What We Can and Cannot Say

I unfortunately tend to be generally apathetic on issues such as censorship and freedom of speech, simply because it seems so unsolvable to me. The benefits of censorship to those censoring are a sense of order and "healthy" limitations (by their own standards), which I can understand and relate to. However, I can also relate to those being unfairly censored. It doesn't seem right that ideas can't be thrown around, when ideas is what promotes progress - especially in the academic setting. Thus, I don't think that censorship in itself is a problem. I think the situations in which censorship is applied is when problems arise. Who gets to do it, and what is the premise? Should we hang on to freedom of speech in all circumstances in order to preserve the right; are we eating away at that right slowly through the use of censorship? Where is the line?

There have been two instances in my stay at Lipscomb when I have encountered unfair censorship. One being an article a friend of mine wrote for the Babbler about a new church our Campus Minister has started. She was so passionate about the subject and spent a great deal of time on the article only to be told that it would not be published because the church did not abide by "traditional Church of Christ doctrine" (although the church is a Church of Christ). Secondly, another instance was with the literary and arts journal Lipscomb used to publish called Exordium. Last year after submissions were in and the journal was ready for print, the university censored out the majority of the contents on flimsy grounds and the journal was left with naked pages and was not printed until the students raised enough money to unaffiliate it with Lipscomb. It still remains that way this year.

Areopagitica brought to mind so many issues that are still so prevalent today, and it's frustrating that we still haven't come to a decision on the matter. Obviously, opinions will always differ and a "decision" will never be made... but it is interesting to read a take on the issue from a historically different standpoint.

One last note - I think it's interesting that we have a "Fighting Words" doctrine (you can be arrested simply for saying offensive or lude things to police officers, basically) in the US, but we fight so strongly for our right to free speech. I understand the premise for the fighting words law, but it seems that if our constitution wants to provide protection for the right to free speech in ALL circumstances, that this law would directly contradict that. But on the contrary, the Supreme Court has upheld the fighting words doctrine since its existance from the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire case. And here we come full circle: If you want free speech, it's all or nothing. Otherwise, where does the censorship end? When is it right and when is it wrong? Who gets to decide what gets censored?

I'm telling you: unsolvable.

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

Freedom of Speech on Campuses

The issue of freedom of speech is an eternal one. Censorship occurred in ancient Greece, 1644, and today around the world. The underlying issue behind censorship is the question of who gets to be the judge of what’s allowable and what’s not? And why are we not given the choice to decide what’s morally right and what’s not? No one is incorruptible, and everyone has differing opinions of what crosses the line and what just toes the line.

The fact that Lipscomb uses a filter for the internet, and most likely censures many of its articles submitted for posting in The Babbler made me think about what other university campuses do to suppress the freedom of speech. One such article I discovered addressed the issue in a straightforward manner: “Free speech at public universities and colleges is at once the most obvious and the most paradoxical of constitutional principles.”

Students are here to get an education, to think freely and to question all. But to repress the freedom of expression is to make us into “backward scholars,” as Milton so eloquently put it. God left us the freedom of choice, and we should be allowed to choose what is right and wrong, even when presented with not so “good” material. Perhaps my favorite quote in all of Areopagitica is this: “They are not skilful considerers of human things, who imagine to remove sin by removing the matter of sin; for, besides that it is a huge heap increasing under the very act of diminishing.” By not allowing us to access or view certain materials or topics, it only encourages us to be ingenious in the way we search for it and feeds the curiosity behind it.

One university, I found, even banned the freedom of speech. In order to submit anything for print, a student would have to submit a request weeks beforehand. Universities may think they are protecting us, but the reality is, we are ADULTS and how does being on a university campus change that fact? We have adult minds, and by stifling us and treating us like children, universities are doing nothing but the opposite of what they are intended for: the repression of education.


“For opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.”



Articles I mentioned:
http://www.petesodyssey.org/node/173
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pubcollege/overview.aspx

The Limits of Freedom?

Freedom is one of the keys to American life, but it obviously must come with some sort of restraint(s). Complete freedom is anarchy, and as with anything else, too much of a good thing can quickly turn sour. Therein lies the question: Where should the line be drawn with respect to freedom? One of the issues at hand in Areopagitica is freedom of speech, but to evaluate this we must first answer the question of how much freedom (in general) is too much. Logically, one should be free to do his will unless it disturbs the safety, dignity, freedom etc. of others. With respect to speech, this line has been blurred. Libel and slander are common, even in publications of national impact. The information provided by media outlets is so thoroughly, even intentionally, biased that to read find true unadulterated news, one must interpret as if reading a foreign language. However, we may someday long for this to return.

The most recent and most pressing freedom of speech issue is that of FCC regulations on political television and talk radio shows. President Obama has at least entertained the idea of enforcing the antiquated "Fairness Doctrine" that requires radio shows to devote equal attention to both sides of an argument. This may appear at first glance to be helpful, but let's look at the underwater portion of this iceberg. This would quickly create a Big Brother-esque intimidating air about the media, which would carefully construct politically correct shows to avoid removal from the air. There is even talk of this policy being expanded: The number of liberally biased shows must be equal to the number of conservatively biased ones. What happens if you are an "extra" show for one side or the other? Bye. What if your show fails to provide the specific amount of bias required? Bye. So much for freedom of speech.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/28/first-media-bias/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/24/fairness-doctrine-fog/

Questionable Media

At first glance of Milton’s “Aeropagitica” I felt a little dizzy. But, like Jenni, I copied and pasted “Aeropagitica” into a Word document for easier reading and note-taking and this proved to be very helpful. While reading “Aeropagitica,” I could see many similarities between 1644 and 2009. The same issues are still present. How much control should government have over censoring? Should there be complete and total freedom of speech? Is libel and slander included in your Constitutional rights? The jist of it is, is where is the line drawn when dealing with freedom of speech?

One problem I see with government censoring media, such as; television, movies, radio, newspapers, or the internet is there is so much out there that would have to be screened. I think that this is just a waste of time and energy. The government should spend their efforts on something more worthwhile and leave the censoring up to the parents and authorities of children.

Sin will always be present whether or not we have questionable media. As Milton said, “evil manners are as perfectly learnt without books a thousand other ways which cannot be stopped.”

Those who want to be good will choose to be good whether or not the media around them is bad. Those people would believe, “we must not expose ourselves to temptations without necessity, and next to that, not employ our time in vain things.”

With the growing number of accessibility to internet sites and other types of media, how can we as Christians keep ourselves looking for the good media?

This YouTube video explains another great subject. . .the topic of religion in schools.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsuvjEW4UAY

I think it's crazy how the government can try to take God and Jesus out of our everyday lives and allow other malicious works into elementary schools. I don't think the government can make a decision for everyone in the country because there are so many different viewpoints. Can the government put trust in local authorities to make judgements about taboo media? How else could this problem be addressed?

censorship vs. freedom of speech

Once I had plowed my way through the forty some odd pages in Milton's Areopagitica saved in my Word document, things were beginning to make some sense.  The basic idea he was getting at was that no one man should ever be allowed to decide for the public what they can and cannot see or hear.  Not to say that people who take risks in the media or the press aren't subject to scrutiny or even the law.  It's just that on the front end, everyone should have the freedom to choose for themselves what to expose themselves to, just as those putting the information out their have freedom of speech and of the press.  As he's beginning to wrap up, Milton says this on the matter:

"And as for regulating the press, let no man think to have the honour of advising ye better than yourselves have done in that order published next before this, 'that no book be printed, unless the printer's and the author's name, or at least the printer's, be registered.' "

Here he even suggests that due credit be given, but that no control be executed to keep information from certain groups or what have you.  He thinks as I do that no man has that much authority over another that they can dictate what should or should not be viewed, heard or experienced.  He goes on, as he concludes to point a finger at the government who are the first to cover their tracks.  This is the case for any body, company, or organization that rules over another.  Milton says this:

"This I know, that errors in a good government and in a bad are equally almost incident; for what magistrate may not be misinformed, and much the sooner, if liberty of printing be reduced to the power of a few?"

Here he's trying to get across even further that even in the case of the government, censorship shouldn't be tolerated, allowing a few to make the choice for the whole.  A good example of this and how it applies today can be found in a re-airing of an episode of Saturday Night Live.  It originally aired last March containing a biting skit that directly poked fun at the corporate ownership of TV networks.  The bit is modeled after Schoolhouse Rock and its song lyrics are anything but child-like with phrases like:

"It's a media-opoly. A media-opoly The whole media's controlled by a few corporations Thanks to deregulation by the FCC"

"They can give you lots of cancer That can hurt your body But on network TV You'll rarely hear anything bad about the nuclear industry Like when Westinghouse was sued for fraud? Which time? When GE made defective bolts it was an unreported crime Or when it was boycotted for operating nuclear bomb plants just to squeeze a dime..."

"I hear GE made the bullets that shot JFK"

So it's no shock that when this whole episode re-aired in June, this cute little skit was mysteriously cut from the show, end of story.  This is a prime example of a corporate giant censoring a skit that implies they control the media...I don't think Milton would like this sort of behavior, no matter what level it's on. 

here's the link to the article about it. I'd include the link to the video of the skit, but would you believe I couldn't find it?

http://find.galegroup.com.candycorn.lipscomb.edu/ips/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C19%29censoring+the+media%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=BasicSearchForm&tabID=T003&prodId=IPS&searchId=R1&currentPosition=5&userGroupName=tel_a_beaman&docId=A20913887&docType=IAC&contentSet=IAC-Documents

To Close One Gate, While the Rest Are Wide Open

As I sat at my computer reading Milton’s Areopagitica, I tried to see connections between this work from the 17^th century and my life today. Yes, freedom of speech is and always will be an issue, and yes, the amount of government involvement in anything will always be an issue up for debate. I think that Milton’s points are still very relevant in today’s society. He argued that if the government was going to monitor authors’ works of writing, they needed to also monitor every other type of personal expression, which of course is impossible.

For if they fell upon one kind of strictness, unless their care were equal to regulate all other things of like aptness to corrupt the mind, that single endeavour they knew would be but a fond labour: to shut and fortify one gate against corruption, and be necessitated to leave others round about wide open.

I am writing something that in a few minutes will be available for anyone with internet access to read. How do we limit what is posted on the internet? Should the government monitor every site and every bit of information? We all know that the internet can be a good thing as well as a bad thing, so should the bad things simply be deleted or prohibited? As Milton says, like Adam, we have fallen into the doom “of knowing good and evil, that is to say of knowing good by evil.”

In 1998, a law was passed called the Child Online Protective Act (COPA). This law made making any communication for commercial purposes that could be considered harmful to minors a crime, unless there was a legitimate business reason to communicate. The penalty for violating this law was up to $50,000 a day. Immediately after it was passed, the law was contested on grounds of violating the First Amendment. The law never went into effect, and ten years after being passed was finally declared unconstitutional. There are still debates about whether the internet should have certain standards and censors, and it is obviously a difficult question to answer since it took 10 years to settle the constitutionality of this one law.

Since the internet is a fairly new invention, it is still continually changing and progressing. Just as Milton believed that censoring books was in violation of freedoms of speech, is censoring the internet in violation of the First Amendment? Should anyone be able to put anything on the internet, or should we have standards for protection and morality?

Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.

What are we doing...

Reading the article "Why the Devil Takes Visa" made me think about what exactly Americans are doing with the money we have. The amount of money we spend on needless things is astonishing. Credit cards have only added to this problem by allowing people to spend money they don't even have. What if we spent they money in ways that benefit others instead of ourselves?

Here are some statistics that bring this problem to light:

Top 5 Alarming World Poverty Statistics:

5. More than 800 million people suffer from malnutrition.

4. The United States spends 0.16% of its budget on aid to poor countries, the second lowest percentage among all developed countries.

3. A worker in Bangladesh making garments for Disney would have to work 210 years in order to earn what Disney’s CEO gets paid in one hour.

2. 35,000 children a day die from diseases related to malnutrition, or 1 every 2 seconds.

1. Over three billion people (roughly half the world’s population) live on less than two dollars a day.

Other Random Statistics

Only 15% of Americans report that they would be satisfied with a comfortable middle-class lifestyle.

The average American consumes 5 times more than a Mexican, 10 times more than a Chinese person, and 30 times more than someone from India.

Think about these statistics along with the quote from the original text:

"Never turn away the needy; share all your possessions with your brother, and do not claim that anything is your own. If you and he are joint participators in things immortal, how much more so in things that are mortal?"

Is it up to America give to other countries? And is there a way to do that while also giving them the opportunity to be prosperous on their own? I wonder what would happen if Lipscomb students were told they had to live on $2 a day. True a good number of us will spend a week to ten days "being Jesus" to impoverished people and serving them and seeing how they live. But after that short time we will come back to the comforts of our lives here and rarely think about what it would be like to live like those people live. I don't want to take anything away from all the good that will be done over Spring Break but how much more could we do if we stopped spending on the stuff that we don't need.

Why have we become so accustomed to spending so much money on needless things when there are millions of people going without the daily necessities? And what are we going to go now, where do we go from here in order to change those statistics? We would have to stop focusing on ourselves our greed and focus on others who have needs we cannot even imagine.




http://disciplineforjustice.blogspot.com/2007/04/wake-up-and-smell-numbers.html