The Guardian inspired me to take the blog international this week. This editorial criticizes the EU for not taking a firmer stance against Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who has introduced press gag legislation in an attempt to silence criticism of the Italian government. I chose this topic not to criticize either the EU or Italy, but to reflect on the situation.
As the article states, Prime Minister Berlusconi already controlled approximately 80% of Italian television channels without this law. Criticism of his regime was unlikely to begin with, but now he feels the need to make sure it is impossible.
The article criticizes the EU for characterizing this action as a national issue (and therefore none of the EU’s business), but it is the comments following the article that hold a larger issue. What about the Italian people? How do they feel about their media being at least heavily influenced, if not controlled, by government leaders with great interests in which information reaches the public? If the Italian people do not have all of the relevant political information, they cannot make informed decisions at the polls, but do they care?
Do we care? Or maybe a better question is do a majority of Americans care about having all of the relevant information? One of our responsibilities as librarians is to educate the public about why the freedom of speech is so important. This situation illustrates why very well. If you do not exercise your freedom of speech, and do not act as a watchdog to make sure the government is not trying to chip away at freedoms, you may very well lose them.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Deadly Expression (Blog Post #1)
CNN has featured a couple of stories (I recommend watching “Man Accused of Aiding Suicides Online” before “Suicide Chat Rooms Raise Legal Questions”) on a male nurse in Minnesota who has encouraged individuals to commit suicide. Initially posing as a female in suicide chat rooms, he has entered ten or eleven suicide pacts with individuals online. At least two suicides have been linked to him.
Although the main issue legal experts are focused on is whether someone can be prosecuted for assisted suicide simply by telling someone how to commit suicide (as opposed to physically assisting them), there is also an expression issue. The nurse could claim he did not realize people were taking him seriously or that he was role-playing. Role-playing chat rooms can be found relatively easily on the Internet.
First Amendment absolutists would say the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” This situation poses the question whether life is more important than free speech.
I remember when I took Reference, my professor gave us an ethics hypothetical where a teen girl came into the library and wanted to check out a book on how to commit suicide. Even if you knew she was lonely or depressed, you should not do anything, even if you knew her parents. I realize that librarians are not supposed to prevent access to materials, but if you check out the book to the girl, say nothing to anyone, and she kills herself, how are you supposed to live with yourself, knowing you might have been able to prevent that tragedy?
Although the main issue legal experts are focused on is whether someone can be prosecuted for assisted suicide simply by telling someone how to commit suicide (as opposed to physically assisting them), there is also an expression issue. The nurse could claim he did not realize people were taking him seriously or that he was role-playing. Role-playing chat rooms can be found relatively easily on the Internet.
First Amendment absolutists would say the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” This situation poses the question whether life is more important than free speech.
I remember when I took Reference, my professor gave us an ethics hypothetical where a teen girl came into the library and wanted to check out a book on how to commit suicide. Even if you knew she was lonely or depressed, you should not do anything, even if you knew her parents. I realize that librarians are not supposed to prevent access to materials, but if you check out the book to the girl, say nothing to anyone, and she kills herself, how are you supposed to live with yourself, knowing you might have been able to prevent that tragedy?
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Freedom to express your disrespect towards police officers
I have seen a couple of news stories on this now. This is another example of the classic battle between public order and personal freedoms.
The ACLU has filed suit on behalf of individuals who were issued tickets for swearing, either at police officers or other motorists. See the entire article here.
The Colbert Report also recently featured Robert Ekas, an individual who gives police officers the middle finger whenever he sees them, and is suing the sheriff's department to protect this right.
But is this a right? The ACLU argues swearing is not a crime and distinguishes profanity from obscenity. In order for speech to be unprotected under the obscenity exception, it must appeal to a "prurient interest" in sex, as established by Miller v. California. Cases such as Cohen v. California, where an individual wore a jacket reading "Fuck the Draft" inside the lobby of a courthouse, also support the idea that profanity is protected speech. In Cohen, however, the United States Supreme Court noted that individuals could avert their eyes. Police officers cannot necessarily avoid the expression if it is obscenities being yelled at them. Of course, there are also public safety concerns associated with this behavior as well.
The ACLU has filed suit on behalf of individuals who were issued tickets for swearing, either at police officers or other motorists. See the entire article here.
The Colbert Report also recently featured Robert Ekas, an individual who gives police officers the middle finger whenever he sees them, and is suing the sheriff's department to protect this right.
But is this a right? The ACLU argues swearing is not a crime and distinguishes profanity from obscenity. In order for speech to be unprotected under the obscenity exception, it must appeal to a "prurient interest" in sex, as established by Miller v. California. Cases such as Cohen v. California, where an individual wore a jacket reading "Fuck the Draft" inside the lobby of a courthouse, also support the idea that profanity is protected speech. In Cohen, however, the United States Supreme Court noted that individuals could avert their eyes. Police officers cannot necessarily avoid the expression if it is obscenities being yelled at them. Of course, there are also public safety concerns associated with this behavior as well.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
