Freedom of Speech in America represents one of the fundamental rights that Americans are granted. This freedom ensures that every American can voice their opinion with out fear of reprisals from the government. In other countries such as China, their citizens can be arrested for voicing their opposition to the government or its policies. However in America, Freedom of Speech is not boundless but has restrictions. For example in America during the 20th Century the Ku Klux Klan, once powerful and popular, was being fought by the government who charged many of its members for violating the civil rights of their victims. Today individuals and organizations can voice their opinions but are restricted from threatening or hate speech. However while America grants these rights to their citizens it is not so else where in the world. In China the Communist government has implemented censorship only allowing news stations to advertise what news the government allows. In the news article Chinese Authorities Block Online Articles About June 4th Massacre the Chinese government recently blocked online sources that discussed the June 4th Massacre. After the death of Hu Yaobang, the leader of the Chinese Communist Party, in April 15, 1989 mass protests erupted, the most famous occurring at Tiananmen Square. These protests were a student led democracy movement. The Chinese Communist Party then viciously squashed the protesters, killing according to the Chinese government 200 to 300 people. However the Chinese Red Cross estimates that 2,000 to 3,000 were killed. As in 1989, Chinese citizens are still subjected to censorship and their activities and views monitored. In this news article, Chinese citizens are prohibited to search these and other articles. The Communist government has censored such sites to ensure public knowledge is only what the government wants so that appraisals are kept to a minimum. However such censorship continues to spark anger among Chinese citizens who call for democracy. Those of us who are fortunate to live in America should value these rights that have been granted to us. Sometimes we forget how good we have it here in America and we forget that many are suffering from things that we take for granted. Freedom of Speech is very important and impacts our lives everyday. With out Freedom of Speech our lives and America would have turned out very differently.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/15651/
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Freedom of Speech in Nazi Germany
People around the world have a common theory about Americans: how lazy, arrogant and ungrateful we are. They have one thing right; we take our freedom of speech for granted. We never have to think about what were going to say or how something is going to sound. We can support whoever we want in political elections. We can protest, assemble and appeal.
It is a tough subject to think about, but freedom of speech is what built the fabric of America. In my opinion, freedom of speech is much more than just the right to say what you want (as long as it does not threaten anyone etc….); it is the right to have intellect. Americans can go to school, and apply the knowledge they learn there to their everyday lives, therefore giving them more controversial ideas that they can voice. We have this luxury and don’t even think about what it would be like without it. Well there is one place I can think of that is the antithesis of my thoughts. Nazi Germany. When people think of this regime, they mostly think of world domination, Adolf Hitler, and the holocaust; however, the Nazis are just as famous for being oppressors of the educated. An article from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum explains that there was a good amount of opposition towards the Nazi party from within Germany. Democratic liberal parties as well as communist parties all opposed Hitler, some went as far as to plotting his assassination, unfortunately, they were unsuccessful. Apparently, these intellectuals who opposed the Nazis were very against this “new Germany”, so against it in fact that German secret police and Gestapo actually had special missions geared towards taking these organizations out by force.
Similarly, the Nazis did not just target Jews as the only religious group they persecuted. The third Reich was very much against the Catholic Church, there were even advertisements out there to defame Catholics and the church. Opposition from youth came from universities around Germany; one interesting story comes from Munich University in 1942. A professor and two students formed the white rose resistance group, as they did not want to join the Hitler Youth. They passed around anti-Nazi leaflets and as a result were executed.
Nazi Germany was a period of time that created a tremendous amount of political and social unrest. We never think about these people who stood against Hitler, maybe because we do not know about them, but it is interesting to find out how much more there was to the Third Reich’s agenda. Any intellectuals opposing the party were either deported or murdered alongside the Jews, Homosexuals and disabled. We really are lucky to live in a country that not only tolerates free speech and thought, but encourages it. The American government goes as far as to let the KKK march in the streets of New York City. We should all take some time to appreciate the rights we have here in America.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005208
It is a tough subject to think about, but freedom of speech is what built the fabric of America. In my opinion, freedom of speech is much more than just the right to say what you want (as long as it does not threaten anyone etc….); it is the right to have intellect. Americans can go to school, and apply the knowledge they learn there to their everyday lives, therefore giving them more controversial ideas that they can voice. We have this luxury and don’t even think about what it would be like without it. Well there is one place I can think of that is the antithesis of my thoughts. Nazi Germany. When people think of this regime, they mostly think of world domination, Adolf Hitler, and the holocaust; however, the Nazis are just as famous for being oppressors of the educated. An article from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum explains that there was a good amount of opposition towards the Nazi party from within Germany. Democratic liberal parties as well as communist parties all opposed Hitler, some went as far as to plotting his assassination, unfortunately, they were unsuccessful. Apparently, these intellectuals who opposed the Nazis were very against this “new Germany”, so against it in fact that German secret police and Gestapo actually had special missions geared towards taking these organizations out by force.
Similarly, the Nazis did not just target Jews as the only religious group they persecuted. The third Reich was very much against the Catholic Church, there were even advertisements out there to defame Catholics and the church. Opposition from youth came from universities around Germany; one interesting story comes from Munich University in 1942. A professor and two students formed the white rose resistance group, as they did not want to join the Hitler Youth. They passed around anti-Nazi leaflets and as a result were executed.
Nazi Germany was a period of time that created a tremendous amount of political and social unrest. We never think about these people who stood against Hitler, maybe because we do not know about them, but it is interesting to find out how much more there was to the Third Reich’s agenda. Any intellectuals opposing the party were either deported or murdered alongside the Jews, Homosexuals and disabled. We really are lucky to live in a country that not only tolerates free speech and thought, but encourages it. The American government goes as far as to let the KKK march in the streets of New York City. We should all take some time to appreciate the rights we have here in America.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005208
Super City and Restrictions on Freedoms
In Dubai, the United Arab Emirates was recently frowned apon for proposing its new media law. This law restricts free speech and strengthens self censorship among journalists. The rights group called “Human Rights Watch” are very afraid that the government will have too much control over media sources.
The government can charge fines of about $136,000, “for carrying misleading news that harms the national economy.” This draft media law can also charge media sources up to $1,350,000 for insulting a member of the government or someone else of power.
Despite criticisms this law passed in January of 2009 and is waiting approval from the president.
United States citizens are lucky to have the right to express their opinion in a publically printed newspaper. I am shocked at the fines the government is proposing to stop the journalists from expressing their true feelings. It must be incredibly frustrating to write in a paper where you can’t say what you really think. The only reason I could guess they are doing this is because Dubai is being built up so much and they only want positive attention on the new super city. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/13/ap/middleeast/main4940622.shtml
I did alittle more research into Dubai and found out that 15 million annual tourists are estimated to travel here by the year 2015. "Dubai will become the tourism and vacation ownership capital of the world in the years to come, as the numerous incredible projects, such as Dubailand, Bawadi and those by Emaar and Nakheel, continue to unfold before our eyes," This article also mentions how Dubai could lead in timeshare sales over Florida. I guess since Dubai is putting so much hope into the super city and expect the economy to sky rocket they want no bad media attention!
Monday, April 20, 2009
Melting Pot Causes Controversy for Freedom of Speech
Globalization has had and continues to have a huge impact on a wide variety of aspects of life. The corporate world has grown exponentially, trade continues to flourish, leisurely travel is a way of peoples lives, technology is world wide, and the list continues. While there are endless benefits to this there are also areas of life that are problematic because of globalization. One example is the controversial rights of freedom of speech. It would be easy to make a set of rights for a population that was entirely the same. Unfortunately that isn't realistic today. Some might say that freedom of speech is an easy concept and people should be free to say what they want. Because America is a melting pot of differently races, ethnicity, religions, and sexes it is understandable that the rights of freedom of speech need to carefully thought out and presented.
My understanding of the freedom of speech is that we do have freedom to express our opinions but there are restrictions. According to the definition of freedom of speech, some of the more obvious restrictions are the freedom to say just what one likes where ones likes are laws regulating incitement, sedition, defamation, slander and libel, blasphemy, the expression of racial hatred, and conspiracy. I agree with these situations. The problem here is that not all citizens keep these restrictions in their minds when they begin to talk to act out. There are obviously situations when one knows to keep their opinions to themselves but then there also situations when people may not realize they are speaking against these restrictions. In the article, "The International War on Free Speech," Brett Joshpe talks about the problems with what is considered free and what may result in a violation of free speech.
Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and a documentary film producer. He produced a controversal cartoon and short film when trying to portray terrosism. He quoted radical Imams and Koranic Suras which were used to justify terrorism. There was an angry responce from the Muslims to the film. An investitgation came about to see whether Wilders violated any hate speech laws. While the Muslims declined to prosecute him, 12 European countries are prosecuting him for blasphemy against Islam. This is one of those situations where one might not realize the extent of their restrictions to freedome of speech. If Wilders produced the film knowing he was going to be prosecuted by 12 countries I don't believe he would have said and presented what he did. There are some blury lines when figuring out whether somebody abuses their freedom of speech and violates rights or if they just didnt know. Clearly the rights of freedom of speech vary and using the word "freedom" may not be the proper term. They aren't freedoms, they are guidelines to speech. It is clearly a controversal set of rights around the world and in the melting pot of America.
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/06/the-international-war-on-free
http://www.answers.com/topic/freedom-of-speech
My understanding of the freedom of speech is that we do have freedom to express our opinions but there are restrictions. According to the definition of freedom of speech, some of the more obvious restrictions are the freedom to say just what one likes where ones likes are laws regulating incitement, sedition, defamation, slander and libel, blasphemy, the expression of racial hatred, and conspiracy. I agree with these situations. The problem here is that not all citizens keep these restrictions in their minds when they begin to talk to act out. There are obviously situations when one knows to keep their opinions to themselves but then there also situations when people may not realize they are speaking against these restrictions. In the article, "The International War on Free Speech," Brett Joshpe talks about the problems with what is considered free and what may result in a violation of free speech.
Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and a documentary film producer. He produced a controversal cartoon and short film when trying to portray terrosism. He quoted radical Imams and Koranic Suras which were used to justify terrorism. There was an angry responce from the Muslims to the film. An investitgation came about to see whether Wilders violated any hate speech laws. While the Muslims declined to prosecute him, 12 European countries are prosecuting him for blasphemy against Islam. This is one of those situations where one might not realize the extent of their restrictions to freedome of speech. If Wilders produced the film knowing he was going to be prosecuted by 12 countries I don't believe he would have said and presented what he did. There are some blury lines when figuring out whether somebody abuses their freedom of speech and violates rights or if they just didnt know. Clearly the rights of freedom of speech vary and using the word "freedom" may not be the proper term. They aren't freedoms, they are guidelines to speech. It is clearly a controversal set of rights around the world and in the melting pot of America.
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/06/the-international-war-on-free
http://www.answers.com/topic/freedom-of-speech
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Has freedom of speech made our history?
Most people are aware that the freedom of speech doesn't necessarily mean you are 100% free to say anything you want to any person or group without consequences. We know that our freedom of speech in the United States is limited; we cannot say things that will hurt, threaten, or discriminate against others in any way.
I found a really interesting article about the effects that freedom of speech had on Hilter and the times during the Holocaust, which I also found extremely relevant since we will be traveling to Poland in less than a month. The article states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, but the government can restrict free speech in the interests of national security, preserving public safety, and for the prevention of disorder of crime. I can relate that to our situation in the United States today where if any single person mentioned bombs or killing someone, even if it was as a joke, serious action would be taken thinking that the person was linked to terrorism.
But the part I really couldn't believe was how the article asked the question "Do fascists have a right to free speech?" Obviously everyone has a right, it doesn't matter who you are. Yet the controversial issue here is, what if Hilter and the Nazi Party didn't have free speech? Would the Holocaust still have happened? Did the Holocaust occur because these people in political power had unlimited freedom of speech? And would Hilter and the Nazi Party have grown in strength and influence if they were restricted to the things they said? I just find this amazing, because I never actually thought of things that way. I always thought that Hilter and the Nazis just had power, never that they gained this power because they had the right to say whatever they wanted without fear of consequences. Then once getting power, the Nazis restricted the freedom of speech of all other who were not part of the Nazi party.
A quote from the article read "Tens of millions of lives may have been saved if the free speech of Nazis had been suppressed early on." Some people today in our society criticize or complain that we don't have the freedom to say anything we want at any time, but just look at the Holocaust and think how lucky we are. Our country was smart enough to restrict the things people could say for our own safety, so people couldn't come into power who would destroy the nation and create one of the biggest genocides in history. We are lucky that our freedom of speech isn't unlimited.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7113186.stm
I found a really interesting article about the effects that freedom of speech had on Hilter and the times during the Holocaust, which I also found extremely relevant since we will be traveling to Poland in less than a month. The article states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, but the government can restrict free speech in the interests of national security, preserving public safety, and for the prevention of disorder of crime. I can relate that to our situation in the United States today where if any single person mentioned bombs or killing someone, even if it was as a joke, serious action would be taken thinking that the person was linked to terrorism.
But the part I really couldn't believe was how the article asked the question "Do fascists have a right to free speech?" Obviously everyone has a right, it doesn't matter who you are. Yet the controversial issue here is, what if Hilter and the Nazi Party didn't have free speech? Would the Holocaust still have happened? Did the Holocaust occur because these people in political power had unlimited freedom of speech? And would Hilter and the Nazi Party have grown in strength and influence if they were restricted to the things they said? I just find this amazing, because I never actually thought of things that way. I always thought that Hilter and the Nazis just had power, never that they gained this power because they had the right to say whatever they wanted without fear of consequences. Then once getting power, the Nazis restricted the freedom of speech of all other who were not part of the Nazi party.
A quote from the article read "Tens of millions of lives may have been saved if the free speech of Nazis had been suppressed early on." Some people today in our society criticize or complain that we don't have the freedom to say anything we want at any time, but just look at the Holocaust and think how lucky we are. Our country was smart enough to restrict the things people could say for our own safety, so people couldn't come into power who would destroy the nation and create one of the biggest genocides in history. We are lucky that our freedom of speech isn't unlimited.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7113186.stm
First Amendment, how much are we protected?
The United States of America, known as the “land of the free, and the home of the brave,” while the latter part may be true in some instances, is the first part? Is the US really the land of the free? When I think of the word “free” in terms of people’s rights, I automatically think freedom of speech, freedom of religion, basically the freedom for one to safely live their life the way that they want to. Freedom of speech is often considered to be one of the most basic tenets of democracy. In America, we do live ‘freely’ but only to an extent. Under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, “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.” Freedom of speech under the First Amendment is not necessarily giving us the right to have full ‘freedom’ there are certain restrictions and regulations. For example- you can’t yell “fire” in crowded places, you can’t say false things about specific people whether on TV or newspapers because it is deemed slander, all of these regulations seem to make sense because, when you think about it, the government is instilling all of these to protect us, to help keep us safe. However, upon researching this I found an article in which I learned something else about the US First Amendment.
In the article it says that under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minorities and religions — even false, provocative or hateful things — without legal consequence. This just does not seem right to me, this seems exactly like slander and libel to me, however instead of targeting a specific person, they are targeting a specific group. “The First Amendment is not, of course, absolute. The Supreme Court has said that the government may ban fighting words or threats. Punishments may be enhanced for violent crimes prompted by racial hatred. And private institutions, including universities and employers, are not subject to the First Amendment, which restricts only government activities. But merely saying hateful things about minorities, even with the intent to cause their members distress and to generate contempt and loathing, is protected by the First Amendment.” This seems absolutely absurd to me. How is making it ok to give magazines and newspapers the ability to say false things that are harmful protected by the First Amendment? That does not make me feel safe in fact it kind of confuses me. While the First Amendment gives us the Freedom of Speech and with it comes regulations and rules to protect us, with an article like this that sheds light on a different side of the First Amendment, I feel somewhat not protected. I plan on researching more on this to find out other instances where this topic is raised and confronted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?pagewanted=2&sq=freedom%20of%20speech%20&st=cse&scp=5
In the article it says that under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minorities and religions — even false, provocative or hateful things — without legal consequence. This just does not seem right to me, this seems exactly like slander and libel to me, however instead of targeting a specific person, they are targeting a specific group. “The First Amendment is not, of course, absolute. The Supreme Court has said that the government may ban fighting words or threats. Punishments may be enhanced for violent crimes prompted by racial hatred. And private institutions, including universities and employers, are not subject to the First Amendment, which restricts only government activities. But merely saying hateful things about minorities, even with the intent to cause their members distress and to generate contempt and loathing, is protected by the First Amendment.” This seems absolutely absurd to me. How is making it ok to give magazines and newspapers the ability to say false things that are harmful protected by the First Amendment? That does not make me feel safe in fact it kind of confuses me. While the First Amendment gives us the Freedom of Speech and with it comes regulations and rules to protect us, with an article like this that sheds light on a different side of the First Amendment, I feel somewhat not protected. I plan on researching more on this to find out other instances where this topic is raised and confronted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?pagewanted=2&sq=freedom%20of%20speech%20&st=cse&scp=5
The real price of free speech
In the United States Free Speech is defined as “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.” Freedom of speech is a highly discussed issue as many Americans feel as if there really is no freedom of speech and you can’t just “ say whatever you want.” In reality, yes, you can say whatever you want in the United States- yet depending on what it may be, there are consequences. For the most part, the rules in the United States are, what I perceive to be, for the purposes of protecting its citizens and to ensure safety and comfort for all. In comparison, China claims to have “free speech”, yet the government has shown numerous examples of controlling and restricting speech past what they have stated is acceptable. The Chinese law regarding free speech states, “Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution states that Chinese citizens enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of the press.” China's Publishing Regulations, specify that groups and individuals may not interfere in the lawful exercise of these rights.
According to http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/exp/, Chinese government has gone as far as to put journalist who bring news to foreigners in jail and even blocks broadcasts of certain foreign television shows, websites and radio stations. Chinese government even controls and regulates religious materials in the country and will only allow government-licensed printing enterprises to produce religious materials Perhaps this is for additional revenue to the government? Or the Chinese government is simply that restrictive and truly has a strong, communist-like hold on their citizens. I feel it is a little bit of both. The arrests of both Wang Zaiqing and Cai Zhuohua, pastors of the Christian faith, were arrested because they printed and gave away Bibles and other Christian literature. This clearly is a violation of the International Human Rights regarding the freedom of speech. How can a government imprison a man of “faith” because he GAVE away some literature regarding a religion? It’s not like the men even made profits off of these prints. That is what seems ridiculous to me. Just from this simple article about how there are crazy restrictions in China on speech makes me appreciate even more what I have in the United States. China has always notably been restrictive and "protective" of its citizens- ex: great wall of China- huge wall to seclude themselves and ignore and abolish the idea of foreign interaction or influence. Although I do not have an extensive learning about China, I do feel that a great deal of their history was changed and the culture of the country was developed because of the time in history when China was cold and shut off from the world.
I am anxious to go to Poland and Prague next month because I am beginning to think about how differently people live, have grown up and think of restrictions as " normal" and " average." I feel this may evoke some passion in me to encourage change in these countries, yet I must realize even those that are restricted may even like the idea of being restricted, yet I believe the freedom of speech is something that in some way or another every person in the world yearns for in some way or another. Everyone has an opinion and at some point, wants to share.
According to http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/exp/, Chinese government has gone as far as to put journalist who bring news to foreigners in jail and even blocks broadcasts of certain foreign television shows, websites and radio stations. Chinese government even controls and regulates religious materials in the country and will only allow government-licensed printing enterprises to produce religious materials Perhaps this is for additional revenue to the government? Or the Chinese government is simply that restrictive and truly has a strong, communist-like hold on their citizens. I feel it is a little bit of both. The arrests of both Wang Zaiqing and Cai Zhuohua, pastors of the Christian faith, were arrested because they printed and gave away Bibles and other Christian literature. This clearly is a violation of the International Human Rights regarding the freedom of speech. How can a government imprison a man of “faith” because he GAVE away some literature regarding a religion? It’s not like the men even made profits off of these prints. That is what seems ridiculous to me. Just from this simple article about how there are crazy restrictions in China on speech makes me appreciate even more what I have in the United States. China has always notably been restrictive and "protective" of its citizens- ex: great wall of China- huge wall to seclude themselves and ignore and abolish the idea of foreign interaction or influence. Although I do not have an extensive learning about China, I do feel that a great deal of their history was changed and the culture of the country was developed because of the time in history when China was cold and shut off from the world.
I am anxious to go to Poland and Prague next month because I am beginning to think about how differently people live, have grown up and think of restrictions as " normal" and " average." I feel this may evoke some passion in me to encourage change in these countries, yet I must realize even those that are restricted may even like the idea of being restricted, yet I believe the freedom of speech is something that in some way or another every person in the world yearns for in some way or another. Everyone has an opinion and at some point, wants to share.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
