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."

Comments

The forgotten constitutional right.

[AtariAmarok]

It is not quite fair to include the Rep and Dem conventions there. All they were doing was practicing the forgotten right, the Constitutional right to assembly".

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.

Re:The forgotten constitutional right.

[SA Stevens]

There's also this thing called 'freedom of association' where you get to decide whom to associate with.

Unfortunately, many people and interests strongly oppose the notion that a private group can choose who to admit as members.

Which is un-American of them.

(apologies to non-Americans reading this who take offense. Un-American is something Americans accuse each other of. It's not the same as Non-American, which is a perfectly alright thing.)

TJ was great but...

[lbmouse]

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

[AtariAmarok]

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.

"Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it

[gangofwolves]

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.

Re:"Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it

[redswinglinestapler]

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.

This is an interesting thing to say, I find, especially coming from American citizens. I am of the opinion that there are quite a few places, and people, in the world who can say whatever they damn well please.

ObQuoteSimpsons:
"Where else but in America - or perhaps Canada - could one do such a thing?"

There are certainly a large number of countries that are repressive, and limiting to free speech, but the US is hardly a beacon of shining light in this particular area these days. I can say a lot of things in Canada. Or Britain, or Australia, or Demnark, or Spain, or.. you get the point. In fact one could make the argument that I have more freedom in what I say in Canada, just due to the fact that many of the limitations on free speech are imposed by private citizens who control some form of media or forum, and have an axe to grind. Those Muzzle Awards about the kids who wore the NRA/GWB-terrorist shirts to school for instance.. if a kid wore a shirt calling Paul Martin a terrorist, he would likely get invited to join the debate club, in Ontario.

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.

I completely agree, but why are you annoyed? You don't have to listen to them.

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.

The Dixie Chicks learned the 'hard way' that if they voice an unpopular political opinion, their fans will punish them economically, in the only way they can. That is a limit on free speech, albeit a self-imposed one, like I mentioned above. I think you should buy Dixie Chicks albums if you like the music. If you totally hate the thought of listening to music you like, sung by someone critical of a President you like, you should think about why you cannot separate those two ideas in your head.

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.

What an odd thing to say.. we (collectively, Western Civilization 'we') already lost something... a bunch of people who died during the World Wars. They paid. We shouldn't have to lose anything more to exercise our hard-fought rights.

Free speech is self-correcting as well. That is its true power.

Absolutely - in a Free Society. If you don't get a chance, or worse, if the citizenry just decides that your particular speech is Bad... that's when it starts to crumble.

Re:"Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it

[renehollan]

I once had a discussion with my daughter on a public street in Whitby, Ontario about why people have to wait for health care services and can't just pay instead of waiting for the "free" service.

I was threatened with arrest by a police officer for uttering offensive speech.

While the charge may have very well been bogus, the effect was chilling on our subsequent conversation.

My daughter's comment was, "Gee, I can say anything in the U.S. if it was true. When can we go back daddy? I don't want to wait to see a doctor."

Re:"Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This does not appear to be true. According to the Reporters Without Borders organisation, the USA ranks joint 22nd in terms of journalistic freedom. France and Germany, often criticised for their lack of free speech here on Slashdot, rank 19th and 11th, respectively. If you are talking about the USA-controlled areas of Iraq, over a hundred countries have more freedom of speech.

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.

I don't care. What really annoys me is the people that do treat them as more important or more credible than others. And as far as I can tell, most of the USA thinks this way.

Re:"Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it

[menace3society]

The issue with the Dixie Chicks is not that people were upset that they made such remarks--the Jefferson Muzzle doesn't blame the fans who burned their Dixie Chicks CDs, etc--but rather the reaction of the State Legislature. Consider: what if you made those remarks. Does it make sense that government be allowed to tell you that you have to go to a foreign and dangerous country and give a free performance to soldiers as penance? No? Then it's a violation of equal protection (not to mention cruel and unusual punishment, but that's wrt the soldiers...)

And, under no circumstances should the State gov't have told them they have to apologize. Free speech means never having to recant your beliefs. Ever. I find it as annoying as you do that all these celebrities go around taking advantage of their fame to get a free pulpit for expounding their views. But I'm not about to go around telling people they don't get first amendment rights just because they're famous.

Re:"Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it

[CaptainZapp]

Ahh, so to summarize: The US is the best and the biggest and true free expression is only possible here.

To then continue

But those Fonda and Streisand bimbos (you forgot Sean Penn, but he's not a bimbo) shall just shut the fuck up, since they are prominent.

You sir, are the shining example of a hypocrite.

There is no need to thank me.

Re:"Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it

[renehollan]

Canada offers the government promise of free (i.e. taxpayer-funded) health care.

The current wait for a tonsillectomy is around 80 weeks.

It used to be the case that women in labour in Ontario were denied epidural anasthetic and weren't allowed to pay for it themselves (because it is provided by the government "when necessary"). I don't know if that's still the case.

Many seriously ill patients (particularly cardiac patients) either die before getting to the head of the line for treatment, or are too far gone to benefit from it. There is supposedly some triage that takes place, but an aging population results in there being many "most urgent" cases in line.

It is illegal for a covered Canadian to pay for health services that the government promises to provide, whether they do or not. And, all Canadians can obtain coverage in the province where they reside. However, the application (at least in Ontario) for coverage requires an agreement to live in that province permanently. Many have argued that this is "fair" because transients should not benefit from taxpayer-funded services, except in their "home" province. However, the correct response would be a minumum waiting period, or perhaps paying for service received in a short period before leaving, instead of the opposite extreme: permanent residence. (And, in Ontario, I have verified that this means "forever".)

Not everything is covered, of course, elective surgery being one such item, non-ward hospital accomodations being another: one can pay for an "upgrade" to a semi-private or private room if one is available, and such "upgrades" can be funded by private health insurance -- that's all it can cover for Canadian citizens).

Non-citizens can pay for service, at rates far cheaper than those in, for example, the U.S., and they get to bypass the line in which citizens are forced to queue. There is increasing evidence that many Canadians get to "jump ahead" in line because of the nature of their relationship with their doctor, or their political or social stature. (The government will pay for politicians to get treatment outside Canada: Quebec premier (like a state governer) got cancer treatment in the U.S.) Corruption in the system appears rampant.

It is questionable whether a Canadian can legally leave Canada for service in another country (e.g. the U.S.). While Canadian law does not apply on U.S. soil, once "back home", it isn't clear whether they could be prosecuted for buying health care illegally. To date, this has not happened, likely because it would be the straw that breaks the camel's back when it comes to revolting against the government.

There is a loophole where Canadians resident in one province can travel to another one, and pay for health care (because they are non-resident, and thus not covered, in the second province), and some have been desperate enough to travel across the country to find the shortest lines. Many travel to the U.S.

Personally, I believe that for the state to tax to provide health care, and then deliver less health care to an individual than their proportionate share of taxes dedicated to health care could purchase on the open market, is criminal fraud. If the individual dies as a result, I consider it state-sanctioned murder. I've said so as much on Slashdot before, and have gotten modded down for it. But, don't expect me to shut up about the murderous state of health care in Canada.

Interested parties can Google for "Canadian" and "Health Care" and come to their own conclusions.

Re:"Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it

[renehollan]

It should also be noted that Canada is the only country in the world where it is illegal for a citizen to spend one's own money, after taxes, to purchase health services that the government claims to provide.

Every other country with a nationalized health care system has a "two-tier" system, where, if one is not satisfied with the free system, and has the means, one can purchase private care. Interestingly, such countries have lower per-capita health-care costs (approximately 40% of Ontario government tax revenues go toward providing (abysmal) "universal" health care) than Canada, reduced taxes, and this enables all but the poorest to purchase private services (or, more likley, insurance for same).

Re:"Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it

[Sylver Dragon]

I think the thing which is usually missed in all of the "US vs. Them" discussions about free speech is that, we're all fucked to some degree. No matter where you go, to which "free" western contry your travel, there will be things which you are not allowed to say.

• US: Threats against the president or other public figures.
• France/Germany: Support for the Nazi ideas
• Canada: From the parent's antecdote, it would seem that questioning the healthcare system is a no-no.
• Spain: Not sure on this one, but I would bet that decrying the reconquista is a no-no.

I'm sure there are a lot more, and with enough time, we could find examples in every country. Sure, we may not agree with certain speech (Nazi's, KKK, Rush Limbaugh) but if we censor any of it, we are just opening the door for the government to ban anything it wants, all it has to do is figure out how to classify the undesierable speech as part of the restricted speech.
Jefferson was right, if you allow any restrictions, you might as well just forego the whole pretense, because you'll get there eventually. The trick to it, which is often ignored, is to make people responsible for their speech. If you yell "fire" in a crowded theater, when there was, in fact, no fire and many people are hurt or killed, you should go on trial for malicious negligence and face civil penelties for the injuries caused by your actions.

Re:"Free Expression" is expensive, but worth it

[renehollan]

I find the lack of freedom to spend my own money, after taxes, for my own healthcare needs, and those of my family, a far worse situation, than the present climate in the U.S. Though, granted, both are unpleasant.

As for the U.S. committing "terrorism", so what? If a nation gets so powerful on the basis of its fundemental principles as to be able to (almost) wipe out other nations, how is this wrong if one accepts the notion that people kill other people when they can. Is it wrong only because you can't do to the U.S. what it can do to you?

Put another way, the U.S. must have done something right to get as powerful as it is, and who's to say that does not give it impunity to do as it wishes?

It may not be "nice", but since when are humans, as a species, "nice"?

No Michael Sims?

[keesh]

I think it's a shame Michael Sims was passed over this time around.

Nice troll

[missing000]

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!

Tariq Ramadan

[MC68000]

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.

Re:Tariq Ramadan

[cgenman]

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.

Re:Are you free to express yourself better?

[menace3society]

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.

Re:TJ was great but...

[ebvwfbw]

He isn't a hypocrite, he freed his slaves. It is easy to criticize him for not doing it earlier in today's time. Things are a LOT different now. He was simply born into that system (they all were) and when in Rome, do as the Roman's do. If he hadn't then history could be very different. He may had been relegated as a footnote or kicked out of things all together. See the film 1776 (now on DVD though I had to special order mine), it explains a lot of this. It also shows just how much courage those men had. They took on the most powerful Army and Navy in the world and won. Even though the Brits had help from German Mercenaries. Then we had to do it all over again in 1812.

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.