|
Author
|
Topic: First Amendment freedoms
|
Kevin Ott
True Believer
|
posted 11-26-2000 10:31 AM
   
I just read something that's potentially pretty scary.A survey conducted and published by the Freedom Forum found that a majority of Americans favor placing further limits on the freedom of the press and freedom of artistic expression in public places, and favors posting the ten commandments in schools and using the Bible as a factual text in history classes. The survey also found that one person in five feels there should be further government approval for media outlets to publish. Go here to read the survey. You can also download a copy to read with Acrobat. Since I want to get this thread going on the reactions of others, I'm not going to go into my feelings on this. What do you guys think? What are your reactions to the survey, and what are your feelings on freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and artistic expression? Should controversial art be displayed in public? Should there be government controls on what newspapers are allowed to publish and what TV stations are allowed to bradcast? Should the ten commandments be posted in public schools? I'd especially like to hear from the more conservative wing of the crew, since I'm interested in what could justify these kinds of opinions (though I've found that some of the staunchest supporters of First Amendment rights have been pretty far to the right). |
slgorman
One of the Regulars
|
posted 11-27-2000 10:48 PM
Interesting. I would like to challenge some of the people who responded to this survey with the following questions:
- 81% of those surveyed agreed that, if the majority favors it, prayer at a high school graduation is OK.But what if that prayer violates D or E below? Oftentimes, certain religions do not agree with each other, then who decides?
- 64% agreed students should be allowed to lead prayers at school-sponsored events. What if this conflict with D or E below, who decides?
- 61% would let school officials post the Ten Commandments. See D and E below.
- 67% feel public remarks offensive to racial groups should not be allowed. So does that mean the "public remark" of South Carolina flying the Confederate flag is a moot point?
- 53% feel public speech offensive to religious groups should not be allowed. Wouldn't most civilized discussion about controversial issues (school prayer, abortion, etc.) be completely disallowed if this were to happen?
- Another 40% said musicians shouldn’t sing offensive songs in public. What if these "offensive" songs are "offensive" because of D or E above?
I find this survey deeply disturbing. While they are at it, why not just throw out the entire Bill of Rights? I really hope that most of this comes from a place of people not having travelled or learned about what goes on in countries that do not guarantee the freedoms we are blessed with in this country or don't understand how easy, when not protected, it is to trample these rights. [This message has been edited by slgorman (edited 11-27-2000).] |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 01-03-2001 01:21 AM
I like your analysis of the contradictions at work here, sl . . . nicely done.It is kind of interesting to see how some people are willing to compromise the First Amendment for reasons of the public good, while others on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum are often willing to make similar compromises with at least the spirit of the Second. I gotta make a mental note to myself to be careful about that. Controversial art in public is a thorny issue, because the right of the artist to display may come in conflict with the right of the majority to have some control over their environment. There was some controversy about a work that was displayed in a halway in Philly City Hall, so they moved it. I'm cool with that; I understand that art needs to challenge people's preconceptions, but you can't force people to be exposed to it, or they won't come to it in the right frame of mind. I definitely disagree with displaying the ten commandments or having organized prayer. These seem like simple non-offensive things to people of a certain religious tradition, but they do exclude people, and that's bad. |
Kevin Ott
True Believer
|
posted 01-03-2001 01:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Thomer:
Controversial art in public is a thorny issue, because the right of the artist to display may come in conflict with the right of the majority to have some control over their environment... I understand that art needs to challenge people's preconceptions, but you can't force people to be exposed to it, or they won't come to it in the right frame of mind.
Great point, Dave, and one I hadn't thought of before. In the case of Rudy Giuliani's objections to Chris Ofili's work, the argument that the art was objectionable was sort of nil, since nobody had to go to the Brooklyn Museum of Art -- but City Hall, that's another story. But Rudy's problem was one of funding, and that's the question I still have: Where do we draw a line in the sand when it comes to public funding of art that might potentially offend the people that are paying for it? |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 01-03-2001 03:51 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Ott:
But Rudy's problem was one of funding, and that's the question I still have: Where do we draw a line in the sand when it comes to public funding of art that might potentially offend the people that are paying for it?[/B]
I think when it comes to public funding, society has a right to appoint whomever it wants to guard the purse strings. If the majority of the public doesn't want to fund a Mapplethorpe exhibit, and they elect people who won't fund such exhibits, the exhibit doesn't get a dime, and that's OK. Artists don't have a right to patronage -- they have to struggle to earn it. We can have a debate over the place of artists in society, and what we think the community should and should not support, but that's a different issue than one of rights, I think. |
BJ
One of the Regulars
|
posted 01-04-2001 11:32 PM
Some people just don't know what they are talking about. People advocate prayer in schools, but now there are potentially different religions in a class, how do you decide who leads the prayer. It wouldn't be fair to some of the other religions and I could see some possible harrassments because of that.
I am somewhat against censorship. We do have rights to freedom of expression, but I'm not one of those who thinks we should be displaying nudes in the middle of an elementary school. As Dave said I think, artists should have to battle to get their work displayed. I people don't like it, maybe they should do some stuff not as offensive to get displayed, but don't completely change over. Try and do both. There are times and places for all kinds of artistic expressions.
Now the Bible as a Historical book, I can't agree with that. See above about the praying and just add this topic. There would be people of different religions and until everybody is united under one religion, I don't think we can use religious documents as historical text.
Musicians can sing about what ever they want. Nobody points a gun to your head and forces you to buy a group that you don't want. I don't like rap music, and I think that you can sing a song without every word being a swear word, but that doesn't mean I'm going to hold a rally infront of the recording studio. I just won't buy it. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 01-09-2001 01:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BJ:
People advocate prayer in schools, but now there are potentially different religions in a class, how do you decide who leads the prayer. It wouldn't be fair to some of the other religions and I could see some possible harrassments because of that.
Bingo. Even things like a moment of silence for voluntary prayer can pose problems -- because what if someone is from a faith that can't pray silently in a minute while seated at his or her desk? It's things like this that I think we don't think about too much, because it's still true that the vast majority of the country comes from a Judeo-Christian background. But that's changing, and if we want to continue to be an inclusive society that melds a lot of traditions together, we have to accept that it's changing. If we don't want to continue in that fashion, we're going to have to discard a lot of beliefs about ourselves as a society, and I don't think that would be a change for the better. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 09-24-2001 12:14 AM
I went back and read the article Kev links to, to see if it had anything to say on the issue of compromising civil liberties or First Amendment freedoms in the name of national or personal security. It didn't, but it'll be interesting to see whether or not people will complain about any new measures that come out of this current crisis. It'll also be interesting to see if people remain open to the notion of loyal opposition, which is always a thorny issue and particularly in such times as these.I did find another item in the article that I had to comment on. "55% think high school students should get school authorities' approval for controversial stories." To this day it amazes me that so many people think schools shouldn't provide at least some forum for open debate. Then again, I spent seven years working on campus publications, so it probably shouldn't. We'll see if I feel any differently when or if I find myself on the other side of the classroom on a permanent basis.  |
Kevin Ott
True Believer
|
posted 09-27-2001 04:21 PM
I'm not sure I see the rationale for the notion that controversial stories written by high school students should be checked by a higher authority. It seems to be one of those things that would just breed dissidence, rather than dealing with potential problems as they come up. |
Kevin Ott
True Believer
|
posted 09-28-2001 08:35 AM
Read this story at Editor & Publisher online for an example of how not to handle reader feedback. The papers in question were probably small dailies with close-knit readerships, which is a far cry from the Washington Post, but we should keep our eyes open to these sorts of things nonetheless. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 10-02-2001 11:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Ott:
It seems to be one of those things that would just breed dissidence, rather than dealing with potential problems as they come up.
Not that we would know, or anything. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 10-02-2001 11:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Ott:
Read this story at Editor & Publisher online for an example of how not to handle reader feedback.
The one thing I would say about both of those cases is that I can make a pretty strong case for both of the columns in question being irresponsible, and not just unpopular. It appears they're criticizing Bush, in rather harsh and personal terms, for a decision he did not make. Now, if they had been fired for, say, criticizing Ari Fleischer's after-the-fact spin attempts, that would be a whole different ball game. And this might be a good time to bring up Ari's attempts to shush Bill Maher, which I found to be more than a little bit over the line. But then, I feel the same about most of what comes out of Ari's mouth, so maybe I'm not the one to judge. | |
This Is Not News Forums
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
