Slashdot Mirror
2005 Jefferson Muzzle Awards
WaldoJ writes "The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression has announced the 'winners' of their annual Jefferson Muzzle awards, given to those individuals or organizations who have abridged individuals' right to free expression. The dubious honor goes to the Department of Homeland Security, The Motion Picture Classification and Rating Administration, the FCC, and NASCAR, among others."
[the contents of this post have been censored]
I visited several protester sites, and several of them claimed that their goal was to "shut down" the conventions. Given that they were out to deny someone's rights and disrupt their meeting, some sort of separation was warranted. Maybe not as extreme, but something needed to be done to stop those who were out to "shut down" the peaceable assembly of those who did not share their opinions.
I have no problem with protests, except when they are trying to disrupt or silence someone else's speech or event.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Jefferson was a little to the middle (at the time) on many issues including slavery. Another great founding father and the original American *geek* who decided to send a message about liberty was Benjamin Franklin:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
This pretty much sums up many frustration moods in the post 9-11 America.
Here's a link to Indymedia's shut down the convention! page. I guess these Indymedia guys have a right to hold whatever event they want unmolested, but those who do not have Indymedia's opinions do not have any such right. The idea of "shutting down" a meeting you do not like is (or should be considered) quite un-American.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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.
Wonder if they've updated that layout since 1995.
I think it's a shame Michael Sims was passed over this time around.
If I wanted to see boobies on the internet I wouldn't be reading slashdot for it anyway.
All the famous dumbshits, you know who provides them their superior soapbox from which promote their message, THE FUCKING FREE MARKET. Don't like it? Move to China. This is actually a feature (and not in the marketing-speak sense) of the market. It let's us, the consumers, collectively evaluate how much they deserve their privilage, and whether or not we should reconsider our decisions.
Conflict and bullshit are the norm because that's what people want to see. That's what they want to buy. And until that changes, tough fucking luck.
For just a second there, I thought this might be about muzzle loaders, gun enthusiasts, etc.
Basically, the two statements were ones that you introduced in your posting. They were not in the parents. I'm not interested in your new creations: feel free to evaluate them yourself.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Agreed. I always considered Jefferson a highly overrated hyporcite due to his support for slavery, and I always looked up to Ben Franklin instead.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
The cited indymedia page has how many suggestions of an actual attempt to shut down the convention?
0
That's right folks, the expression was in jest.
What's not a joke are Free Speech Zones everywhere our fearless leader goes.
Thanks for playing our game!
One of their muzzles concerns Tariq Ramadan. There are two sides to every story, and the article is just a whitewash.
The group that his grandfather founded is the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization that not only spawned offshoots in many countries, but assassinated Anwar Sadat of Egypt for making peace with Israel among other less notorious acts.
There are many allegations of extremist statements such as: Osama Bin Laden was not behind 9/11, 9/11 was an "intervention", the praise of the genocidal Hasan Al-Turabi (the head of the Sudanese government), and more. He was also barred from entering France for suspicion of collaboration with Algerian Islamists.
So to recap, he has close familial ties with the oldest terrorist organization in the mid-east, he has made many extremeist political statements, and he was barred from entry into foreign country not known for being pro-US before. Couple that with the fact that denying someone a visa does not require the same level of proof as convicting someone of a crime, and I would have to say at least that it is not miscarriage of justice to deny this man a visa.
E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
My wife noticed something when I read her the bit about NASCAR - the reason he probably was penalized as harshly as he was, was because he essentially said that winning 5 races at Talladega was no big deal. Her thought was that NASCAR was more than a little pissed that he essentially said that winning 5 races was not that tough, which lessens NASCAR.
Just a thought.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
Ben was an incredible man. I think they should teach about him in school a lot more. How he rose from not much to owning printing shops up and down the east coast and into the Carribean to selling them when he was about 40 and became a full time inventor. He even invented the lightning rod that is put on top of buildings amoung many other things. He didn't patent it because he said it was too important to take a chance that someone couldn't afford it for his gain. On the downside he really knew how to entertain the ladies. So much so it is a wonder he didn't cause an international incident.
Temporary safety that he was referring to is more like "gun control" movements today. The more gun control you have the less control over guns you have. More guns == less crime. Fewer guns == more crime. They felt so strongly about that they wrote it into the Constitution as the 2nd Ammendment. This is further backed up by the Federalist papers that clearly show they ment it as an individual right along with all of the other 1st 10 Ammendments (AKA The Bill of Rights). We the people, not we the government!
Please don't feel that I'm berating you, making fun of you or think your stupid or something. It is good that people question things because if you don't guard your freedom, it will go away. Eternal vigilence is needed. That is why we must guard our country from the Politically Correct crowd that wants to limit everyone's freedom, even the freedom of thought (sometimes disguised as "hate crime" laws).
You are forgetting the part that actually involves censoring English signs. That is private, personal speech which is not the government's. Besides, shouln't you be allowed to use the language you want in your own affairs?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
"You can still do whatever you want just as you could before, if not more so because of handheld video camera's."
No I can't do whatever I want like before and it involves handheld video camera's. About a year or so ago the MBTA (http://www.mbta.com) announced that you were no longer allowed to take pictures of the trains, the stations, people on the trains, or the staff. I wish I had a link for you but I could not find this anywhere on their web page. I have in the past taken pictures of a station and a train. I even went so far as to get a picture of someone on the train.
this is the most important sig ever! In your face 446154!
As for taking pictures, I do it a lot. As recently as yesterday I took pictures of a famous bridge and last week very detailed pictures of other rail systems. There is a prohibition on Federal installations (unless expressly allowed like a NASA event for example), that goes back way beyond 911 though.
I remember they jacked up some guy trying to take pictures of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge but let him go later. Seems to me he was doing stuff to intentionally bring attention to himself. Just be patient. They have to realize that it is an excersize in futility. Especially with camera phone's and new camera's with an uplink. By the time a cop is there, the data could be across the country or world. This wasn't possible back then unless you had a prototype of some sort.
Handheld's were very useful in the NYC (Republican convention) demo's for example. They showed that some people were arrested without cause. They also showed that there was no such thing as police brutality as the Demo's were claiming. Seems to me that they did show some brutality in the case of the Democratic convention in Mass. against the conservative protesters. Even camera's in cop cars have indicted cops of misbehaving. Smile, you could be on camera!
But then, NASCAR's been uninteresting for some time. I'm more interested in Gran Prix style and Formula One racing than NASCAR.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Stripped? They still had free speech, but now it was assured that the announced and intended disruption of another's event could not take place. This being said, I think the buffer zone between the speakers and those who were trying to silence them was much too large.
Even with the large "buffer zone", if you are allowed to have a loud protest anywhere you want except for a temporary zone around someone else's event (which you basically asked for by announcing your intent of disrupting this event), that leaves more than 99% of the entire country for you to have the protest.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Jefferson lived in a different time, where freeing his slaves might not have been the best thing for them. Had they been freed, it is likely they would have faced a society that shunned them. They would have been unable to get jobs or earn money, and starvation and destitution would have been their most likely reward.
But consider finding a copy of the first draft of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson goes on a two paragraph rant about the evils of slavery and calling for the aboltion of the practice. The Continental Congress cut those two paragraphs almost immediately.
And, despite the other reply to your message, Jefferson did not free all of his slaves. That was George Washington, who freed them all in his will. (Some will argue that he didn't, that some of his slaves remained slaves. Those, however, were "Dowry Slaves" that belonged to his wife's family and upon his death, the ownership reverted to his wife's family. Thus, he had no ownership rights and couldn't free them.)
Jefferson wrote in one of his letters to John Adams that he "freed the slaves that he could", consisting largely of the fact that he freed Sally Hemmings and her entire family (8 slaves). I believe (if memory serves) that he freed only some 25 slaves in his lifetime.
Jefferson was also in debt by over $100,000 at the time of his death, so his beloved Monticello and his slaves (and most of his property) were auctioned off to pay his substantial debts. (Equivalent to about $23,000,000 in 2005 terms.)
Jefferson is arguably the most eloquent and forward-looking of all the founding fathers, and his absense at the Constitutional Convention still has repercussions to this day. Consider that we would not have the Bill of Rights, if Jefferson hadn't rushed back from France (where he was the ambassador) upon seeing a draft of the Constitution that John Adams sent him. He was so furious that there was no enumeration of the rights of man that he risked a month long sea voyage with his children just to come back to America and demand its inclusion.
However. To get back on topic, I have sincere doubts that Jefferson would approve of his name being used as an excuse for bare breasts and cursing to be transmitted to the masses. He was, above all, a man of decorum, and more than a little chauvanistic. He once wrote to Abigail Adams that, "The delicate sex has no place in the world of politics, and their entry into it would be degrading to both."
I think he would be shocked as to the degradation of our culture, and especially at the lack of understanding and concern that most people have for their own government.
I believe it was Bobcat Goldthwait who said, "Almost everyone can sing the theme song to Giligan's Island, but how many people can recite the Bill of Rights?"
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
if a kid wore a shirt calling Paul Martin a terrorist, he would likely get invited to join the debate club, in Ontario.
I'd be surprised if that was true. 15 years or so ago, in Windsor, my cousin was sent home from school for wearing a shirt with two pigs on it, with the slogan "Makin' Bacon", because it was deemed too sexually suggestive. The times may have progressed, but not very far.
Canadian laws are just... different from the U.S., period.
For example, "Blasphemous Libel" is still a crime under section 296 of the Canadian Criminal Code. It is a "matter of fact" (ie. up to a jury to decide) whether or not a speech was "blasphemous". In general Canadians enjoy the freedom to say whatever is not forbidden by the Crown, but do not have fundamental right to free speech.
Offenses agains public morality vary widely from the US. Threesomes are apparently illegal in Canada, under Criminal Code section 293(1)(ii), assuming, of course, that "conjugal union" really means "sex".
Hate Propaganda is illegal, but under section 319(3)(b) it's okay to hate people if your religion tells so.
The Gwen Jacobs ruling ensures that women in Ontario are free to walk around topless, though few if any of them actually do. Certain municipalities shrugged, and passed regulations and by-laws forbidding the practice in certain public places, like pools or beaches. As I understand it, though, Toronto Island has a nude beach somewhere on it.
Unlike much of the US, prostitution in Canada is not illegal per se, but public communication about it is, as is making a living at it, or failing to declare it on your taxes.
Public airwaves aren't as heavily censored for nudity as they are in the USA (City TV shows late night nudity shows most Friday nights, for example). On the other hand, the CRTC regulates when certain materials are considered "appropriate" to be aired: usually, "adult" subjects are required to be shown when kids are typically asleep.
In general, the U.S.A. and Canada both have laws which strongly limit free speech and freedom of expression; which ones are "worst" tends to be a matter of opinion, not of fact.
--
AC
You can still do whatever you want just as you could before
Not really. As has been pointed out, repeatedly, "free speech zones" are a wonderful oxymoron. Until recently, I could stand anywhere outside an area where the president was giving a speech, and peacefully demonstrate against him, his agenda, his beliefs, or even his personal smell if I wanted to. Now, I must do so in a designated "free speech zone". How this hasn't been destroyed in court baffles me, the First Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Unless I am horribly behind on my english, the legislative branch cannot make any law which would prohibit me from speaking my mind. Imposing limits on when or where I can speak my mind is still a form of prohibition on free speech, and a literal reading of the First Amendment would seem to disallow such a thing being done.
Part of the problem here is that the courts have made the decision that freedom of speech can be abridged in cases where such speech is likely to cause a safety issue (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater). While this seems like a reasonable restriction, it has opened the door for abuse. The argument for the "free speech zones" today is that there is a security concern. Unfortunatly, there really isn't any evidence to back this claim up, unless you count damage to the message being preached by the demagogues on both sides of the asile. But, because the "post 9/11" world is supposed to be different somehow, the courts seem willing to roll over on this issue and allow political speech, that which was supposed to be most protected, to be abridged in this fashion.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Attaching a new name - "free speech zone" doesn't mean it never existed before 911 and that is my point. This has been going on all along, to a larger extent in the 1960's.
What the court has said is that you do have a right to say what you want (and you still do today), you don't have a right to violate other people's rights.
Having said all of that, there is a new twist in that some local's (as I have said before) implemented what amounts to a cage as you talked about. They don't seem to care which side you are on as I mentioned before - they had a barbed wire cage (like something out of the soviet era) for the Republican protesters at the Democratic convention. In the past they simply arrested you and put you on a bus or some other detention area. So instead of you being out of site and out of mind you can stand in a cage and get that photogenic picture for your cause on the front page of the paper.
The bottom line is I have yet to hear one single issue that has somehow been not voiced. Maybe you have an example? Keep in mind that people not agreeing with you doesn't mean they didn't hear your message. Maybe you think the President (whoever that happens to be at that time) never reads the papers or would know what would be on your sign? They do. Keep that in mind, it does matter, they do know. You can also write a letter to the President if you want. He is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave Washington DC 20001. Sometimes they respond personally, other times not at all. The last response letter I have is from Regan.
Now now, is Canada really that bad? One of the most honest measures of whether a country is a hell or not is: "are people fleeing or trying to get in?". This standard exposes Cuba for the fascist hell it is (and they even shoot you in the back as you try to escape!). I had understood that Canada is one of those countries that people are lining up to get into.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Actually, no where do you have a "right" to force someone to see you or listen to you if they do not want to see or hear you. Radios have off-knobs. Fox News is one remote-click away from a blank screen. Newspapers can stay in the newspaper box.
If they do the reasonable thing and "hide" away from you because they do not like what they say, if you still persist you are at best a rude jerk and at worst a criminal stalker. Free speech does not mean forcing someone to listen to you or watch you or what you say against their will. Consider the 1st Amendment, which is in the context of the press and media. This has nothing at all to do with screaming in someone's face. It means you can print/say what you want, not that you have to force someone to see it.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Attaching a new name - "free speech zone" doesn't mean it never existed before 911 and that is my point. This has been going on all along, to a larger extent in the 1960's.
Just because something has been done for a long time, in one fashion or another, does not mean that it is right. I agree that there were some large abuses of government power in the 1960's. One needs only look as far as McCarthyism to see that.
What the court has said is that you do have a right to say what you want (and you still do today), you don't have a right to violate other people's rights.
No argument there. Pray, tell though, what rights are being violated by protesters being present outside an event? Yes, the people talking inside have a right to free speech as well, that is not being violated. Nothing about peaceful protesters outside an event prevents those inside the event from speaking their minds. They may have to talk louder, but there is no right to silence while you are speaking.
Now, I will agree that, if the protesters are preventing people from entering or leaving freely, and/or threatinging people, or violating any other of a myriad of actual rights of other people, then the violators should be arrested and charged with a criminal act. However, to suppress the free expression of a class of people, just because some of them might violate the rights of the attendees, is absolutly abusive. Remember the Japanese concentration camps of WWII? Would you argue that it was right to suspend the civil rights of everyone of Japanese heritage because some of those people could be saboteurs? That is the problem with allowing the suspending of rights of a class of people based on the possible actions of some of the individuals in tha group. Even ignoring the logical fallicy inherent in doing that, it opens the door to way too much abuse of governmental power.
Having said all of that, there is a new twist in that some local's (as I have said before) implemented what amounts to a cage as you talked about. They don't seem to care which side you are on as I mentioned before - they had a barbed wire cage (like something out of the soviet era) for the Republican protesters at the Democratic convention. In the past they simply arrested you and put you on a bus or some other detention area. So instead of you being out of site and out of mind you can stand in a cage and get that photogenic picture for your cause on the front page of the paper.
I will agree that the police have been overzelous in the past with arrests, but usually some level of protests continued in the area. Obviously, there have been times in the past where this was taken to an extreme and protests were suppressed, violently at times, but on the average peaceful protests have been allowed to occur outside events.
The bottom line is I have yet to hear one single issue that has somehow been not voiced. Maybe you have an example? Keep in mind that people not agreeing with you doesn't mean they didn't hear your message. Maybe you think the President (whoever that happens to be at that time) never reads the papers or would know what would be on your sign? They do. Keep that in mind, it does matter, they do know.
The problem here isn't about being heard, its about the supression of the right to speak when, where and how I wish. I have no doubt that the presendent knows exactly what those protesters wanted to say to him. What was denied them was the right to say it. If a person had walked up to the cordon line outside the event and yelled, "The President is wrong!", they would have been arrested for not protesting in a "free speech zone". Which, in essence, means that they are being arrested for expressing a political opinion, not for causing harm or creating a dangerous situation through negligence.
P.S. No, I don't think you are simply defending this administration. Nor am I attacking solely the current administration. This is a government problem, which extends well beyond the executive branch. I just use the president as an example, since it is one of the most visible parts of government.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Well I hope it is no longer the policy. I never read it on their website only heard it announced while on the train a few times. The funny part is that most people on the train seemed to think it was ridiculous when they heard it.
this is the most important sig ever! In your face 446154!
This was not denied at all. They had this right, and the Dems and GOP'pers had their right. By keeping them apart, both of them were assured the maximum right of free speech.
"That is the problem with allowing the suspending of rights of a class of people based on the possible actions of some of the individuals in tha group"
The only time rights were denied in this was when the protesters were taken to distant "free speech zones". They should have been free to do what they want as long as they did not intrude near someone else's event.
"Which, in essence, means that they are being arrested for expressing a political opinion, not for causing harm or creating a dangerous situation through negligence."
If they are trespassing or intruding at someone's event, they can get you tossed out for any reason, even if they do not wear a tie.
"Now, I will agree that, if the protesters are preventing people from entering or leaving freely, and/or threatinging people"
Why not just keep the immediate vicinity clear of everyone except attendees, especially when there are groups that have announced the intent to gather in large numbers with the intent to harass? Especially when the same groups are the ones that organized an orgy of violence and destruction at Seattle, during which they were proud of "shutting down the WTO" and preventing people from using the streets was an explicit tactic?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
There probably is, and there are noise ordinances, and rightfully so. There is also the right to privacy, and, again, to peacefully assemble. One you are trying to intrude on others, you are not being peacable at all.
Do you think it is OK if you want to watch TV in the evening, but the sound is drowned out by a crowd of 30 neighbors outside on the street screaming that they do not like your house paint color? This is exactly the same sort of situation.
It is perfectly acceptible to push out the shouting harassers to good distance in order that people can speak without having to worry about having to shout over those who are just trying to silence them.
Free speech is only protected when each side has the right to say what it wants without having to worry about being shouted down by the other. If one side lacks basic human decency and tries to shout down the other, separation is warranted to protect the right of both sides to say what they want..
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Ben Laden is obviously a tool of the Zionists as they seek further global dominion. Ben Laden's plan worked: 91-1 resulted in American dupes wiping out Saddam Hussein who was the only man strong enough to stamp out the Israelis. The Zionists got what they wanted.
The one thing that I am still offended at is the Statue of Liberty is only open to her feet. It is looking like the park service will never open it all the way up again. I understand a LOT of pressure has been put upon them to open it, no dice. Well people retire, there is hope yet. Then there is the BS from the NYC fire department claiming it isn't safe. Not one problem in 100 years but they think it is unsafe.
The protester enforcement has always been done and it is needed to keep things civil. If anything Bush has acted very well and hasn't flown off the handle. Your later example of the Japanese is a good example of how abuses happened in the past - even by a Democratic President that Dem's still think is a great guy or even a hero. But that is another discussion. I'm surprised you used McCarthyism as an example though. When the iron curtain fell a number of things were exposed. The most interesting of which was that McCarthy was doing what Roosevelt and Truman did quietly and that he (McCarthy) was right. The Communists were over here and were trying to destroy the government. This was confirmed along with the names of their agents that matched up nicely with who he was questioning. So to criticize him and not criticize Roosevelt and Truman is a travesty. Maybe he should have done it in a back room like Roosevelt and Truman did.
No argument there. Pray, tell though, what rights are being violated by protesters being present outside an event? Yes, the people talking inside have a right to free speech as well, that is not being violated.....
Lets look at your example. One of the most vocal and many consider a violent protester of the Republican's is Michael Moore. This guy is on the floor of the Republican convention - USATODAY . Moore laughs all the way to his Manhattan bank from his rich Manhattan crib with my guess is your money amoung others. Now what if a conservative did that? There was also statements that the left were going to shoot marbles at the police horses with a slingshot and so on. They wanted to shut the convention down. Much to their credit they didn't inter people, they provided a nice place for them to go and say whatever they wanted to. Go ahead, turn the air blue. There was even reporters over there with cameramen. A golden opportunity was lost by criticizing the free speech zone instead of something else.
Maybe I'm missing something. You are making a distinction without a difference. The message got through but you feel that everyone has a right to harrass others? Where would you draw the line? When you get too obnoxious bad things happen out of desperation. Sometimes very bad things. Do you want that? In the 1960's people were shot and killed at Ohio State during a protest (and a song about it - Tin Soldiers). There was also a riot at the 1968 Democratic Convention. Maybe you want blood to run in the streets again? Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.