Weekly Blog Posting 5

I didn’t want to go anywhere near the oil spill with these blogs. It’s just not an issue that I wanted to touch here; and on its own, it’s not really relevant either. However, I didn’t find much this week, and this article was really the only one that caught my eye. It’s not really about the spill though; it’s about a piece of advertising. It sort of got me thinking about how much freedom advertisers should have in what they say.

The article here is talking about an advertisement for New Orleans tourism that has been pulled because it was deemed “anti-British.” The ad was to let tourist know that the entertainment area is still “open for business.” This is a quote from the article: “‘This isn’t the first time New Orleans has survived the British,’ it read alongside a photo of Jackson Square in the French Quarter.” Representatives said that the ad was not meant to be offensive, but rather humorous. Should they have let the ad stand? They say it was meant to be humorous, but is that effective or is the oil spill too serious an issue to be making jokes about?

We all know about “false advertising,” but is it okay to “bend the truth” in advertising? I’ve heard things like when ads or labels say “Fat Free!” that the food may not really contain no fat, but that the company is not charging you for whatever fat content it has. These are only a couple of examples, but you get the idea. Should advertisers have freedom to say whatever they like, as long as it’s not an outright lie?

Weekly Blog Posting 4

The First Amendment, of course, protects the freedom of the press; sometimes I wonder, however, if members of the press abuse this right. For that matter, can it be abused? Is freedom simply freedom, without having to be responsible for one’s actions? I just came across this article, which got me thinking about this subject again. This is about a congressman in North Carolina who was questioned on the street by some unidentified students. They seemed to come from nowhere, from his perspective. The congressman asked them repeatedly who they were, but they never identified themselves; they only said they were students working on a project. The news story is of the congressman apologizing for his behavior. He physically restrained one of the students after the student started asking him questions (although, he was clearly not hurting the student). They were not exactly “the press” (and maybe not exactly “paparazzi”), but it is pretty much the same idea.

This could have been much worse (watch the videos). The older students here will remember incidents like Sean Penn attacking a member of the paparazzi years ago (late 1980s?), and many other such incidents involving celebrities have occurred over the years. So, how far does “freedom of the press” stretch? When does it become harassment? No matter your age, I am certain you are familiar with the events which led to the death of Princess Diana. “Freedom of the press” is one thing, but should they really have the freedom to accost celebrities and politicians on the street? The reactions of certain celebrities and the above congressman may be questioned, but are they not understandable?

Weekly Blog Posting 3

This week I came across an article which discussed a proposed television program being opposed by a conservative religious group. The Comedy Central network has a show (actually, it is an animated cartoon) in development which features Jesus Christ as an average person that moves to New York City to, as the network states, “escape his father’s enormous shadow.” The group somehow caught wind of the show, which is in the very early stages of development, and has already begun protesting it. The network has said that if the group is going to protest, they may be better off waiting to see if the show actually even goes into production. The group is saying that the show “would be offensive” (note the future tense), and has already contacted advertisers and gained nearly 100,000 signatures on a petition. This is all over a show which has not even gotten past the development stage.

If the creators of the show, and the network, choose to go forward, they have every right to do so under the First Amendment. This is television, of course, so there is the Federal Communications Commission to consider; some things are simply not allowed on network television. However, this is the network which airs South Park, and that show at times seems bent on trying to offend anyone and everyone. As long as they are not breaking any FCC rules, and the network is willing to show it, the creators of the show have the Constitution on their side. Do you think the group is overreacting, or are they justified in beginning protests this early?

Quotes are taken from this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100603/ap_en_tv/us_tv_jesus_cartoon

Weekly Blog Posting 2

For years homosexuals have been forced to keep silent on this aspect of their life upon entering, and serving in the military. There may be some who say that this is not a First Amendment issue, and that it is not censorship. All they have to do is “don’t ask,” and all you have to do is “don’t tell,” right? However, as we have all read, silencing someone’s voice is clearly censorship; and complying with silence is self-censorship.

Perhaps I’m naïve, but it’s still difficult for me to understand why this was ever such a problem. There have always been homosexuals in the military. Here, in the modern U.S., however, I suppose a lot of the homophobia stems from religious fears. Then, of course, homosexual soldiers were subject to more than the already brutal hazing that apparently goes on (or did go on) in some military sectors.

It seems that society in general may be taking steps toward becoming more tolerant of people who live different lifestyles, and simply are different from themselves (although, unfortunately, there will always be at least some voice of hateful ignorance). There has been some recent news about states allowing same-sex marriages. Most recently (and you have probably read about this) the House of Representatives voted to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy by the U.S. military. It doesn’t look like this is the end of it; it still needs to travel a bit through the system, but it’s on the right track. Not allowing homosexuals to serve freely in the military is just as bad as dismissing a soldier based on the color of his/her skin.

Weekly Blog Posting 1

Texas. If anyone did not already know, many have recently discovered how much power the Texas Board of Education has over the education of young people across the entire nation. This is in large part because of the population of Texas; quite simply, the state is responsible for purchasing a great number of textbooks. Money talks, and the publishers are going to listen to them; even regarding desired changes to the information contained in the books.

Anytime changes like this are being requested, there is an apparent attack on the freedom to read. The Board seems to be rewriting history in some cases. One item that gets a lot of attention in articles on this subject is the fact that they have decided that Thomas Jefferson will not be studied as a political philosopher. Some of the changes, however, do not really seem to be all that bad. They want it taught that the words “separation of church and state” are not in the Constitution (which is true) so that students will compare and contrast the actual words of the First Amendment with the judicial interpretations. They also want the government of the United States to be referred to not as a democracy, but as a constitutional form of government (this is also true).

The idea of changing the history books is truly frightening (especially to one’s own agenda). This certainly could be a case of restricting the freedom to read, and an attack on free access of information. It really depends on if other points of view will be made available by teachers, and in the library for students to access on their own.

Introduction

Hey there... I'm Joseph Skeen... "Joseph" is cool, but you can feel free to call me "Joe"... most people do...

As of now, I am 7/12 of the way through the program... after the summer, I'll be 10/12 through... so, I should be graduating in December. I'm hoping to find an internship for the fall semester, but if that doesn't work out, I'll take another class. I am most interested in working in an academic library. I worked in a university library as an undergraduate student, and I really enjoyed it. I like helping the students, and I generally like the university environment.

Intellectual freedom is important to me, as I'm sure it is to all of you as well... I'm looking forward to digging into it a bit more this session. (...still waiting for my book from Amazon though... should be here Tuesday, I think.)

I'm generally pretty laid-back, and I can get along with most people. I am invested in the arts... music is a big part of my life... I love film... and I have been involved with community theatre for the last 5-6 years... mostly acting, but I help out when I can in other areas. I've had less time for this in the last several months, but I fully intend to get back into it when I finish school and get a steady job.

I may edit this and add more later... but that's all for now... Whatever you have, make it a good one!