Prof Ingrid Kelly
Eng 120
Ben Sammons
14 May 2013
Welcome to
English 120
It’s your
first day in 120. Mark Twain is giving you a funny look from the wall. Your
teacher is a woman possessed. She is like an Italian on crack, waving her arms,
marching up and down the aisle, talking about tweets, the cloud, blogging, and
you are wondering what in the hell you have gotten yourself into. Well hang in there
you’re in for a ride. You are going to journal and blog and store things in the
cloud, on a flash drive and in hard copy. If you get the same text book as I
did keep it. “How to write anything,” has everything in it. But most of all
listen to Ingrid. She is like some kind of teacher falcon, watching you like
pray, waiting to see the penny drop, and the light bulb go on. She has an
uncanny sense of what you understand and what you don’t and she will use
everything in her extensive tool box to get you from not getting it to “oh,
shit that’s what she means.”
If that
wasn’t enough there’s the writing center. Don’t ask me why but I hated the
writing center. It’s not that I’m shy or am averse to asking for help. It’s not
that guy thing about driving around and around for hours lost and refusing to
ask for directions. It’s not; no I’m sure it’s not. Perhaps it was because it
was compulsory. I wanted to be able to go their but on my own terms. It rubbed
me the wrong way and every time I went I would say to myself, yes that was
interesting but it’s just left me with more questions. That was until I had to
sit down and type up the scratches from my note book, my writing center
journal. As I put down each date and the name of the tutor and the subject of
that days interlude I started to see a pattern. I was looking at an evolution,
my own. I’m oh so positive in my journal notes but for me at least I could read
behind my own words and feel a discomfort lurking there. My visits left me each
time with more questions than answers but this in turn lead me to ask more
questions. Answers are nice, they’re soothing. Questions are irritating; they
force you out of your comfort zone. And guess what I found out? Outside your
comfort zone is where learning lives. I hate, really hate, to admit this but
that whole writing center thing, that you have to do, is okay.
Things to
watch out for: Ingrid is relentless. She seems all la, la, la and even a little
silly but don’t let that fool you. She knows what you’ve done and what you
haven’t, if you’re there or not, if you’ve done your homework, your journal,
your blog, your quizzes, your extra credit, read your chapters, brushed your
teeth in the morning, and she will not let you slide. But if you don’t get it
go talk to her. She has a way of dragging, cajoling, hammering and oh so adroitly
prompting understanding out of you. In short Ingrid rocks. My advice is do the
work, go to the writing center but in the end do yourself a favor talk to
Ingrid. You will learn more in that stubby, squashed little office, with
nowhere to sit down, than almost anywhere else. She is an excellent teacher.
Don’t waste her time.
Prof Ingrid Kelly
Eng 120
Writing Center
1/24: Beth was thoughtful and helpful. She said my second
paragraph needed work. She wanted me to elaborate on how the educational system
was like a factory. She wanted more specific examples from the video to back it
up.
1/29: Tonya was encouraging but to the point. She told me that
my examples were there but I didn’t always supply a main point at the beginning
of my paragraph so my examples could do their job. As I did not know that I
needed to state my main point at the beginning of my conclusion.
3/28 I was not sure what questions to ask about my topic
proposal. The tutor introduced me to the library data base, which rocks. The
most important thing that came out of this was that my topic sentence should be
the question to which my Thesis was the answer.
4/16 Catlin looked over my annotated bibliography before
class. She thought it was fine. She said she had read my topic proposal online
and that she was not familiar with the ads I was talking about. She suggested I
elaborate on that. She brought up the ACLU as a source which I thought was a
brilliant idea.
4/19 I told Ryan that I was a bit stuck and having trouble
starting with my first paragraph. He suggested balancing my first idea with
some history of SF and the first amendment. We talked about the bust of Mayor
Mossconi in SFMOMA and he brought up the City Lights book store and Allen
Ginsburge’s book Howl. He told me about the Fighting words court case of 1942.
4/24 Alicia tore me a new thesis. She said my outline was
upside down. I went from a general concept to a specific idea when what I
should do is use my local event idea to illustrate the ramifications to come.
4/24 Ryan is a walking encyclopedia, great for ideas, but I
am not sure I am mentally agile enough to keep up with his train of thought. I
came away with more questions than answers, not a bad thing. Probably just
where I need to be right now.
4/24 Gwen had a different idea about my thesis. It was
closer to my original idea. Our conversation revolved around the grey areas of
the First Amendment. One person’s pornography is another person’s art etc. We
talked about how freedom of speech stopped us from being China or Saudi Arabia.
5/3 Vaughan and I
talked about the relationship of topic sentences and thesis statements. I was
also having trouble with direction as far as the paper was concerned. I was approaching
it from the point of view of protecting the First Amendment. She pointed out
that it was really free speech and censorship that I was talking about more
specifically.
5/7 Ingrid thought I had got it so far as thesis and topic
sentence relationship was concerned but that I needed to restate more, to lead
the reader. I also needed better transitions between my quotes to explain their
relevance.
5/9 Ingrid says that she sees a light bulb go off in my head
when we have these chats. It’s true. My transitions and my continuity are
improving but I must remember to lead the reader and not worry so much about
repetition.
5/14 Ingrid liked my intro she said I had fixed a lot as far
as continuity in my body paragraphs. My last body paragraph has some sandwich
issues and my conclusion has too many ideas and is too confusing. She suggested
taking one idea and following it through,
Ben Sammons.
Prof Ingrid
Kelly
Eng 120,
11-12 40
3/12/13
Revised.
Our Children’s Dreams
As
parents we want our children to grow up and lead fulfilling, successful lives.
The
present education
system does not fully help them to develop their creativity or reach their full
potential.
Those children who fit more easily into the mold may be successful. Those students
who “don’t
fit in,” are made to feel inferior and often they rebel against a system that
is unable
to adapt to
more individualized teaching techniques. What often results is failure in the
outside
world. Our
standardized education system is faulty because it does not allow for
individualized
teaching.
A revolutionarily new movement in
education calls for reconsideration of our present
system. Ken
Robinson, a renowned educationalist, talks about how or present public school
system came
about in the wake of the industrial revolution, when standardization, factories
and mass
production emerged. Our education system was created by and for a different
era. It
has not
changed. We are still trying to mass produce graduating students. He
conjectures that
we are
teaching by batch, separating children by age and splitting them according to
supposed
intellectual
capaci ty. To paraphrase: we are manufacturing students as products for a
market
(society)
that does not exist anymore. Like film for a camera; if it were a business it
would be
bankrupt. .
Our education system needs to move into the twenty first century and start
preparing
students for the brave new world around them, the information age not the era
of
steam.
Teaching by batch and arbitrarily labeling
children is detrimental to their development.
Robinson
suggests that we are still dividing children into categories and not dealing
with their
individual
needs or nurturing their individual potential. He sights compelling examples
but I
would like
to share an anecdote of my own that I think illustrates the point. I have a
friend in
London whose
son was diagnosed with a learning disability, dyslexia. One school after
another
was either
unable, or unwilling to address this problem. The lad developed behavioral
problems,
had a little trouble with the law, and began to think of himself as an idiot.
My friend
finally
found a teacher who was creative enough to work with his son. Two years ago
young
Rubin
graduated from Oxford University with honors. The individualized education he
received
saved him.
Parents can affect change. By talking to our educators, writing to our
congressmen,
and making
our votes count we will at the very least initiate the conversation.
Our
standardized education system is broken. As every parent believes
our children
are our future. That five year old that you hold in your arms is a wriggling
bundle of
possibilities. She or he may even hold the potential to save us from ourselves.
Global
warming and
a failing global economy are just two of the problems that we will be handing
on
to the next
generation. We should see that they are well equipped to deal with these
problems.
Every
individual has something precious locked inside them, but one key does not fit
every lock.
Robinson put
it best at the end of one of his talks. He quoted a poem by Yeats. Yeats was
whining to
his lover about how sensitive he was and would she mind not stepping on his
dreams. Ken
Robinson changed the last line. He said, “Our children lay their dreams at our
feet.
We must be
careful where we tread.” We should be careful too that our education system is
not marching
in lock step like some lost battalion from another century. It is gentle
ground.
Ben Sammons.
Prof Ingrid
Kelly
Eng 120,
11-12 40
3/12/13
Revised.
Our Children’s Dreams
As
parents we want our children to grow up and lead fulfilling, successful lives.
The
present education
system does not fully help them to develop their creativity or reach their full
potential.
Those children who fit more easily into the mold may be successful. Those students
who “don’t
fit in,” are made to feel inferior and often they rebel against a system that
is unable
to adapt to
more individualized teaching techniques. What often results is failure in the
outside
world. Our
standardized education system is faulty because it does not allow for
individualized
teaching.
A revolutionarily new movement in
education calls for reconsideration of our present
system. Ken
Robinson, a renowned educationalist, talks about how or present public school
system came
about in the wake of the industrial revolution, when standardization, factories
and mass
production emerged. Our education system was created by and for a different
era. It
has not
changed. We are still trying to mass produce graduating students. He
conjectures that
we are
teaching by batch, separating children by age and splitting them according to
supposed
intellectual
capaci ty. To paraphrase: we are manufacturing students as products for a
market
(society)
that does not exist anymore. Like film for a camera; if it were a business it
would be
bankrupt. .
Our education system needs to move into the twenty first century and start
preparing
students for the brave new world around them, the information age not the era
of
steam.
Teaching by batch and arbitrarily labeling
children is detrimental to their development.
Robinson
suggests that we are still dividing children into categories and not dealing
with their
individual
needs or nurturing their individual potential. He sights compelling examples
but I
would like
to share an anecdote of my own that I think illustrates the point. I have a
friend in
London whose
son was diagnosed with a learning disability, dyslexia. One school after
another
was either
unable, or unwilling to address this problem. The lad developed behavioral
problems,
had a little trouble with the law, and began to think of himself as an idiot.
My friend
finally
found a teacher who was creative enough to work with his son. Two years ago
young
Rubin
graduated from Oxford University with honors. The individualized education he
received
saved him.
Parents can affect change. By talking to our educators, writing to our
congressmen,
and making
our votes count we will at the very least initiate the conversation.
Our
standardized education system is broken. As every parent believes
our children
are our future. That five year old that you hold in your arms is a wriggling
bundle of
possibilities. She or he may even hold the potential to save us from ourselves.
Global
warming and
a failing global economy are just two of the problems that we will be handing
on
to the next
generation. We should see that they are well equipped to deal with these
problems.
Every
individual has something precious locked inside them, but one key does not fit
every lock.
Robinson put
it best at the end of one of his talks. He quoted a poem by Yeats. Yeats was
whining to
his lover about how sensitive he was and would she mind not stepping on his
dreams. Ken
Robinson changed the last line. He said, “Our children lay their dreams at our
feet.
We must be
careful where we tread.” We should be careful too that our education system is
not marching
in lock step like some lost battalion from another century. It is gentle
ground.
Ben Sammons.
Prof Ingrid
Kelly
Eng 120,
11-12 40
3/12/13
Revised.
Our Children’s Dreams
As
parents we want our children to grow up and lead fulfilling, successful lives.
The
present education
system does not fully help them to develop their creativity or reach their full
potential.
Those children who fit more easily into the mold may be successful. Those students
who “don’t
fit in,” are made to feel inferior and often they rebel against a system that
is unable
to adapt to
more individualized teaching techniques. What often results is failure in the
outside
world. Our
standardized education system is faulty because it does not allow for
individualized
teaching.
A revolutionarily new movement in
education calls for reconsideration of our present
system. Ken
Robinson, a renowned educationalist, talks about how or present public school
system came
about in the wake of the industrial revolution, when standardization, factories
and mass
production emerged. Our education system was created by and for a different
era. It
has not
changed. We are still trying to mass produce graduating students. He
conjectures that
we are
teaching by batch, separating children by age and splitting them according to
supposed
intellectual
capaci ty. To paraphrase: we are manufacturing students as products for a
market
(society)
that does not exist anymore. Like film for a camera; if it were a business it
would be
bankrupt. .
Our education system needs to move into the twenty first century and start
preparing
students for the brave new world around them, the information age not the era
of
steam.
Teaching by batch and arbitrarily labeling
children is detrimental to their development.
Robinson
suggests that we are still dividing children into categories and not dealing
with their
individual
needs or nurturing their individual potential. He sights compelling examples
but I
would like
to share an anecdote of my own that I think illustrates the point. I have a
friend in
London whose
son was diagnosed with a learning disability, dyslexia. One school after
another
was either
unable, or unwilling to address this problem. The lad developed behavioral
problems,
had a little trouble with the law, and began to think of himself as an idiot.
My friend
finally
found a teacher who was creative enough to work with his son. Two years ago
young
Rubin
graduated from Oxford University with honors. The individualized education he
received
saved him.
Parents can affect change. By talking to our educators, writing to our
congressmen,
and making
our votes count we will at the very least initiate the conversation.
Our
standardized education system is broken. As every parent believes
our children
are our future. That five year old that you hold in your arms is a wriggling
bundle of
possibilities. She or he may even hold the potential to save us from ourselves.
Global
warming and
a failing global economy are just two of the problems that we will be handing
on
to the next
generation. We should see that they are well equipped to deal with these
problems.
Every
individual has something precious locked inside them, but one key does not fit
every lock.
Robinson put
it best at the end of one of his talks. He quoted a poem by Yeats. Yeats was
whining to
his lover about how sensitive he was and would she mind not stepping on his
dreams. Ken
Robinson changed the last line. He said, “Our children lay their dreams at our
feet.
We must be
careful where we tread.” We should be careful too that our education system is
not marching
in lock step like some lost battalion from another century. It is gentle
ground.
Ben Sammons
Prof Ingrid Kelly
Eng 120
15 May 2013
Work Cited
Baquet, Dean, and Bill Keller. “The Press Should Not Be
Censored During Wartime. Censorship.
` Ed. Scott Barbour. Farmington
Hills. Greenhaven press. 2010. Print.
First Amendment Center. The
first Amendment To The US.
Constitution. 15 December 1791.
Web. 15 May 2013. <http//.firstamendmentcenter.org>.
Greenwald Glen. “Bradley Manning: a Tale of Liberty Lost in
America.” The Guardian
Hudson L David.Jr. “’
Fighting Words’ Case Still Makes Waves On 70th Anniversary.” First
Amendment
Center. 9 March 2013. Web. 5 May 2013. < http//.firstamendmentcenter.org>.
Martin
Gary. “Power Corrupts; Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.” Phrase Finder.
2013. Web. 24
Roberts
Dexter. “The Great Internet Firewall of China.” Bloomberg Business Week. 26
October 2012
Rocca Mo. “Egyptian Tv Satirist Imprisoned.” CBS. 7 April
2013. Web. 9 May 2013.
Saunders J Debra. “Sanctimony City.” San Francisco
Chronicle.14 March 2013. Web. 24 April
2013.
Wood
David. “ Obama Drone War Imposes Heavy Burden At Home.” Huffington Post. 5
May 2013. Web. !5 May 2013. <http//.huffingtonpost.com>.
Prof Ingrid Kelley
English 120
26 March, 2013
When Hate Speech is Free Speech. An
Annotated Bibliography
Baquet, Dean, and Bill Keller. “The Press Should Not Be
Censored During Wartime. Censorship.
` Ed. Scott Barbour. Farmington
Hills. Greenhaven press. 2010. Print.
Dean Baquet, NY Times Washington bureau chief
and Bill keller executive editor of the NY Times say that ultimately it is not
the job of the government to decide what is or isn’t published but that of the
reporter. This is a case for no censorship.
Blankley Toney. “The Press Should
Be Censored During Wartime.”Censorship.
Ed. Scott Barbour. Farmington hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Page 23.Print.
“At the
beginning of World War II, around twenty-six news stories were censored in the
American
press everyday.” Blankley uses the words restrictive and laxity to describe the
press of
yester-year and the press of today. Blankley
belives that the press of today disregards domestic security and should
be censored.
First Amendment. First Amendment:
An Overview. Cornell University’s Legal Information
Institute. 19 Aug. 2010. Web. 20 March
2013.<www.law.cornell.edu/wex>
“The
Supreme Court has also said that the government may prohibit some speech that
may cause a
breach of the peace or cause violence.” This illustrates the interpretive
nature of
the First amendment and how it is regulated through the courts.
Francescani, Cris. “Savage” Jihad
ad debuts in New York City Subway. Chicago Tribune, 12 Sept
2012, Web. 20 March 2013.< articles.chicagotribune.com
>
“An
inflammatory ad equating Islamic Jihad with savagery was posted Monday in 10
New York
City Subway stations, even as much of the Muslim world was still seething
over a
California-made movie ridiculing the Prophet Mohammad.”
Mel moore, 29, a sports agent said: “It’s not
right, but it’s freedom of speech. To put it
on a poster
is just not right. But it caught my attention and I support freedom of speech,
so you got to
live with it.” The first quote shows two instances of freedom of speech,
both of
which could be considered in bad taste and arguably dangerously inflammatory.
The later
adds complexity to the argument because it was erroneously used as the cause
a tragic
incident. Not quite sure how, or if, that fits yet. The second quote is a, man
on
the street,
opinion that shows quite clearly how this freedom is an integral part of our
society,
and that at least a segment of the population is willing to ignore the bad
taste in
order to
maintain this ethic.
Greenwald Glen. “Bradley Manning: a Tale of Liberty Lost in
America.” The Guardian
Glenn Greenwald, a reporter for the UK newspaper The Guardian
writes about Manning’s whistle blowing.Greenwald says that Manninf could have
sold the classified information he leaked for a large sum of money to a terror
group but did not. The reporter belives that Manning’s reasons were altruistic
and that his plan was to show the truth to the American people.
Hudson L David.Jr. “’ Fighting Words’
Case Still Makes Waves On 70th Anniversary.” First Amendment Center.
9 March 2013. Web. 5 May 2013. <http//.firstamendmentcenter.org>.
Hudson cites a case in 1971, Cohen v.
California, in which a man had worn a jacket into a courthouse with the words
“Fuck the Draft” written on it. The court said this did not constitute
“fighting words” because Cohen did not direct the message at a particular
person or a group. This is an examples of First Amendment being modified, and clarified,
through the courts.
Johnson, James Turner. Morality and Contemporary Warfare. New
York. Yale University Press. 1999. Page 29. Print.
Johnson
talks about how Jihad (the word) has been invoked today by extremist. He explores how language, or speech, is
manipulated for different purposes. This being important because this is a
discussion of the power of words and how the abuse or disabuse of this power
relates to the issue of Free Speech.
Johnson, James Turner.The Holly War Idea In Western And Islamic
Traditions.University Park,
PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997.
Print.
Johnson
Speaking of the concept of Jihad as Holy war and its authorization.
He argues
that there has been no authority for Offensive Jihad since the Tenth century because
there is no supreme caliph or imam for all of Islam. This illustrates how words
cane be manipulated for political means and relates to the case of the MunI bus
ads in SF.
Martin Gary. “Power Corrupts; Absolute Power
Corrupts Absolutely.” Phrase Finder. 2013. Web. 24 March 2013. <http//.phrases.org.>.
Lord Acton, the noted historian and moralist,
said in 1887 “power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Prime
Minister William Pit in an address to the British House of Lords in 1770 said,
“Unlimited power is apt to corrupt those who possess it” These two men,
familiar with the workings of government, enlightened by their knowledge of
history, warned centuries ago of the distorting influence of power on the
judgment of those who wield it. An awairness of this is essential in order to
maintain freedom of information and freedom of speech.
Roberts Dexter. “The Great Internet Firewall of China.” Bloomberg
Business Week. 26 October 2012. Web. 15 May 2013.< http//.businessweek.com>.
Dexter Roberts reporting on the Great
Firewall of China for Bloomberg Business week talks about a New York Times
article that the Chinese government
censored by blocking web sites in English and Chinese. At the moment the
internet in this country is the epitamy of free speech and a battle still being
fought.
Rocca Mo.
“Egyptian Tv Satirist Imprisoned.” CBS. 7 April 2013. Web. 9 May 2013.
.
Youssef said in an interview:
"This is a new era, and this is a new
Egypt,…and I'm actually happy and am quite proud to be part of this. So yes, it
is changing and we're actually more empowered as people. The [powerful] people
and authority are not as scary as they used to be. No matter how scary they
want themselves to look like, the people are not scared anymore." This is
an example of how the fight is still going on in other countrys for freedom of
speech, that for the people of Egypt free speech is not a given.
Saunders, Debra J. Sanctimony City. San Francisco
chronicle, San Francisco. 20 March
2013.Web. 29 March 2013.
<www.sfgate.com>
“ San
Francisco City hall responded in knee-jerk fashion- holding a news conference
drenched in
sanctimony. ‘Hate has no place in our city,’ announced Mayor Ed Lee,
flanked by
fellow camera happy officeholders. Because the First Amendment essentially
prevents
the city from censoring ads because of ideology, Muni will run the posters- but
will give
$5000 in revenue to the city’s Human Rights commission to study the ad’s
impact on
the city’s Arab and Islamic community.”
Another
instance of the politics surrounding The First amendment and the less than
black and
white situation we are faced with. Even though this is a sound piece of
ideology we
should be aware of the way politics, by its nature, raps itself around our
ideals.
There is some analogy here about the degree of malleability inherent in both a
word
(Jihad) and a value or concept(freedom of speech) .
Wood David. “ Obama Drone War Imposes
Heavy Burden At Home.” Huffington Post. 5
May
2013. Web. !5 May 2013. <http//.huffingtonpost.com>.
Wood reports that the Drone
war has killed more than 2,500 Taliban, al Qaeda and other extremist leaders.
But in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia drone strikes have killed an estimated 900
civilians and injured more than 1,200 civilians since 2002.
United states courts. The first
Amendment. Fedral Judiciary. Web. 9 April 2013
`
<www.uscourts.gov>
Amendment I:
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.
The
original wording of the first amendment is quite clear. The freedom of speech
of any citizen is protected no matter what their individual’s beliefs may be.
This relates back to the Muni bus ads and the right to freedom of speech no
mater how repugnant it might be to others.
Using Billboards to stake a Claim
Over Jihad”. The New York Times. 7 March 2013. Web. 20
“There is an advertising war being
fought here—not over soda or car brands but over the word “Jihad”. Backing a
continuing effort that has featured billboards on the sides of Chicago buses,
the local chapter of a national Muslim advocacy group has been
promoting a
nonviolent meaning of the word—to struggle—that applies to everyday
life.” An
example of this is: “My Jihad is to stay fit despite my busy schedule.” This
emphasizes
the different interpretations of a word and illustrates the kind of public
discussion
that arises because we have the first amendment.
Ben Sammons
Pro Ingrid
Kelly
Eng120
25 April
When Hate Speech is Free Speech.
On a characteristically fogy morning in San
Francisco a bus idled curbside waiting for its passengers to embark. Passersby stopped
and stared, bewildered and not a little shocked. The words on the side of the
SF Muni bus stated: “‘Killing Jews is worship that brings us close to Allah.’ Hamas
TV station” (1). Another ad on another SF Muni bus read: “Jihad, holy fighting
in Allah’s cause, with full force and weaponry is…an obligation and duty in
Islam to every Muslim” (1) and underneath were the words, “This is my Jihad.
What’s yours?” These were alleged quotes from Jihad terrorists and the ads appearance
in such a public place, to most of us, is controversial at the very least. The
author of these ads was Pamela Geller, Blogger, and founder of The AFDI who had
already gained notoriety fighting the proposed Muslim community center at
ground zero in New York City. Many in San Francisco and across the country were
enraged by Geller and her inflammatory ad campaign. Debra J Saunders of the SF Chronicle reported
on this ad campaign and quoted Mayor Ed Lee as saying. “Hate has no place in
our city,” (1). He went on to say that the $5,000 in revenue from the ads would
go to the city’s Human Rights Commission to run a study on the ads impact on
SF’s Islamic community. The word hate was used repeatedly in connection
with this ad campaign of Ms Gellar’s but the reason that Mayor Ed Lee and the
city council was not able to remove these ads was because Pamela Geller’s right
to free speech was protected by the First amendment. Even if a person’s opinion
is repugnant to others in our society it is their right to express it. The
Geller vs. City Hall issue is a perfect example of the First Amendment at work
proving that by censoring speech we are tampering with a civil right that is
the cornerstone of our society and that that right should not be changed.
Americans are allowed to express
themselves as they wish and this is a right that we should guard jealously
because it is what separates our democracy from other forms of governments such
as oligarchies or dictatorships. There are those that say that our free speech
needs to be more closely regulated but there is a form of self regulation
already in place in the form of our court system. This ongoing conversation or
debate decides what speech is in fact dangerous to our society. For an example
it is not a right to be able to walk into a cinema and yell fire when there
isn’t a fire or to say something so insulting to a person’s face that the words
said provokes a violent response. This detrimental form of speech was addressed
by the courts in 1948.The famous “Fighting Words” case was about a man named
Chaplinsky, a devout Jehovah’s Witness, who, while handing out pamphlets,
managed to insult the crowd that had gathered. The mob eventually set on him
and he was dragged away by the police. He apparently cursed at the police
officer and was thrown in jail. He was charged with breach of peace and
convicted. The case went through several appeals sighting that Chaplinsky was
within his First amendment rights. Finally The Supreme court ruled against him.
The presiding judge on the “Fighting words” case made a very clear distinction
between what words were and were not protected under our First Amendment right,
setting a president for future cases. Justice Harry Blackman wrote:
There are
certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and
punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional
problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous,
and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words — those which by their utterance inflict
injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace (qtd in Hudson).
This is a prime example of the push- and- pull
conversation that defines the First amendment. Another instant of this self
regulation of our first civil right, and one directly related to the “Fighting
Words” Case, is the Cohen v California case. In his article for the First
Amendment Center David L Hudson Jr. states: “Later U.S. Supreme Court decisions
seemingly curtailed the reach of Chaplinsky”
(3). Hudson cites a case in 1971, Cohen
v. California, in which a man had worn a jacket into a courthouse with the
words “Fuck the Draft” written on it. The court said this did not constitute
“fighting words” because Cohen did not direct the message at a particular
person or a group. Hudson quotes: “No individual actually or likely to be
present could reasonably have regarded the words on appellant’s jacket as a
direct personal insult.” We see by these examples that the First
Amendment has a way of adjusting itself, through the courts, in a time
sensitive manner. We live in an ever changing world and what mean one thing in
one century does not necessarily apply to another century. The “fighting words”
in 1942 Supreme Court case was: “You’re a damned Fascist.” The country was
still in the midst of WWII fighting Nazi Germany. Today to call someone a
Fascist would not be considered enough of an insult to fight over. Similarly with the court decision in the Cohen
case, in 1971, the US was two years from the end of a very unpopular war and no
politician has dared to institute a draft since then. We see by both these
cases that this judicial regulation of the first amendment is sensitive to the politics
of the time evolving in an organic way around the shifting dynamics of each
century. The court system allows the people, through debate, to determine what free
speech is and what detrimental speech is, causing real harm. Because we the
people have this judiciary mechanism we are given a unique freedom that does
not exist in other societies.
The government should
not be allowed to interfere with our right to free speech and the free flow of
information because we then would run the risk of descending into an Orwellian
nightmare where we are told what to think and what to say and our government has
free reign to keep us in the dark. Lord Acton, the noted historian and
moralist, said in 1887 “power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts
absolutely” (qtd in Martin).He went on to say “great men are almost always bad
men”(qtd in Martin) A less well known quote is from Prime Minister William Pit
in an address to the British House of Lords in 1770, “Unlimited power is apt to
corrupt those who possess it” (qtd in Martin) These two men, familiar with the
workings of government, enlightened by their knowledge of history, warned
centuries ago of the distorting influence of power on the judgment of those who
wield it. Our Democracy is fragile. We need to guard its liberties from the
very men whom we invest with power and make a gift of our trust to. The guardian
at the gate way of our civil rights, and barometer of power, is the Press.
Dean Baquet, NY Times Washington bureau chief and Bill keller
executive editor of the NY Times say that ultimately it is not the job of the
government to decide what is or isn’t published but that of the reporter (32).
On talking about the touchy subject of what to report during war time they say
that we have reporters who risk their lives along side troops in Afghanistan
and Iraq and that these correspondents are not neutral, that they, in their way,
are fighting against Terrorism. One poignant point that Keller and Baquet make
is that these terrorists are not just directing their hate towards our people
but towards our way of life, “It is also aimed at our values, at our freedoms
and at our faith in the self-government of an informed electorate” (34). Keller
and Baquet are arguing that we need to be careful that we don’t, in our fight
against terrorism, come to resemble our enemies by changing those very rights
and freedoms we are fighting for. Citing the Vietnam war history, the Pentagon Papers, Keller and Baquet quote
Justice Hugo Black who wrote, “The government’s power to Censor the Press was
abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the
government. The Press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of
government and inform the people” (34). Justice Black here describes the press
as a watch dog vigilantly keeping an eye on those who govern us so that they
don’t become intoxicated by the power we have bestowed on them. The press in
fact has recently brought things to light that the white house did not want us
to know: Bad intelligence that put the country at war with Iraq, abuse of
prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq, water boarding ,and eavesdropping without
warrants. The press is free speech in motion and at the same time our guardian
of free speech. The president of the United States is quite commonly called the
most powerful man in the world. How do we protect against the Golem effect of Lord
Acton’s absolute power if our voice, the Press, is gagged? The right of free
speech is nothing if not the right to question.
Because US Army Generals
live like rock stars on tax dollars, because we are thrust into wars for
dubious reasons, because our torture of war prisoners is outsourced to of shore
locations and because our president has lethal toys that are deployed in other
countries at his sole discretion, whistle blowing is the right, if not the
duty, of every American. Only if we have free access to knowledge are we able
to think and speak freely. Governing, whether civilian or military, is often a
game of smoke and mirrors. Sometimes it takes that one brave person or group of
people to stand up and tell the truth in order for us to see through that miasma
and false reflection. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst facing life
in prison, may be such a person. Manning was assigned to an army unit based in
Bagdad. He was arrested for passing on Department of Defense classified
material to Wiki Leaks, a whistle blowing web site. Manning insists he was
reporting war crimes. One case in point was a classified video of an airstrike
on a village in Afghanistan that killed 86 of the 147 civilians that lived
there. The military has labeled Manning a traitor who as such may face the
death penalty. Manning asserts he was reporting war crimes. He still asserts
that he committed no treason even after spending two and a half years in
prison, almost a year of which was spent in solitary, in an eight by eight
cell, with only a 20 minute allowance of sunlight, in chains, a day. For
someone who did not seek monetary gains for what he did we must consider that
the burden of his conscience was great enough to make him speak out and blow
the whistle, no matter the consequences. Glenn Greenwald, a reporter for the UK
newspaper The Guardian writes about Manning’s whistle blowing:
Whatever
one thinks of Manning's alleged acts, he appears the classic whistleblower.
This information could have been sold for substantial sums to a foreign
government or a terror group. Instead he apparently knowingly risked his
liberty to show them to the world because – he said when he believed he was
speaking in private – he wanted to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates,
and reforms.”
Worldwide discussion, debate, and reforms
are admirable objectives. The case of Bradley manning is ongoing, extremely
complex and very controversial. It appears however at this point that Manning’s
motives were altruistic and not directed by personal gain. All of the
implications of this case are not clear at this moment but what is clear is
that there is something deep in the psyche of our nation that believes that we
must risk everything for the truth and that the truth is inalienably linked to
our ability to think and speak freely. America has a big footprint. We bomb
other countries. Our troops annex areas in large cities and we now deploy a
cyber army, like something from a sci-fi movie, to fly across the streets,
fields and villages in countries our government has deemed dangerous. David
Wood reports in the Huffington Post:
Drone
war is in full swing. Us. Armed drone strikes are reported to have killed more
than 2,500 Taliban, al Qaeda and other extremist leaders in Pakistan alone. But
in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia drone strikes have killed an estimated 900 civilians
and injured more than 1,200 civilians since 2002.
We hope we are doing the right thing but
statistics like this raise a question as to whether this is what we the people
want and whether we have even a clue as to what is going on in this very
secretive drone war. We can only hope that if the corrupting influence of power
causes a derailment of constitutional values there will be a Bradley Manning
sequestered in that highly classified, windowless brick building where this controversial
drone strategy is carried out. Freedom of speech is nothing if not the ability to
open our mouth and scream no that is wrong. This is what’s happening and it must be stopped.
Americans were born into, or were fortunate enough to immigrate to, a
country that holds freedom to be a human right as natural as breathing and, as
a cornerstone of our constitution, is worth protecting because people governed
by systems other than freedom based Democracy are not afforded this chance. For
example: CBS.com recently reported on the imprisonment of Egyptian TV satirist
Bassem Youssef. Youssef has been called the Jon Stewart of Egypt. He was
imprisoned for criticizing President Morsi and lampooning Egypt’s Islamist politicians.
To Americans the idea of imprisoning Jon Stewart would be a joke in itself
because we think it is the business of comedians to make fun of whomever they
like. We forget this is not so everywhere.
Youssef said in an interview:
"This is a new era, and this is a new
Egypt,…and I'm actually happy and am quite proud to be part of this. So yes, it
is changing and we're actually more empowered as people. The [powerful] people
and authority are not as scary as they used to be. No matter how scary they
want themselves to look like, the people are not scared anymore."(Rocco)
Youssef is fighting for a
freedom in his own country that we almost take for granted in our own. It is
unimaginable to us that we would run the risk of incarceration for simply
making a joke. This is because the right to express ourselves freely is written
down in our governing document the Constitution. This inherent freedom of ours
is so ingrained in the psyche of our democracy that even new technological leaps
take on its natural characteristics. An instance of this that In the west the
internet is the ultimate forum of free speech. Not so in China. Dexter Roberts
reporting on the Great Firewall of China for Bloomberg Business week talks
about a New York Times article that the Chinese government censored by blocking web sites in English and Chinese.
The article talked about the obscene wealth,$ 2.7 billion, of the Chinese
Premier Wen Jiobac’s family, a sum not exactly in line with Communist philosophy.
Roberts explains the web sites were blocked and then came the official
condemnation which said that the reports were meant to smear China’s
reputation. The foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei, at a press briefing stated
that China’s Internet was managed in
accordance with laws. Lei was of course speaking of China’s laws. China routinely blocks web sites in an effort to tailor the
information that its citizens have access to. If the powers that be control the
information of the people they control the way those people think and therefore
control their speech. We should be aware in this country of our freedoms lest
we lose them. A certain vigilance is required when freedom is a gift one enjoys
because not all are as fortunate as we.
Allowing the right to free speech to be
tampered with erodes the foundation of Democracy. The First amendment has survived
because it is a cornerstone of that Democracy. The English that it’s written in seems a
little stilted to those who read it in this century but if we read it with care
its message is clear and uncompromising in its tenants. This is the exact
wording of the First Amendment as written in 1791.
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 ( First Amendment Center).
A bus idling in a street in
San Francisco in 2013 carries the same massage,
not in its words but by its existence. Words on the sides of Muni buses in the
city of San Francisco were distressing and repugnant: “killing Jews is worship
that brings us close to Allah,” but allowed under the US constitution. If the
words of these ads were censored we would not be the Democracy that we are. Democracy
is a struggle, a constant battle of ideas but still it is a foot in the door of
liberty. We have brave people of the press and those of conscience, whistle blowers,
who would risk all to ensure a free flow of information. We do not have a Great
Fire Wall to our internet that allows our government to screen out what it does
not want us to know. Without access to
the truth a nation cannot think as a free people. If our thought is not free
then it follows that we have no free speech. Freedom of information, freedom of
thought and freedom of speech are what the First Amendment is about. It is our foundation.
If one brick in that foundation is eroded then the entire edifice is at risk of
falling. Free speech is our right and it must not be changed.
