1st amendment – Page 6 – Media Matters

October 21, 2010

NPR fires Juan Williams over comments about Muslims

Last evening National Public Radio fired commentator Juan Williams for a comment he made on Fox News. Williams was being interviewed by Bill O’Reilly when he admitted to feeling “worried” and “nervous” when flying with people dressed in Muslim garb. For the remainder of the interview Williams defended the Muslim faith against those who failed to distinguish moderate Muslims from extremists.

You can watch a segment about the initial comment, and the aftermath, on YouTube.

Juan Williams responded to his firing in an essay posted at Fox News, his new employer. You can read it here.

Here’s a quote from his statement…

Now that I no longer work for NPR let me give you my opinion. This is an outrageous violation of journalistic standards and ethics by management that has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas or a diversity of staff (I was the only black male on the air). This is evidence of one-party rule and one sided thinking at NPR that leads to enforced ideology, speech and writing. It leads to people, especially journalists, being sent to the gulag for raising the wrong questions and displaying independence of thought.

October 6, 2010

Supreme Court Wrestles with Despicable Speech

We all know that most speech is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. There are a few exception, e.g., obscenity, defamation (libel and slander), and incitement to imminent lawless action. But the general consensus is that the First Amendment also protects crazy and hateful ideas like those espoused by Fred Phelps, who, with his small group of followers, pickets military funerals and spews hateful rhetoric about military deaths being divine retribution for America’s tolerance of gays.

In Snyder v. Phelps, the father of a slain soldier is asking the Supreme Court to rule against Phelps and speech that includes the waving signs outside the funerals of a fallen serviceman that proclaim, “God Hates America” and “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”

The road to the Supreme Court involved decisions both for and against Phelps.
Snyder sued Phelps and his followers for “defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Snyder was awarded nearly $11M in damages in the original court case. Phelps appealed and the damages were reduced to $5M. Then a federal appellate court overturned the decision, thus setting up the battle in the Supreme Court.

Support for the families of fallen soldiers is widespread among veterans groups. Also, politicians from both the right and the left have spoken out in favor of a ruling that would restrict this sort of speech. However, there are plenty of folks, e.g., the ACLU and most media companies, on the other side of the issue who are holding their noses while voicing support for a decision that would allow Phelps and his followers to continue their antics.

Whose side are YOU on?

September 8, 2010

Book Burning, the 1st Amendment, and Global Media

In case you haven’t heard, a pastor of a small church in Florida is planning to burn copies of the Qur’an on Saturday, the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The thing that makes this isolated incident the focus of our attention is that media attention is turning this into a global news story that will be seen by millions of Muslims around the world. And what they see will likely inflame passionate anger directed at the US. The Qur’an is a book, and books are a form of media. So in one sense this is a media story about media coverage of an act that involves the desecration of a media artifact.

Burning patriotic or religious symbols is nothing new. Flags and effigies of heads-of-state are commonly burned to send strong messages of disapproval to the “other side.” In America, the 1st Amendment’s protection of free speech specifically protects these kinds of political acts and we have a long history of protecting speech that is highly offensive. And while no one is debating the “right” of this pastor and his congregants to burn the Qur’an, many are critical of his decision to do something that will be seen as an extremely offensive act to millions of Muslims around the world. Much like the discussion of the mosque proposed for construction near Ground Zero, the right to proceed is not in question, but the appropriateness of the act certainly is. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and General Petraeus have publicly condemned the proposed burning and have asked the pastor to reconsider. General Petraeus went to far as to say that the burning will endanger the lives of US soldiers in Afghanistan.

Book burning has a long and sordid history of its own…but to fully understand the gravity of this situation one needs to understand the esteem that Muslims have for their sacred scripture. In 2005 a firestorm of controversy erupted in Muslim countries when it was reported that a copy of the Qur’an was flushed down a toilet in the process of interrogating an enemy combatant at Gitmo. While the Pentagon has been unable to find credible evidence that the desecration took place, the response was rioting that led to many deaths. If the book burning takes place this Saturday, the response may make the 2005 riots look like child’s play.

Of course, without media coverage this isolated incident would happen in a vacuum. Just like a tree falling in an empty forest, the silence would be deafening. But that is not the case in a world of 24/7 news coverage with instantaneous global reach. Secretary of State Clinton asked the media to deny coverage as an act of patriotism, but she knows that won’t happen. The Associated Press quoted Secretary Clinton as saying,

“It is regrettable that a pastor in Gainesville, Fla., with a church of no more than 50 people can make this outrageous and distrustful, disgraceful plan and get the world’s attention, but that’s the world we live in right now,” Clinton said. “It is unfortunate, it is not who we are.”

So what do you think? Is this a case where the 1st Amendment goes too far, protecting speech that does not deserve protection? Or is this the very essence of the kind of political protest that the Founding Fathers so passionately intended to protect?

April 21, 2010

Should Portrayals of Animal Cruelty be Protected?

I have a documentary about fly fishing that airs on RMPBS this Monday (April 26th, 9:30pm). Thanks to yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling I may have to worry about PETA picketing my show for depictions of cruelty to trout, but I won’t have to worry about serving jail time. Even though the featured fly fishermen practice catch and release, there may be instances of temporary pain or emotional distress on the part of the trout.

Okay, that was a rather light-hearted beginning to a very serious blog about a very serious issue. Animal cruelty is wrong and, in many cases, illegal. But not always. In Spain bull fighting is a highly revered cultural tradition that, according to the Humane Society, kills about 250,000 bulls each year. People often differ as to what constitutes cruelty to animals. Few people argue in support of the kind of dog fighting that led to the conviction and sentencing of Michael Vick. On the other hand, sport hunting is big business and has a many supporters and advocates.

Perhaps the most vocal opposition to animal cruelty is when it is directed at animals typically regarded as pets. Many years ago the Bonsai Kitten website created an uproar that persisted even after the site was revealed as satire. In this case it was a joke, in poor taste perhaps, but only a joke.

A few years ago, however, reports surfaced of a Chinese woman who stomped a kitten to death with stiletto heals. The New York Times described it as follows:

The short video made its way around China’s Web in early 2006, passed on through file sharing and recommended in chat rooms. It opens with a middle-aged Asian woman dressed in a leopard-print blouse, knee-length black skirt, stockings and silver stilettos standing next to a riverbank. She smiles, holding a small brown and white kitten in her hands. She gently places the cat on the tiled pavement and proceeds to stomp it to death with the sharp point of her high heel.

Apparently there is an underground market for fetish “crush” videos in which women in high heels crush all manner of lifeforms–from bugs to, yes, kittens.

The reason this is back in the news is that the US Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision yesterday, struck down a 1999 law against animal cruelty that, according to the Court, was written too vaguely. The ruling overturned the conviction of Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Virginia. Stevens is, according to Newsweek, a self-described dog trainer, author, and documentarian, had been charged with violating interstate commerce laws by selling depictions of animal cruelty through his business. According to the Court the law used to convict Stevens could have infringed on hunting videos. Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.

What do you think? Should First Amendment protection apply to despicable depictions of animal cruelty?

March 24, 2010

What Have We Become?

Sociologists, psychologists and others who study popular culture have been lamenting the decline of civil discourse for decades. Recent events have brought to light disturbing behavior that will, once again, become fodder for those of us who wonder about the role that media plays in the coarsening of communication.

First up, a text message exchange that led to the brutal beating of a 15-year-old female middle school student in Florida. According to the Washington Post, a 15-year-old male is being charged with premeditated attempted murder of his 15-year-old victim after repeatedly punching and stomping her with steel-toed boots. The boy’s 13-year-old girlfriend is being charged as an accomplice for pointing out the victim. This was necessary because the accused had never met his victim before the assault. But they HAD exchanged text messages in which the victim voiced disapproval of the relationship between the two accused teens. According to reports, the text exchange may have also included a reference to the fact that the boy’s older brother had recently committed suicide.

This past week has also seen passage of historic domestic legislation that will have enormous consequence for future generations. As Vice President Joe Biden exclaimed on live TV, it’s a “big f***ing deal.” The Health Care Reform Bill passed by congress and signed into law by President Obama has been hotly debated and continues to generate strong passions on the part of supporters and those who oppose the bill. Some of those who oppose the bill have been accused of yelling racial epitaphs at members of congress and spitting on one member. ABC News has reported that the name calling on twitter has degenerated into calls for Obama’s assassination. According to ABC,

Another Twitter user who called himself THHEE_JAY and was identified as Jay Martin, tweeted “You Should be Assassinated!! @Barack Obama.”

Martin, who is black, followed his tweet, writing “If I lived in DC. I’d shoot him myself. Dead f***ing serious.”

Both of these instances offer sad commentary on the current state of human nature. But they also highlight the somewhat frightening tendency for online communication to quickly degenerate into exchanges that cross the line of what is acceptable in other contexts. If and when online conversations spill over into real-life actions we reap the tragic consequences.

October 29, 2008

Free Speech or Hate Crime?

Trick or Treaters in West Hollywood, CA may be shocked to find an effigy of Sarah Palin part of the seasonal decorations at the home of Chad Michael Morrisette. A likeness of John McCain is displayed in the chimney surrounded by flames. While some say that it is simply a visual prank, others are calling it a hate crime that should be removed. National media and the blogosphere have begun to take note and according to the LA Times, MSNBC television host Keith Olbermann on Monday gave his “worst person in the world” award to Morrisette. “This is not the spirit of Halloween, sir,” Olbermann said. “It is the spirit of violence.”

The LA Times story goes on to report on local law enforcement’s reaction. “The sheriff made this clear: This is a country that has freedom of speech, and we protect that right even when we think it’s idiotic and stupid and in bad taste,” said Steve Whitmore, spokesman for the Sheriff’s Department. “If it is nonviolent and doesn’t cause any problems, then they have the right to do it.”

Some have questioned whether a double standard is at work for those who argue that this is simply a free speech issue. To emphasize their point, they question the national response had the effigy been of Obama instead of Palin.

The website includes an online poll asking readers to weigh in on whether the display should be removed. As of Oct 29, respondents to the poll voted 82% in favor of removal of the display. What do you think?

February 16, 2008

Robocalls and the 1st Amendment

The State of Colorado just shelved legislation that would have restricted robocalls. SB-146, which would have banned most robocalls in Colorado, was killed in committee but may be resurrected next year. In case you haven’t had the pleasure of experiencing a robocall first hand, they are the computer generated phone calls that typically are used to conduct surveys and polls, or to disseminate a political message (often attempting to sound like a poll). And robocalls, like email spam, are cheap. According to USA Today, “A robo-calling operation may consist of little more than a personal computer hooked to a DS3 telephone line, which can make 672 calls simultaneously and costs less than $100 per month.”

If you are registered with the “Do Not Call” list you are already protected from commercial phone solicitations, be they made by a person or a computer. But robocalls for non-commercial messages are different…currently there is no opt-out mechanism. In the last couple of years about 9,000 complaints about these automated calls were logged by the office of the Colorado State Attorney General.

Critics of robocalls complain about personal privacy and the intrusive nature of phone calls that interrupt meals and family time at home. But there is another side that should be considered. Political surveys, polls, and other non-commercial messages will be severely restricted if this legislation goes through. Should the First Amendment rights of political parties, local charities, and other not-for-profit entities be curtailed in the interest of personal convenience? While it’s true that telephones have historically been for personal, not public, communication, phones today are much more than that. For now we’ve got some time to reconsider the implications of this legislative action.