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.

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.

"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

[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.

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.