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
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.
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 my friend does not make sense. Newspapers are not and should not be regulated in the same way as radio and television broadcast. The reason is the radio and television frequency spectrum is regulated by the FCC because it is a limited resource. You see you cannot just broadcast a radio show because you don't have a frequency to broadcast on (try it and you'll end up being arrested). However you are free to create a new Newspaper and distribute as you see fit.
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.
Err. No. There was one protecting the rights of a kid who wanted to advertise his NRA membership; another defending a child who handed out Christian religious messages at school; the CBS TV is bipartisan; another supporting a Christian message on a sponsored float at a state fair; another supporting a pro-life group.
Pro-life, prayer in schools and handgun ownership. Well known opinions of the left.
Your, sir, are a cretin.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
...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.
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
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.