Slashdot Mirror
2004 Jefferson Muzzle Awards
un1xl0ser writes "The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression has released the muzzle awards for people who forgot that "free speech can not be limited without being lost". Check out the 2004 "winners". Famous winners include The U.S. Department of Defense and CBS."
They're not on the list yet, but after the Janet-boob incident and yanking Howard Stern off their stations, I'm guessing they should be in the running for the 2004s. I half expected them to be there, then remember this was last year.
If he hasn't already, John Ashcroft deserves an honorary trophy all for himself.
My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street
Clear Channel does not belong on the list for exercising its free speech rights. The New York Times chooses what to print or not to print in its own paper (that is freedom of the press). The same applies to Clear Channel.
This little event probably occured too late to make the nominations. Oh well, there's always next year. Story at CNN opens in a new window.
"Congress shall make no law..."
The requisite IANAL applies, but doesn't the first amendment only apply to the government? Yes, corporations are filled with greedy scumbags, but can't they technically do all the "muzzling" they want under applicable law? Doesn't mean it's right, but it is what it is.
Please don't flame - I'd like to be corrected if I am mistaken.
CBS and Baseball Hall of Fame do not belong on the list.
CBS did nothing but exercise control over its own content. Doing such is the heart of freedom of the press.
The Baseball guy did something similar.
They are a private entity! IT IS THEIR CHOICE TO RUN OR NOT RUN PROGRAMMING/ADVERTISEMENTS.
Free Speech can only be curtailed by the government.
Some people should actually try to READ the constitution before they try to apply it.
----(o)----
When it comes to speaking your mind about almost anything, few countries or people have it as good as the people of the United States, even in this post-September 11 world.
I get annoyed, however, at people, most notably the cults of personalities we call celebrities, who think that they have a right to make their words and comments louder or have them deemed more important than others. Two words: Barbra Streisand. Another two words: Jane Fonda. Look, I'm glad the two of you have an opinion, but just because you make millions in Hollywood and have played many roles in film doesn't give you any more credibility than the guy who slaves all day for his family.
Another problem I have is how some people think that Free Speech is a one-way thing, as if they can say what they want without criticism. The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines learned this lesson the hard way. True, as an American on our soil you are free to express an opinion. However, the Americans who are listening to you are also free to react to your opinion by counter-comment, or even just to ignore what you said. In the case of Ms. Maines, some folks decided that they would ignore her group's album for a while.
Free speech always costs somebody something. My feeling is that the Right of Free Speech wouldn't be worth anything if you didn't lose something as you exercised your right.
Free speech is self-correcting as well. That is its true power. The very existance of Slashdot, and of the web article that spawned this topic is an example of the balance that true Free Speech maintains.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Does Free Speech have any real meaning outside of the context of government?
e.g. if I work at McDonalds and get fired for saying Ray Kroc was a male slut, is that an imposition on "free speech"... or just my speech, in proper context?
When a government commission like the FCC starts making moral pronouncements it motivates me to political action. When a private company does it, whether their motivation is political or not, I don't care. I cannot concieve of how CBS limiting its employees' speech in the context of work affects my ability to speak freely.
This list means nothing. Your freedoms and right to free speech and expression haven't changed or been suppressed because of these "awards". Finding a bunch of wrong-headed decisions and disagreeable actions by private individuals, corporations, and some members of government doesn't mean censorship is creeping up on society.
You can laugh and point at these examples, but as a free person in America, you can "censor" anything and anyone you don't like. I wouldn't let my kids read Playboy, is this Jefferson Center going to come after me for censoring them?
Slashdot Moderation: From positive to terrible in 2 "insightful" posts.
US TV censorship amazes me.
I recall watching Godfather on US tv last year. When Michael Corleone's Italian wife takes her top off, revealing her breasts they were all pixelated, to prevent us from becoming disturbed.
About three minutes later, Sonny Corleone gave his brother-in-law Carlo a severe beating with, amongst other things a trashcan.
We got to see that unedited...
Moral : Violence good, boobies bad.
I like America, but is a weird country.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
First, The Reagans was pure trash. I think the only thing that was factually right about where the names of the characters. Otherwise it came across as an attempt to rewrite history. CBS did as any big corporate entity that relies on customers would do, they marketed to a different consumer through a different channel.
MOVEON.ORG. Nothing more than a dodge of campaign finance laws. This group received so much bad press for what they "didn't allow - but had anyway" that I doubt anyone would touch their ads. CBS exercised its freedom of speech by keeping the superbowl ads as people expected them. CBS is consumer driven, not ideaology driven (unless you count Dan Rather and his "news" program - but its ratings aren't so great)
The real censorship going on now is the over zealous FCC. Government censorship is what needs to be addressed. What CBS did is not the result of anything the government was doing - it was reacting to market forces.
What the FCC is doing is entirely something else. Nothing prevents people from changing the channel. However a few zealots, on both sides of the aisle, in both the FCC and Congress are using Janet's exposure to score points and settle grudges.
If this organization (TJC) was serious they would realize the major difference here.
As for Howard, he is trying to save a sinking ship so it is to be expected he would claim persecution. He only has to look into the mirror to see who really is the source of his problems. The FCC is just piling on.
In Atlanta we lost the "The Regular Guys" because CC is now afraid of the FCC. Considering the size of the fines the FCC is throwing around I consider that to be the same as violating the 1st Amendment. Regulating something to the point of unaffordability is the same as stifling it.
Write your Congressman, NO E-MAIL - WRITE A REAL LETTER, and tell them your distaste for the current FCC actions.
Who is your Representative? Go here http://www.vote-smart.org/
If you just have to use e-mail
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Every single one of the award 'winners' was a conservative or someone showing concern for a 'conservative' point of view other than the school that was trying to ban the NRA t-shirt.
Another example of the Leftist sway of slashdot.
Clinton made me a Republican. Bush made me a Libertarian. Trump is making me question reality.
I beleive the parent was making the point that someone wearing an NRA shirt shouldn't be censored either.
What religious views are you talking about that have been supressed? If the example is things like the Ten Commandments monuments you are wrong. Government display of such things constitutes an endorsment of religion which is prohibited. Where has a private citizen ever had their right to religious expression violated?
I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I'd like examples. If so, yes the people censoring them are deserve to be on that list.
If you think a shirt with anythig written on it can make you afraid then you need a backbone. Nobody can make you fear them it's your choice. Removing one persons choice to make another person not have to choose it tyranny plain and simple. If the kid does something or says something thats an action and the school should deal with that action as harshly as nessicary but you should never stop them from making whatever statement they want. I will strangle your mother is an overt threat it's talking about an action. I gun is a tool not an action, yes a lot of people that have been living happaly in there safe envirment dont like guns. Guns are tools that can be used to kill yes that is fact. And where do you draw the line when I was in school I was 240 lbs and 5 7 in 5th grade was I intimidating sure, should I have been expeled because I was intemidating by your logic yes because I might intimidate your child.
Everybody should have the right to express themselves up to the point of threatning others directly. Those shirts threaten nobody directly and nobody in particular. Schools are a place to learn and grow up part of growing up is learning to not be afraid. Freedom from fear has to be learned it cant be given.
No sir I dont like it.
...by as many people are willing to listen to them. If you think that too many people are willing to listen to celebrities then criticise those people, not the celebrities.
"free speech can not be limited without being lost"
Sounds nice. On the other hand, Germany has been limiting the speech of anti-semitic hate-mongers for 50 years precisely to prevent losing freedom to another Hitler again. Do keep in mind that he was elected into office solely through the power of his and his supporters' voices.
Does that mean that Germans have no freedom of speech? Heck no. As Eric Cartman knows well, there are things published in Germany that would never get past US obscenity censors. But maybe these obscenity controls in the US mean that Americans have no free speech either.
How about my freedom to denounce all my neighbors as pedophiles, terrorists and drug addicts? Hey, you're free not to believe me after the third wrong call - and the neighbors will get their kids back from the foster home in a couple of years - so what's the problem? Absolutely unfettered freedom of speech is obviously more important. Right?
A working democracy is considerably more complicated than simply settling on a certain set of absolutes and then sticking to them. The limits of freedom need to be constantly discussed by an interested populace, or else misuse of the limits or the freedom may destroy society.
Democracies founder as soon as a majority of citizens tunes out. So let's keep talking about this.
So, what is it? Are you kidding, stupid, or did you just not read the article?
In this particular case, the tshirt was relevant to the shooting sports. It bore the same type of silhouettes used at the Olympics to denote shooting events. (You are aware, aren't you, that shooting is an Olympic sport, with a number of events?)
In what idiotic alternate universe does wearing a tshirt that promotes legitimate, competitive sports get confused with "...a classmate (acting) as though they might shoot people..." or "...glorify(ing) violence..." or "...intimidating clothing..."?
A musket is a historical weapon that has no relevence to today. What about all of the school mascots with Roman spears or Tomahawks?
Tell that to the high-school kids in metal shop making primitive weapons that work just fine in gang warfare.
These things are symbols for us because at one time they were part of our values. Perhaps the politically correct find a Roman with a spear less violent. I do not..
Here is what I am trying to say, the school has a policy about glorifying violence. Intimidating clothing is part of it.
There are far more intimidating things done and worn by kids in school, and more-likely to happen than bringing an assault weapon to school. There are also certainly more single-shot hard-to-load weapons carried to school than assault weapons.
No one is going to put on a tricorn hat and go on a school rampage with a muzzle loader. So your argument is baloney.
So as long as they have a tricorn hat with their weaponry it is ok, because no one would wear a tricorn hat when killing people? Your argument makes so much more sense now :-)
However, people wearing shirts with the silhouette of a modern firearm might just be considered a intimidating. Our children go to school to learn, not be intimidated by classmates that act as though they might shoot people, or glorify violence with their fourteen year old understanding of the world. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you have some children before your reply, it might change your attitude.
I have children in school, and they have been repeatedly harassed by bullys, but never with an assault weapon. Taking the symbols off of their shirts seems like just removing the warning label, if it indeed was indicative of violent tendencies at all. It sounds like this school's approach is very superficial.
Should the school also allow shirts that say "I will strangle your mother if you look at me again"? After all, in this country you can say and express what you want!
No. That would seem to be a clear threat.
But they should be required to provide evidence that a musket-carrying soldier is an order of magnitude less intimidating than an assault weapon. Perhaps they should eliminate the problem and get rid of violent sports like football altogether, and other things that contribute to the jock mentality that seems to cause actual bullying and be rid of the violent mascots at the same time.
See?
I see that the problem and hypocracy remains.
In any society, even a free one, there is a responsibility, and a line to be drawn. Even in America there is a line. The line is a lot deeper than most countries, but there is still a line. That is to let other people live with freedom from tyranny, oppression, religion, and fear. Remember those?
Yes. But drawing the line will always be arbitrary, and obvious hypocricy such as this does not make the system credible.
I would give a different message in school. I am not sure what eliminating the symbols of modern weapons in schools does.
Anti-war speech is as likely to refer to symbols of violence as the pro-war neo-conservatives, as well as the traditional conservatives, who don't shoot anyone but believe that popular sovereinty includes the right to self defense.
Many are taught that the cross is a symbol of hatred, and most other symbols, too have roots in issues that are violent in nature. This is why crosses, muslim scarves, and other symbols were banned in schools in France. How did you arrive at the conclusion that your line is responsible, and that of others, who consider it unjustified abridgement of free speech, are not?
1) Rush Limbaugh, ESPN;
2) Trent Lott, US Senate/US mainstream media;
3) Dr. Laura Schlessinger, gay-right groups;
4) Conservative faulty & speakers, every college campus;
5) Bernard Goldberg, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller.
6) Ann Coulter, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller.
7) Sean Hannity, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller.
8) Al Franken, oh wait, nevermind.
I look forward to seeing how the /. mods view censorhip here.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The South Carolina House of Representatives Again, they may have been wrong, but they didn't inhibit anyone's right to free speech.
The other two complaints aside, the SC HoR most definitely deserved the reward. They committed one of the most blatantly offensive acts by not only censuring the Dixie Chicks for expressing a constitutionally protected political viewpoint, but actually caused financial harm to the Dixie Chicks by forcing them to perform a concert for the US armed forces at no charge.
From the article: Just one week after Maines' statement, South Carolina State Representative Catherine Ceips introduced a House Resolution calling upon the Dixie Chicks to publicly apologize for the statement and perform a free concert for American troops stationed in South Carolina when the group began a tour in Greenville, South Carolina on May 1st. The Resolution called the comments "unpatriotic," "unnecessary," and "anti-American." The measure passed the House on a 50-35 vote.
Just how exactly is using government authority to financially harm individuals that engage in "unpatriotic" but constitutionally protected speech not deserving?
IMO, they are one of the most deserving recipients of the award.
The only party I thought was not deserving of the award was the Arizona State License Commission, who denied a pro-life group who wanted to make a specialty license plate that read "Choose Life". The reason why they are undeserving of this reward is that government has the ability to supress a religious or moral point of view if the message might be perceived as being government sponsored.
If I were driving behind a car with a license plate that said "Choose Life - Arizona", I most certainly would believe that the message was government sponsored and would be offended that my tax dollars were paying to propogate a special interest's moral and religious beliefs. Therefore the Arizona State License Commission was in their rights to ban the offending plates.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
As far as South Carolina goes, the problem is that they, as a governmental body, passed a resolution demanding an apology. In other words, they demanded that she say certain things that she did not want to say. That would be governmental limitation on the freedom of speech.
1) Rush Limbaugh, ESPN
Rush was fired due to the fact that ESPN's viewers simply didn't like him - that and the fact that he was a cruddy commentator. He was hardly "censored". One only has to tune in to one of the five bazillion stations he's broadcast on for hours a day to see this.
Trent Lott, US Senate/US mainstream media
Uhh... the guy said that our country would be better off under uber-kook Strom Thurmond's love of segregation. He was rightly pilloried for saying something incredibly stupid. The First Amendment also includes the right to protest when somebody says something hateful. Lott (inadvertendly, perhaps) condoned segregation, and paid the price for it. That's not censorship - that's free speech in action.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger, gay-right groups - see Trent Lott. Free speech also means people can protest your words.
Conservative faulty & speakers, every college campus
EVERY college campus? Even this one?
Bernard Goldberg, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller.
I never heard of this, so I'll keep quiet...
Ann Coulter, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller
Ignoring the fact that Coulter writes complete fiction on a third grade level, I do recall seeing her on Larry King and Fox News numerous times. This allegation is simply not true. Besides - the book was a best-seller. How can that be censorship?
Sean Hannity, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller
The guy has a book, a radio show, and a TV show. I don't think he's in any danger of being censored...
Al Franken, oh wait, nevermind
Yeah. Nevermind that FOX News tried to have his book banned. Of course, the case was laughed out of court.
The school bus driver who puts Howard Stern on the radio when children are on the bus and the principal who allows him to be played in the schoolyard both need to be fired. I can't control whether a teacher plays porno tapes in class but I have a reasonable expectation that it won't happen without having to make porn illegal for everyone.
.. kids are going to hear and see bad stuff and parenting is not about burying your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist, it's about teaching them how to tell the good from the bad.
I have kids and I don't need the government or the FCC or the religious right to raise them. I've got that covered, thanks just the same. Guess what
In any case, notwithstanding the fact that ClearChannel is firmly in bed with the Bush camp and yanked Stern just days after he became critical of Bush, the issue is not with them. They have every right to make a business decision to broadcast or not broadcast whatever they like. Their listeners will vote with their radio dials.
The real issue is the selective enforcement by the FCC and the lack of any clear and objective standard as to what is indecent. Stern is positively tame compared to some of the things that Oprah has broadcast but somehow she is immune because she's considered "educational" or because "she does good things". If there were clear and unambiguous guidelines as to what constituted indecency, Stern would follow them. As it is, the FCC seem to make the rules up as they go along and enforce them selectively and often retroactively. The latest round of fines against Stern were for a broadcast that occurred three years ago! And in case nobody noticed, he's been doing the same show for over 20 years. What made the FCC suddenly sit up and take notice? Plus these charges would never stand up in court; the FCC makes sure that never happens by threatening huge fines and non-renewal of broadcast licenses. The broadcasters have no choice but to cave in. If this is constitutional it's a sad day for America.
From an AP article about this, it says that CBS was cited:
for acts of self-censorship
Come on, folks, self-censorship is not bad. If I am very angry at someone and want to say or do something harmful to them, but decide not to at the last moment, I have censored myself. That's called self-control. If I decide something is not good and not constructive and decide not to do it, or in this case not to air it, how is that a dishonorable thing?
Clear Channel is (apparently) the largest broadcasting donator to Dubya's campaign, and he feels that pressure was probably put on them to yank him off the air.
I don't really understand this argument. Companies give money to politicians so the politicians will do what the companies want. If there was really that much pressure put on Clear Channel by the Bush Administration, why wouldn't Clear Channel just stop donating money to the Bush campaign? It doesn't make sense to me to bribe (sorry, donate) someone if you have to do what they tell you. Maybe I am naive
How could they leave out a law that prohibits groups from the NRA to NARAL from broadcasting "any mention or likeness of a candidate including issues that can be identified with a specific candidate" 30 days before a primary, 60 days before an election. For Petes sake, this is the biggest bite out of the first amendment since the last sedition act.
---Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.