Hey everyone, here are some links to videos about Fidel Castro and Cuba and the freedom of the press there.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/14186240#14186240 ( highlighting the life of Fidel Castro)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/14186240#23238977 ( highlighting how journalists in U.S. have to hurry and get a quick report from a tourist area in Cuba to be able to report anything)
If you have any questions just comment! :) Thanks
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
"A Forgotten People" Link
Hello all...here is the link to the CNN.com site where Colleen and I got information for our presentation. The clip is broken up into three different parts so just know that when you're done the first one that you still have two more parts to get through.
Have a good day!
http://edition.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/untoldstories/blog/
Have a good day!
http://edition.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/untoldstories/blog/
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
What's The Name Of Your Freedom?
Our discussion of freedom of speech was great. I take the first amendment very seriously since it’s the reason why I go to school. I am a broadcast journalism major here at Quinnipiac. As a communication student I learned the ins and outs of the first amendment. I can analyze the different forms of expression, and what scrutiny is assigned to each. What is interesting is the fact speech is a freedom awarded to us its not entirely free. Our government puts a lit of restriction on speech although the general presumption that prior restraint on speech is unconstitutional.
Our government makes certain speech illegal. Including matters of national security, false advertising, and special protection to children. There are administrative legal agencies, and commercial agencies that over see matters of communication as well. Specifically having free speech and press will benefit the country. Free press feeds into democracy. Having a free press will facilitate the free world, and contribute to the marketplace of ideas. Freedom of speech and press will hold our countries leaders accountable for their actions, and allow normal people to be involved in government decision-making.
It’s nice to live in a world that allows people to fight for what they believe in. If an American disagrees with a political action he or she can band together. Unfortunately I cannot say the same about Cuba. In communist Cuba citizens can certainly have feelings, however when they voice their opinion their government will stop them.
The New York Times has written an article depicting the high hopes of Obama’s relations with the communist island. A lot of Cubans are happy. They cannot express their happiness because although a democratic nation is coming within Cuban reach it still is not a sure bet. “Mr. Obama also said he would make it possible for American companies to vastly increase cell phone service in Cuba, enabling Cubans whom Raúl Castro allowed to buy cell phones to actually get to use them.” Communism seems to never complete the action. Here is a perfect example of how tricky it can be when here is prior restraint on speech in a country like Cuba.
This directly relates to my thesis. It is simple. America sets the example for the rest of the country, and we utilize freedom of speech as far as we can. Here is an interesting case where America’s freedoms can directly help a country who does not award such freedoms to it’s own citizens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/weekinreview/19depalma.html?_r=1&ref=americas
Our government makes certain speech illegal. Including matters of national security, false advertising, and special protection to children. There are administrative legal agencies, and commercial agencies that over see matters of communication as well. Specifically having free speech and press will benefit the country. Free press feeds into democracy. Having a free press will facilitate the free world, and contribute to the marketplace of ideas. Freedom of speech and press will hold our countries leaders accountable for their actions, and allow normal people to be involved in government decision-making.
It’s nice to live in a world that allows people to fight for what they believe in. If an American disagrees with a political action he or she can band together. Unfortunately I cannot say the same about Cuba. In communist Cuba citizens can certainly have feelings, however when they voice their opinion their government will stop them.
The New York Times has written an article depicting the high hopes of Obama’s relations with the communist island. A lot of Cubans are happy. They cannot express their happiness because although a democratic nation is coming within Cuban reach it still is not a sure bet. “Mr. Obama also said he would make it possible for American companies to vastly increase cell phone service in Cuba, enabling Cubans whom Raúl Castro allowed to buy cell phones to actually get to use them.” Communism seems to never complete the action. Here is a perfect example of how tricky it can be when here is prior restraint on speech in a country like Cuba.
This directly relates to my thesis. It is simple. America sets the example for the rest of the country, and we utilize freedom of speech as far as we can. Here is an interesting case where America’s freedoms can directly help a country who does not award such freedoms to it’s own citizens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/weekinreview/19depalma.html?_r=1&ref=americas
Family Background
My family history is rather complex. I lack a relationship with my biological father, so pretty much half of my heritage is a mystery. Although he may be gone, I still have a good handle on where he came from also. He was of Italian decent, but had Israeli citizenship. My mother is all Italian. We stem from Ionnica, and Palermo, and also al little bit from Naples. My great grandparents, and my grandparents came to America for a better life. They came right into to ellis island much like the movie we watched in class.
When they came to New York they had nothing physical. Their assets was their hope for a better life. Back in Italy life was very hard. My family worked endlessly and still was not able to be where they wanted to be in life. Their dreams were in America. It was America where many other people took refuge, and were able to take advantage of the widespread land and opportunity. Mussolini, and the fascist regime took a lot of freedom away from my family. Although it was anti communism, Italian fascism still used propaganda and censorship of its citizens.
When my relatives arrived here they split up. Like 90% of Italians half went to Brooklyn, and the other half when all the way to Massachusetts. They lived in the ghetto and learned English. I spoke a little bit of Italian but not enough to say I am fluent. When my relatives came here they wanted the future generations to be American, and not Italian. Therefore non of us were formally taught Italian.
Watching the Ellis Island video I was proud to be where I am. It took 3 generations in my family to go to college, and watching the video made me proud to be an Italian American. They struggled on a boat, and decided to move their entire lives all for me. Like masons, my family laid the brickwork for my generation, and I am very thankful.
When they came to New York they had nothing physical. Their assets was their hope for a better life. Back in Italy life was very hard. My family worked endlessly and still was not able to be where they wanted to be in life. Their dreams were in America. It was America where many other people took refuge, and were able to take advantage of the widespread land and opportunity. Mussolini, and the fascist regime took a lot of freedom away from my family. Although it was anti communism, Italian fascism still used propaganda and censorship of its citizens.
When my relatives arrived here they split up. Like 90% of Italians half went to Brooklyn, and the other half when all the way to Massachusetts. They lived in the ghetto and learned English. I spoke a little bit of Italian but not enough to say I am fluent. When my relatives came here they wanted the future generations to be American, and not Italian. Therefore non of us were formally taught Italian.
Watching the Ellis Island video I was proud to be where I am. It took 3 generations in my family to go to college, and watching the video made me proud to be an Italian American. They struggled on a boat, and decided to move their entire lives all for me. Like masons, my family laid the brickwork for my generation, and I am very thankful.
Real Freedom of Speech
In out last class discussion on freedom of speech, we defined the freedom. While I had a brief knowledge of the freedom as we as U.S. citizens are entitled to, there were a couple points I was not so familiar with. For instance, the different categories of speech that there are restrictions on. The focus of the discussion was of the types of “speech” which are not protected by the First Amendment. These include obscenity, fighting words, defamation, perjury, child pornography, etc. I believe that when individuals find out that our freedom of speech isn’t entirely “free”, the attitude that accompanies this revelation is negative. The individual most likely feels betrayed by the government. I have come across a number of people like this. They believe that we are living in the illusion of freedom, and the freedom does not actually exist.
My thoughts on the topic kind of go along with some of the things mentioned in our class discussion. Whatever restrictions that are placed on our freedoms are for our own safety and well-being, as well as for our nation. I personally would not want to be the victim of hate speech or defamation. Such assaults could potentially alter my life path, and therefore my mental health.
Unfortunately, my opinions about other countries are not the same. For instance, in Singapore, even though the jurisdiction has granted freedom of speech to the people, but is not completely implemented. The people cannot talk about political issues, along with the media. This is clearly just a government tool in keeping the people from influencing governmental issues. If controversial policies are brought to the attention of the people, the government would have a large oppression on their power. This somewhat coincides with the chapter we read for the discussion. There are many countries which have restrictions on a number of freedoms, and it is pretty clear that it will be a long, if ever, the people of the world will be as fortunate as we are today.
http://www.helium.com/items/1129763-freedom-of-speech-in-singapore
My thoughts on the topic kind of go along with some of the things mentioned in our class discussion. Whatever restrictions that are placed on our freedoms are for our own safety and well-being, as well as for our nation. I personally would not want to be the victim of hate speech or defamation. Such assaults could potentially alter my life path, and therefore my mental health.
Unfortunately, my opinions about other countries are not the same. For instance, in Singapore, even though the jurisdiction has granted freedom of speech to the people, but is not completely implemented. The people cannot talk about political issues, along with the media. This is clearly just a government tool in keeping the people from influencing governmental issues. If controversial policies are brought to the attention of the people, the government would have a large oppression on their power. This somewhat coincides with the chapter we read for the discussion. There are many countries which have restrictions on a number of freedoms, and it is pretty clear that it will be a long, if ever, the people of the world will be as fortunate as we are today.
http://www.helium.com/items/1129763-freedom-of-speech-in-singapore
The US government is stepping on our freedom of speech
The first amendment guarantees states: “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.” This is one of the founding principals of America and the reason is stands as a symbol of freedom. The first amendment allows US citizens to express themselves through speech, clothing, art, or demonstrations without risk of being prosecuted. There are several exceptions to this amendment, which were created to protect the human rights of all Americans. A couple of these exceptions are hate speech, threats, and incitement to crime. One exception that does not exist but is highly debated concerns the American flag. Many people believe that individuals should not be allowed to burn or deface the American flag. Currently, any person is legally allowed to engage in these acts with the flag without the risk of criminal charges. I believe that it would be un-American and unconstitutional for the American government to ban acts that deface the flag. I do not agree with individual’s publicly soiling the flag and believe it is unpatriotic and un-American, but because we live in the freest country in the world we are allowed to engage in these acts. It would be hypocritical of the US to rob individuals the right to freely express themselves even if they are expressing their hatred for America.
Over the past decades freedom of speech in the media has become a controversial topic. Individuals from Eminem, Marilyn Manson, and Howard Stern have been ostracized and murdered in the press because they use explicit language and speak about adult themes. These individuals are protected under the first amendment and should not be condemned or have their careers hurt because they portray offensive material. Howard Stern concurred the largest markets in terrestrial radio with his off the wall humor that appealed to millions. He abided by FCC rules and utilized a delay button to block out offensive language but was still murdered by the press. The pressure from sponsors and fines from the FCC forced Clear Channel to drop Howard from all of his syndicated radio stations. Theirer explains; “the threat of regulation led some broadcasters to dump popular radio personalities, including Stern when Clear Channel dropped him from their stations” (Theirer). The FCC is still not satisfied with current media restrictions and “have been pushing for increased regulation of media business practices and ownership patterns (Theirer). Its movements and policy makers like that that keep creeping in and slowly remove the rights of US citizens. Some believe that these groups and the government are passing tougher restrictions for the media because it is getting too big and powerful due to technological advances.
Anyone who cares about the First Amendment and press freedom should find this chilling. Apparently, “Congress shall make no law” abridging press freedom now has several caveats. Congress shall make no law unless they think media is “too big,” or unless they don’t like some of the content they see or hear, or unless they want to investigate newsgathering practices by a major news anchor many congressmen have long despised.
This seems like a slippery slope that the US government is sliding down that could destroy the freedoms that America Prides itself on. Howard Stern is just one example of the thousands that show that the US government is not standing by the first amendment. It is not up to the government to tell me what is indecent and what are appropriate forms of entertainment for myself. It is imperative that the US government and public remain cognizant of the regulations made by groups like the FCC that impede on our freedoms.
http://techliberation.com/2004/10/11/howard-stern-and-the-future-of-media-censorship/
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Freedom of Speech blog
Freedom of Speech is one of the fundamental virtues of the American Constitution as well as the American way of life. In this country we are all free to say what we want (as long as it does not threaten or offend anyone) and express our true beliefs. This ability and freedom to speak our minds and share our ideals and opinions has been both a good and bad thing among American history. It has opened the door and opened people’s eyes to the ideas of equality and sharing new thoughts and opinions. It has also been used as a mask by some people to spread hate and share unjust and biased views. This has made the idea of freedom of speech one of the one of the most controversial parts of American society and it often raises the issue of what can and cannot be said, and on a deeper level, what is censorship?
The idea of what can and cannot be said in American society appears to trace its roots back to another issue regarding the Constitution and that is what does it mean to be free and have freedoms? There is a certain sense of responsibility that comes along with freedom and how we use it and define it. While the idea of freedom of speech may seem simple and too many people means just what it says, we have to be mindful that not everyone will agree with what we say and that some of what people say can be pretty threatening and offensive. While it is true that not all people will agree with what each other says, we still have to be careful that what we say is not truly intended to be hurtful or offensive. Many times in American society we see and hear people who believe that they can say offensive, racist words and hide behind the idea of freedom of speech. This is just an example of people who do not understand the idea of the responsibility that goes along with certain freedoms. This freedom of speech is also another controversial part of the Constitution that the forefathers seem to have left open to much debate. Maybe it was because the place and time they lived in was so different? Were there as many outspoken people or did people in that time seem to keep to themselves? It is hard to tell and this amendment further falls in with another controversial amendment, the right to bear arms. Both are somewhat vague and are constantly pushed as to what they truly mean and how far they can be enforced or allowed to be free.
While the idea of freedom of speech may be controversial in America, it can be even more controversial and difficult to understand in other countries around the world. In a recent article in the New York Times I read about a South Korean blogger who was recently freed from prison after he was acquitted by a court in South Korea from the charges of “maliciously spreading false information on the internet”. This struck me as an interesting article because South Korea is often considered an American ally and is a democratic country that is not known for its violations of human rights. I also thought this article interesting because it involved the internet which gives people the ability to share their thoughts and ideas, whether they are good or bad, with millions of people. Eventually though, the blogger was found not guilty because he did not intend to disturb the public and this appeared to be an attempt by the South Korean government to censor some of the people whose ideas and words they felt offended their government and caused confusion amongst their people. This was a blatant violation of that blogger’s right to share his thoughts on the government and the economy. This type of censorship probably would not happen in America because people many times share their opinions regarding the government and economy and regularly, even on television, critique the government and financial state of America. It is what makes our government run and helps to make sure we are as efficient as possible. It is clear that while America tries to be responsible with its freedom of speech, not all countries can clearly do the same.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/southkorea/index.html?inline=nyt-geo
The idea of what can and cannot be said in American society appears to trace its roots back to another issue regarding the Constitution and that is what does it mean to be free and have freedoms? There is a certain sense of responsibility that comes along with freedom and how we use it and define it. While the idea of freedom of speech may seem simple and too many people means just what it says, we have to be mindful that not everyone will agree with what we say and that some of what people say can be pretty threatening and offensive. While it is true that not all people will agree with what each other says, we still have to be careful that what we say is not truly intended to be hurtful or offensive. Many times in American society we see and hear people who believe that they can say offensive, racist words and hide behind the idea of freedom of speech. This is just an example of people who do not understand the idea of the responsibility that goes along with certain freedoms. This freedom of speech is also another controversial part of the Constitution that the forefathers seem to have left open to much debate. Maybe it was because the place and time they lived in was so different? Were there as many outspoken people or did people in that time seem to keep to themselves? It is hard to tell and this amendment further falls in with another controversial amendment, the right to bear arms. Both are somewhat vague and are constantly pushed as to what they truly mean and how far they can be enforced or allowed to be free.
While the idea of freedom of speech may be controversial in America, it can be even more controversial and difficult to understand in other countries around the world. In a recent article in the New York Times I read about a South Korean blogger who was recently freed from prison after he was acquitted by a court in South Korea from the charges of “maliciously spreading false information on the internet”. This struck me as an interesting article because South Korea is often considered an American ally and is a democratic country that is not known for its violations of human rights. I also thought this article interesting because it involved the internet which gives people the ability to share their thoughts and ideas, whether they are good or bad, with millions of people. Eventually though, the blogger was found not guilty because he did not intend to disturb the public and this appeared to be an attempt by the South Korean government to censor some of the people whose ideas and words they felt offended their government and caused confusion amongst their people. This was a blatant violation of that blogger’s right to share his thoughts on the government and the economy. This type of censorship probably would not happen in America because people many times share their opinions regarding the government and economy and regularly, even on television, critique the government and financial state of America. It is what makes our government run and helps to make sure we are as efficient as possible. It is clear that while America tries to be responsible with its freedom of speech, not all countries can clearly do the same.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/southkorea/index.html?inline=nyt-geo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
