYDAY, SHES STARTING INTERNATIONAL LAW IN HELSINKI THIS SUMMER, SHES SO BEAUTIFUL IT MAKES ME ALMOST SPEACHLESS WHEN I PICTURE HER RADIANCE, SHE IS BLIND IN ONE EYE, OH AND DID I MENTION SHE MODELS FOR LOREAL IN LONDON? OR THAT HER MUM HAS 12% SHARES IN NOKIA?????? OR THAT SHE LOVES ME?????OPPS I LEFT OUT THESE DETAILS, I DONT EVEN KNOW WHY I BOTHER.NEVER AGAIN FAT SLOBYOU ARE FUCKING POISON IN THAT HOUSE, THE OTHERS WOULD BE MUCH BETTER OFF WITHOUT YOUR PSYCHOTIC EPISODESPPS: I'VE JUST SAVED YOU YEARS OF TURMOIL, DONT INFEST THE WORLD WITH YOUR WHITE TRASH INFERIOR SPAWN:-)
In case you were wondering, here's what I looked like that summer. These were both taken in Chicago when I went to pick up my friend from the airport.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Thank you Australia and my friend Scott.
Keep in mind this was on national TV in Australia is now on You Tube.
PS. It's ok to laugh. I did.
So what am I going to do about this paper then?
This always happens to me; I have a solid idea coming to a project only to question it a few weeks later. I came into this class wanting to get down to the nitty gritty of digital media and incitement. However the more I research, the more it appears that incitement happens "over there" and "fighting words" happen here.
My hope was to connect the International Criminal Tribunal in Rwanda (ICTR) media incitement case with digital media and incitement here in the United States; essentially bring what happened in Rwanda 17 years ago to the forefront of possibilities for incitement here. Sadly genocide is still taking place in more places that we'd care to think. The general perception is that genocide only occurs as it did in the Holocaust with gas chambers or as it did in Rwanda with machetes. The truth is that genocide can take many forms and a group or a government does not have order cement shoes in bulk to commit genocide. What are the risks our digital media could present here that could incite some form of genocide on our soil? What group could be the target?
Perhaps the digital media doesn't even have to incite genocide but criminal acts aimed at a particular group, such as the Nuremburg files which, again, was not incitement. How immediate does the act have to be to be considered incitement? Is the threshold too high? And how come the topic I was so excited to write about has become a monster with a mind of its own? C'est la vie...
My hope was to connect the International Criminal Tribunal in Rwanda (ICTR) media incitement case with digital media and incitement here in the United States; essentially bring what happened in Rwanda 17 years ago to the forefront of possibilities for incitement here. Sadly genocide is still taking place in more places that we'd care to think. The general perception is that genocide only occurs as it did in the Holocaust with gas chambers or as it did in Rwanda with machetes. The truth is that genocide can take many forms and a group or a government does not have order cement shoes in bulk to commit genocide. What are the risks our digital media could present here that could incite some form of genocide on our soil? What group could be the target?
Perhaps the digital media doesn't even have to incite genocide but criminal acts aimed at a particular group, such as the Nuremburg files which, again, was not incitement. How immediate does the act have to be to be considered incitement? Is the threshold too high? And how come the topic I was so excited to write about has become a monster with a mind of its own? C'est la vie...
Friday, February 11, 2011
FREEDOM IN EGYPT!
Egypt is free! Mubarak has stepped down and people all over the country and region are beyond jubilant!
I wish I could be there. I love a good protest and celebration. People are bringing their families, pets and even roosters to celebrate. It's amazing to watch on television.
They're calling this the "Rebirth of Egypt". In a way it is a rebirth of free speech, a rebirth of our own First Amendment. Under an oppressive regime for thirty years the people of Egypt were finally fed up and they did something about it. The people spoke and after 18 days, minimal violence given the situation, and the kill switch they have been heard not only by the former regime but around the world.
Of course we don't know what the future holds. The next government could be worse for Egypt, or for the U.S., or for both. No one knows. I choose to be optimistic that this will be a good thing not only for the Egyptian people and the world community.
Often, too often, we seem to focus on the negatives of free speech myself included. Today on the world's stage we can see the positives of being able to speak openly and freely about the government. Let freedom ring!
I wish I could be there. I love a good protest and celebration. People are bringing their families, pets and even roosters to celebrate. It's amazing to watch on television.
They're calling this the "Rebirth of Egypt". In a way it is a rebirth of free speech, a rebirth of our own First Amendment. Under an oppressive regime for thirty years the people of Egypt were finally fed up and they did something about it. The people spoke and after 18 days, minimal violence given the situation, and the kill switch they have been heard not only by the former regime but around the world.
Of course we don't know what the future holds. The next government could be worse for Egypt, or for the U.S., or for both. No one knows. I choose to be optimistic that this will be a good thing not only for the Egyptian people and the world community.
Often, too often, we seem to focus on the negatives of free speech myself included. Today on the world's stage we can see the positives of being able to speak openly and freely about the government. Let freedom ring!
Friday, February 4, 2011
And then there is love.
Christians Protecting Muslims in Egypt during prayers.
This photo has left me pleasantly speechless and grateful for digital media. I had to share.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Visibly Shaken
For class, as my classmates can attest to, we are asked to view different websites including WikiLeaks. Prior to this class I had no idea what WikiLeaks even was. Once I found out I was a bit disturbed at the prospect of our military intelligence posted on the Internet. What I just watched may have changed my mind completely.
This is the WikiLeak we were asked to look at: http://www.collateralmurder.com/
I watched the first several minutes before I had to stop. My heart is racing and I swear if the classmate I'm studying with looked at me closely, she would see that I am visibly shaking. Generally I'm not one to get shaken up over things I see. Having watch Schulberg's film from 1947 entitled "Nurnberg: It's Lessons for Today" which has only recently been released for viewing in the US on a limited basis, as well as watching various documentaries from the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda on the genocides that took place in those countries, I tend to be pretty immune to what I see. Perhaps because this video is relatively recent is why I am so shaken. Perhaps because I have friends and family who have served over in Iraq since 2003. I can't quite put my finger on what aspect has me so shaken up that I can't concentrate on my reading for class.
Part of me is so angry I could spit nails. How dare our soldiers have so little regard for human life, potential enemy or not? How dare our military claim those people died during an insurgent attack and refuse to release the footage to Routers to see for themselves how two of their employees died? Who do we think we are? No wonder the world over hates America and Americans. Good for WikiLeaks for exposing these atrocities and making our military more accountable. I think.
Most of me wants to weep for the eight men I watched being murdered by American soldiers. I could sob for them and their grieving families. I wish I could apologize to them personally and beg forgiveness even though I had nothing to do with the killing of their loved ones and have been vocally against going to war in Iraq since 2002. Somehow I feel responsible. I don't know how the people who created the snowball logic that lead to this war can sleep at night. I know I will have trouble sleeping tonight.
This is the WikiLeak we were asked to look at: http://www.collateralmurder.com/
I watched the first several minutes before I had to stop. My heart is racing and I swear if the classmate I'm studying with looked at me closely, she would see that I am visibly shaking. Generally I'm not one to get shaken up over things I see. Having watch Schulberg's film from 1947 entitled "Nurnberg: It's Lessons for Today" which has only recently been released for viewing in the US on a limited basis, as well as watching various documentaries from the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda on the genocides that took place in those countries, I tend to be pretty immune to what I see. Perhaps because this video is relatively recent is why I am so shaken. Perhaps because I have friends and family who have served over in Iraq since 2003. I can't quite put my finger on what aspect has me so shaken up that I can't concentrate on my reading for class.
Part of me is so angry I could spit nails. How dare our soldiers have so little regard for human life, potential enemy or not? How dare our military claim those people died during an insurgent attack and refuse to release the footage to Routers to see for themselves how two of their employees died? Who do we think we are? No wonder the world over hates America and Americans. Good for WikiLeaks for exposing these atrocities and making our military more accountable. I think.
Most of me wants to weep for the eight men I watched being murdered by American soldiers. I could sob for them and their grieving families. I wish I could apologize to them personally and beg forgiveness even though I had nothing to do with the killing of their loved ones and have been vocally against going to war in Iraq since 2002. Somehow I feel responsible. I don't know how the people who created the snowball logic that lead to this war can sleep at night. I know I will have trouble sleeping tonight.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
The Eruption of Egypt
One of my closest friends at law school is a young woman from Egypt. It is rather fitting given that my mother has always been fascinated by ancient Egypt; her life's dream is to visit Cairo and tour the pyramids. My Egyptian friend and I spend many hours in the car traveling between Grand Forks and Minneapolis to see our loved ones and our conversations vary from school to relationships to religion and culture. I cherish and deeply value our conversations and our friendship so when I saw online that Egypt had erupted in protests about the government I ran to find her as soon as I could. For one, she still has family in Egypt and secondly, to find out what going on that the media won't tell us.
According to her, for the last 30 years her country has been run by a dictator disguised as an "elected president." Even if you think our system is broken and your vote doesn't really count, at least we have term limits. Now Mubarak is grooming his son to run for "election", which is part of what Egyptians are protesting about. Mubarak has apparently tortured thousands of Egyptians who do not agree with his government and is most likely guilty of many other human rights violations on the international legal front. Now he's committed what most Americans would feel is one of the ultimate human rights violations: his government has cut off the Internet and cell phone service in order to squelch the protestors' ability to speak out about the Egyptian government and organize more protests.
The idea of our government being able to pull the plug on our digital and online communications scares me and angers me. Yet my more rational, legal side is left to contemplate this question: Dictator or not, is President Mubarak and the Egyptian government justified in cutting off online and cellular communication in an attempt to stop the protests from becoming violent and stabilize the country?
According to her, for the last 30 years her country has been run by a dictator disguised as an "elected president." Even if you think our system is broken and your vote doesn't really count, at least we have term limits. Now Mubarak is grooming his son to run for "election", which is part of what Egyptians are protesting about. Mubarak has apparently tortured thousands of Egyptians who do not agree with his government and is most likely guilty of many other human rights violations on the international legal front. Now he's committed what most Americans would feel is one of the ultimate human rights violations: his government has cut off the Internet and cell phone service in order to squelch the protestors' ability to speak out about the Egyptian government and organize more protests.
The idea of our government being able to pull the plug on our digital and online communications scares me and angers me. Yet my more rational, legal side is left to contemplate this question: Dictator or not, is President Mubarak and the Egyptian government justified in cutting off online and cellular communication in an attempt to stop the protests from becoming violent and stabilize the country?
Monday, January 17, 2011
Guns. Speech. Madness.
(This blog was started early Monday morning. My apologies for the delay in posting.)
The humorous part in all of this is the statement directly below "Guns. Speech. Madness." It says, "Where we go from Arizona." Perhaps because it is so early that I find this statement entertaining. Or maybe I got a little too much sun this weekend. Either way I find it funny that the media is trying to tell the American public where to go from the tragedy in Tucson given that they are being blamed to some extent for the current political climate, that which is being blamed for the actions of this madman in a Safeway parking lot. I don't appreciate this directive from the media, "Where we go from Arizona," namely because I don't think the media should be running around giving directives on public policy when their only goals are sales and ratings, not what is best for Americans as far as public policy goes. "Where we could/should go from Arizona," would have been more appropriate language in my view.
I haven't read the articles yet because I know I am going to respond viscerally to them and I'm not prepared for the intense reactions I will most likely have. Just thinking about Loughner's unanswered question that spawned so much hate infuriates me. I'm starting to believe he was not deranged, disturbed, or insane but a complete idiot who thinks he's a deep thinking intellectual that the rest of the world is not smart enough to understand, at least he was when he asked Giffords the ridiculous "what is government if words have no meaning" question.
This weekend I shall begin my quest to find U.S. cases where freedom of speech crosses the blurry line into incitement in an effort to keep up with my more intellectual classmates. Please feel free to weigh in on the cases I blog about, as I appreciate not only my classmates' feedback but also feedback from those who work in different areas than the law.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Incite, Incitement, Unstable
From Black's Law Dictionary:
Emotionally Unstable (Borderline) Personality Disorder is a condition characterized by impulsive actions, rapidly shifting moods, and chaotic relationships. The individual usually goes from one emotional crisis to another. Often there is dependency, separation anxiety, unstable self-image, chronic feelings of emptiness, and threats of self-harm (suicide or self-mutilation). This disorder is only diagnosed when these behaviors become persistent and very disabling/distressing.
Incite: To provoke or stir up (someone to commit a criminal act).
Incitement: 1. The act or an instance of provoking, urging on, or stirring up. 2. Criminal Law: The act of persuading another person to commit a crime.
From Dictionary.com:
Unstable: Marked by emotional instability
From mentalhealth.com:
Emotionally Unstable: Diagnostic Features:
Emotionally Unstable (Borderline) Personality Disorder is a condition characterized by impulsive actions, rapidly shifting moods, and chaotic relationships. The individual usually goes from one emotional crisis to another. Often there is dependency, separation anxiety, unstable self-image, chronic feelings of emptiness, and threats of self-harm (suicide or self-mutilation). This disorder is only diagnosed when these behaviors become persistent and very disabling/distressing.
U.S. Constitution - The First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances."
When our forefathers inked these words which came into effect on December 15, 1791, the Internet obviously did not exist.
If the 1st Amendment was being written to take effect on December 15, 2011, how might the language be different or would it even be different? Why or why not?
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Caught in the Crosshairs
To be honest, I'm angry about what went down in Arizona. I'm usually against the death penalty, but I think anyone who looks happy in their mugshot about killing 5 people, including a 9 year old girl, should face the ultimate punishment.
And now this is all being blamed on our media and I can't help but wonder if our media really is to blame or not. It certainly could have contributed, but what responsibility do people have to use caution in what they post on the web? I believe with great freedoms also comes great responsibility. We have the right to free speech in this country and that comes with great responsibility, especially this day and age when information can be disseminated with one click to the entire globe. While you have the right to say it, do you also have the responsibility to watch what you say given there are unstable people who would have access to websites. Did Loughner see Palin's "crosshairs" site? In his apparently "unstable" state, did that affect his decision to open fire on a member of Congress and her constituents as well as any passers by? As a public figure in the media, does Palin have a greater responsibility when she uses her 1st Amendment rights?
So when the puck drops and the bucks stops in a parking lot in Tuscon, where does freedom of speech end and personal responsibility for what is said begin?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)