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."
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.
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!
They either specifically requested, or at least tacitly approved of, measures by the municipal governments to keep people far away from the actual convention meeting sites. If they merely kept protesters out of the building that would be one thing (and quite reasonable, as a matter of fact, since it is a private gathering and private property), but to stick them on the other side of town because they don't agree with you is pretty low.
The Bush family has close ties with the Saudi Royal Family, including Osama Bin Laden. Does that mean GW is a terrorist? The sins of the father do not pass down to the child in western civilization. Why should we apply a different standard elsewhere?
He's made anti-american statements. He's never said "Death to the Infidels," he's just said in more colorful language that the US needs to get out of the middle east. By this point, who hasn't made anti-american statements? Quite frankly, his colorful metaphors if spoken by a white sociology professor at U.C. Berkeley wouldn't surprise anyone. I know this is going to get taken totally out of context, but Terrorism basically is the extension of gurrilla warfare against a vastly superior force. Why us Americans don't realize that the reason terrorists keep attacking the US is because of activities Jerusalem (right or wrong) is taking on our behalf with our funding is beyond me. But by that logic, Osama Bin Laden was not behind 9/11, but rather the unfair settlements and war reparations laid upon Germany at the end of WW1.
As for being barred from France for suspicion of collaboration... If suspicion is what you want, there is plenty to go around. Quite frankly, if you haven't met up with and talked to some shady characters you aren't a mover and shaker in this world. Certainly you aren't a good professor of Muslim Studies if you haven't interviewed at least a few people from the "Death to the Infidels" side of things.
So he's said some things against US foreign policy, and knows some people who knows some people who are very anti-american. So, what, we're going to deny visas to everyone from the middle east? On the other side of the equation, this man was offered a professorship at one of the US's most prestigious universities. We're not talking about someone who was coming over to help his cousin Ramy run a car lot. We're talking about a respected professor who was offered a position at Notre Dame. Even if suspicions without any evidence were enough to block people from entering the US, which it shouldn't, that he was being offered a professorship at one of the world's top universities should at least imply that they have faith in him as a person and as a citizen. Furthermore, being a professor he naturally should be granted more freedom with his words. While he isn't a US citizen yet, his ability to speak freely as a professor should have higher weight. Apparently Notre Dame has deemed that his speech has merit, and the government should accept that assessment.
And quite frankly, most professors I know have time to do little else besides research and teach and grade papers and write grant proposals etc. They generally don't have time to engage in any activity, let alone a terrorist activity.
It's just frightening how much our government is doing on technicalities. Instead of trying to uphold the concepts of academic freedom, they simply say that it doesn't apply to non US citizens. Instead of trying to uphold our legal obligations to prisoners of war, say that it doesn't apply as they are "enemy combatants." Instead of granting our citizens full protection under the constitution to due process, we revoke our citizens' rights on suspicion of terrorist activities. It seems like to them the founding principles of this country are technicalities that are in the way of creating a more perfect police state. Really, the technicality is that the protections of the constitution only applied to US citizens. A lot of us are starting to feel in danger of becoming 2/5ths of a citizen.
Tariq Ramadan is an extreme example of the paranoia and terrible decision making that has come out of our government in the years since 9/11. His is also a very human example, and one which we can all relate to / fear will happen to us. It is a miscarriage of justice. That the concept of justice only applies to US citizens is just a technicality.
The ______ Agenda
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.