Sexually exploiting minors is illegal. Therefore the creation, dissemination, and possession of child pornography are illegal. They are illegal for the purpose of protecting children and discouraging the abuse of children in general. Cases like “Ferber” and “Osborne” operate under the harm and mixes of the harm and offense principles. We need to prevent children from the physical and mentally harm that can occur from being exploited in pornography. But when it comes to animals, do we have the same duty to protect them and prevent future harm from occurring? What kind of rights should we extend to animals?
In the recent case of U.S. vs. Stevens, The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision made by Congress that made it a federal crime to creat, possess, or sell “crush videos” and other images of unlawful cruelty to animals. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals found that the government had no “compelling” interests in suppressing speech and images depicting animal cruelty. They didn’t recognize analogies to “Ferber” and “Osborne” and overall felt that the law was overly broad and would concern too many other related instances. There were also thoughts that human expression rights outweigh any basic rights of animals, and that animals don’t suffer the same physiological damages that children who participate in pornography do as they grow up.
It is my opinion that the original decision made by Congress, to make “crush videos” and other unlawful images of animal cruelty a federal crime, should have been upheld. Depictions of animal cruelty should be just as unprotected as child porn. Even if one feels that animals have no rights what-so-ever there are still compelling reasons for the government to outlaw animal cruelty speech. Operating under the harm principle, we need to consider the kind of harm that can occur to both humans and animals. Abusing animals is illegal in the United States, and in order to prevent abuse of all kinds (including private abuse) we need to put a stop to the creation and dissemination of this material.
Chaffe would not have considered animal cruelty to be protected speech. His theory on "protecting speech that serves a social interest," "worthless" speech refers to profane, indecent, or defamatory speech, which is of "slight social value as a step toward truth" Animal cruelty does not serve any social interest and is considered by the majority of people in the United States to be indecent. Therefore it's creation, possession, and sale should be made illegal.
Those exposed to videos of dog fighting videos or other forms may feel that the behavior is acceptable if they see a recording of it. Impressionable children especially need to be protected from seeing this material; less they grow up thinking animal abuse is suitable behavior. The same goes for adults, even a full grown adult may be swayed to participate in animal cruelty if he’s lead to believe he could make money, friends, or just have fun doing it. With this thought in mind we need to consider that animal cruelty harms more than just the animals within it. Such speech would have a bad tendency to encourage people to continue the behavior. And if one argues that it becomes difficult to judge the jurisdiction based on where the video was created then we need cite the “Osborne vs. Ohio” case and argue that we need to also dry up the market for such material, and make the mere possession of animal cruelty material illegal.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Post #5 Option #4 - 'Sexting'
No doubt that the subject of “sexting”, the practice of teens taking and spreading nude photos of themselves, and other forms of self-produced child porn are sensitive issues with all kinds of potential problems. Our first concern when approaching the issue of child pornography as a whole should be to protect the children involved. Our second concern should be to cripple the industry and prevent the future dissemination of child porn. And our last concern should be to punish the person in possession of the material. However, when young teens are exploiting themselves by taking and spreading the photos on their own, the issue becomes even more complicated.
We want to protect the children from the trauma that can result from being exploited. But how do we protect them when they’re doing it to themselves? It’s one thing to arrest and prosecute a grown adult who has forced or tricked a young child into making pornography. The victim and the criminal are clear in cases like those because the adult should know better and the child is often naïve or unwillingly used. But when a young teen creates and disseminates pictures of themselves, we aren’t sure who to blame and who to protect.
There is the recent case of the 14-year-old New Jersey girl who has been accused of child pornography for posting nude photos of herself on the popular social network site, MySpace.com. The young girl could potentially be convicted of distribution and would face sex offender status under Megan’s Law. The argument that police and other legal officials may be using in this case is that they want to set an example by punishing the young girl. Under Osborne v. Ohio standards one of the compelling interests is to disrupt the market for child porn. Police and court officials may feel that by punishing the young kids who make and distribute photos of themselves that they are going after “the market” by going after them. But the first compelling state interest in Osborne v. Ohio is to protect the actual minor in the photos.
When handling these kinds of cases, it is important to make sure that the minors in question are punished. They need to know the consequences of their actions, and to be more careful about the things they do on and offline. But are we protecting them by labeling them as sex offenders? A harsh label that will follow them their entire lives, it will prevent them from getting jobs, living in certain neighborhoods, and much more. We need to consider the fact that minors are neither wise nor experienced. Teenagers often act spontaneously based off their hormones and emotions and don’t truly realize the gravity of their actions. In light of that fact we need to apply special treatment to the punishment of minors for child pornography. We need not extend the same expression rights to minors when it comes to sexually explicit material, even if the minor consents, because we can still consider that speech worthless due to the fact that minors lack wisdom. They may not see the harm in posting nude photos of themselves as art or expression in the present, but in the future they may easily grow to regret that decision. If a minor consents to be part of something that is purposed to have some kind of artistic value, then we should apply SLAPS protection to the material. But only if its artistic or scientific value is proved and the minor's guardian has consented to the child's participation.
We need to protect the minor, but we also need to disrupt the market and show others that there are consequences for this kind of behavior. When someone is both the minor used and the person spreading material, they should be punished. They’ve done the harm, but the harm is only to them so there isn’t a real victim, per se. Labeling them as sex offenders is hardly protecting them however, they’ll carry the trauma with them forever with that sentence. Instead, cases of minors exploiting themselves should be handled based on circumstances. If it involves something happening on school grounds, the school itself should have a procedure for punishing students for spreading and accessing pornographic material on campus. When something occurs at off school grounds, then it should be handled by police. Cases involving someone exploiting themselves should be punished less severely than others. The minor in question should be forced into a court appointed therapy or counseling .The minor’s guardians should be warned about keeping better track of their children, should another incident occur the guardians might be held more accountable.
Cases that involve a minor being in possession of a picture of another minor should also be handled based off circumstance. If one minor willfully sends a pornographic photo to another minor, and that minor is caught with the photo (say a girl sends a photo to her boyfriend). He should be punished the similarly as the girl who made the photo, counseling and possibly some kind of probation. But if a minor sends a photo to other minors, or posts it on the internet, then the punishment should be more severe. Sex offender status is still too strong. Instead the minor should receive some time in juvenile hall or some kind of community service. We want a punishment that will teach them a lesson but not something that could potentially ruin their entire lives.
I suggest we handle these cases based off circumstance because the minors for the most part are foolish. We cannot hold them all to certain standards because young people are often ignorant and unaware of consequences, they are not criminals. They do stupid rash things and we need to both protect and educate them on the matter. Punishment isn’t always necessary.
We want to protect the children from the trauma that can result from being exploited. But how do we protect them when they’re doing it to themselves? It’s one thing to arrest and prosecute a grown adult who has forced or tricked a young child into making pornography. The victim and the criminal are clear in cases like those because the adult should know better and the child is often naïve or unwillingly used. But when a young teen creates and disseminates pictures of themselves, we aren’t sure who to blame and who to protect.
There is the recent case of the 14-year-old New Jersey girl who has been accused of child pornography for posting nude photos of herself on the popular social network site, MySpace.com. The young girl could potentially be convicted of distribution and would face sex offender status under Megan’s Law. The argument that police and other legal officials may be using in this case is that they want to set an example by punishing the young girl. Under Osborne v. Ohio standards one of the compelling interests is to disrupt the market for child porn. Police and court officials may feel that by punishing the young kids who make and distribute photos of themselves that they are going after “the market” by going after them. But the first compelling state interest in Osborne v. Ohio is to protect the actual minor in the photos.
When handling these kinds of cases, it is important to make sure that the minors in question are punished. They need to know the consequences of their actions, and to be more careful about the things they do on and offline. But are we protecting them by labeling them as sex offenders? A harsh label that will follow them their entire lives, it will prevent them from getting jobs, living in certain neighborhoods, and much more. We need to consider the fact that minors are neither wise nor experienced. Teenagers often act spontaneously based off their hormones and emotions and don’t truly realize the gravity of their actions. In light of that fact we need to apply special treatment to the punishment of minors for child pornography. We need not extend the same expression rights to minors when it comes to sexually explicit material, even if the minor consents, because we can still consider that speech worthless due to the fact that minors lack wisdom. They may not see the harm in posting nude photos of themselves as art or expression in the present, but in the future they may easily grow to regret that decision. If a minor consents to be part of something that is purposed to have some kind of artistic value, then we should apply SLAPS protection to the material. But only if its artistic or scientific value is proved and the minor's guardian has consented to the child's participation.
We need to protect the minor, but we also need to disrupt the market and show others that there are consequences for this kind of behavior. When someone is both the minor used and the person spreading material, they should be punished. They’ve done the harm, but the harm is only to them so there isn’t a real victim, per se. Labeling them as sex offenders is hardly protecting them however, they’ll carry the trauma with them forever with that sentence. Instead, cases of minors exploiting themselves should be handled based on circumstances. If it involves something happening on school grounds, the school itself should have a procedure for punishing students for spreading and accessing pornographic material on campus. When something occurs at off school grounds, then it should be handled by police. Cases involving someone exploiting themselves should be punished less severely than others. The minor in question should be forced into a court appointed therapy or counseling .The minor’s guardians should be warned about keeping better track of their children, should another incident occur the guardians might be held more accountable.
Cases that involve a minor being in possession of a picture of another minor should also be handled based off circumstance. If one minor willfully sends a pornographic photo to another minor, and that minor is caught with the photo (say a girl sends a photo to her boyfriend). He should be punished the similarly as the girl who made the photo, counseling and possibly some kind of probation. But if a minor sends a photo to other minors, or posts it on the internet, then the punishment should be more severe. Sex offender status is still too strong. Instead the minor should receive some time in juvenile hall or some kind of community service. We want a punishment that will teach them a lesson but not something that could potentially ruin their entire lives.
I suggest we handle these cases based off circumstance because the minors for the most part are foolish. We cannot hold them all to certain standards because young people are often ignorant and unaware of consequences, they are not criminals. They do stupid rash things and we need to both protect and educate them on the matter. Punishment isn’t always necessary.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Blog #4 Grassroots Sexual Content
Blog Option #3. Grassroots Sexual Content.
How do you classify something as stimulating? Isn’t it true that different people are interested, compelled, and offended by different things? Obviously the same can be argued for sexually stimulating content. What one may find as sexually stimulating another may simply see as just “the facts of life”. There are of course images, words, and descriptions that the average person would classify as sexually stimulating, such as pornography and erotica. But is the discussion of sexual preferences, habits, education, and health concerns necessarily stimulating. Certain individuals may find it so, but there are many people who wish to merely discuss the facts of sex in a civilized manner to better educate themselves and make personal decisions. For reasons like this speech that can be considered sexually stimulating should be protected because like other protected speech it’s relative to the exchange of new ideas. Philosopher, John Stuart Mill justified his theories on free speech under the idea that a popular opinion may be false, and the censored one true. If sexual speech and education had been fully censored at some point in history, we may not have the advances in birth control and STD prevention that we have today. People can learn a lot from sexual speech, it can do more than just stimulate a person’s sexual side it can stimulate their mind as well.
It is also my belief that people have the right to create, distribute, and receive sexual material whether it is for private use or public consumption. Naturally there should be some levels of restriction. If material contains any kind of child pornography, real rape or any non-consenting individual being forced to participate, or real murder, the speech should not be protected because that content would be illegal. How the government might go about looking for and confirming that illegal content is another problem. There should also be restrictions on where sexual content should be posted. Such as nowhere a child might be able to attain access, such as children’s sites and public forums such as youtube. It should be restricted to private sites where people have to confirm their age or are at least given a disclaimer. We should be operating under a "harm" theory rather than an "offense"
theory.
People have very diverse opinions when it comes to what offends them, but harm is a little easier to classify. Any form of speech that can be proven harmful should not be protected. But a clear and present danger test needs to be applied to make sure that the material in question can actually cause harm, and not just offense. Such as anything exploiting children, or something sexual posted where children may see it and possibly be mentally harmed.
Levels of protection should vary when it comes to different forums of media, particularly with the concern of protecting children from possibly offensive materials. Adults (for the most part) are educated and experienced enough to handle offensive material. They can always change the channel, stay away from websites, and judge for themselves whether or not a program or print article is for them. One may argue that they’re “held captive” when they turn on the radio and instantly hear something offensive, whether they quickly change the station or not. But so long as they’re a mature adult, no real damage can be done. In reference to the Miller v. California case, I would have to agree with the dissenting justices Douglas, Brenna, Stewart, and Marshall. Who believed that consenting adults should be allowed to view what they want and that others can easily avoid material they don't want to see. Children however are impressionable, inexperienced, and easily traumatized. Sexual images can be harmful to them because they don’t know what to make of the images and they can become confused. We need to protect children from harm, but we also need to protect the free speech rights of adults. Therefore we need to apply high level of scrutiny and only censor material that is poses real harm to children. Mediums like cable, radio, and movies already have effective methods in play to prevent children from being exposed to sexual content.
We have the ratings system for television and movies, indecent material isn’t allowed on the radio between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. as a result of FCC v. Pacifica, and indecent print materials aren’t suppose to be sold to children as decided in Ginsburg v. NY. Online sites are supposed to have disclaimers and other methods of confirming age. But those methods are often easily bypassed or fooled. I know personally that anyone can have a “Mature” video game mailed to their home after they “confirm” their age with a few clicks and no real identification method. So even despite these small safeguards children are capable of viewing indecent material online. The same can also be said for cable television. All a child has to do is stay up late enough and they can easily be exposed to offensive material. That’s where the parents come in though. If we want free speech and rights then we can’t ask the government to run everything for us. We have to run our own lives and if a parent is afraid of their child being exposed to indecent material, they need to watch their kid. Parents can install blockers and filters on their internet and thus prevent certain websites from being viewed. Most cable providers also provide the option to have parental controls installed into their cable service. With that they can block certain channels and have shows with certain mature ratings also blocked. We don’t always need the government to shield us from material.
I would not support any kind of federal law that banned sexual materials altogether. People have the right to express their sexuality. It can also be argued that pornography or erotica can be seen as therapeutic. An individual may be sexually frustrated or confused and rather than going out into the streets to hire a hooker, or possibly rape someone, they can log onto the internet and peacefully satisfy their desires. I once read an article (I wish I still had it) about how violent video games and pornography are very therapeutic because they allow people to fulfill desires and urges vicariously through the digital world. The only kind of regulation I would support would be to just monitor these sexual indecent sites and postings for any possible illegal doings such as rape, murder, or exploitation of minors. Other than that, the American people should be free to express themselves sexual just as they do in other ways. I agree with the Reno vs. ACLU case that the regulation of online content would more likely interfere with the free exchange of ideas, rather than protect it.
How do you classify something as stimulating? Isn’t it true that different people are interested, compelled, and offended by different things? Obviously the same can be argued for sexually stimulating content. What one may find as sexually stimulating another may simply see as just “the facts of life”. There are of course images, words, and descriptions that the average person would classify as sexually stimulating, such as pornography and erotica. But is the discussion of sexual preferences, habits, education, and health concerns necessarily stimulating. Certain individuals may find it so, but there are many people who wish to merely discuss the facts of sex in a civilized manner to better educate themselves and make personal decisions. For reasons like this speech that can be considered sexually stimulating should be protected because like other protected speech it’s relative to the exchange of new ideas. Philosopher, John Stuart Mill justified his theories on free speech under the idea that a popular opinion may be false, and the censored one true. If sexual speech and education had been fully censored at some point in history, we may not have the advances in birth control and STD prevention that we have today. People can learn a lot from sexual speech, it can do more than just stimulate a person’s sexual side it can stimulate their mind as well.
It is also my belief that people have the right to create, distribute, and receive sexual material whether it is for private use or public consumption. Naturally there should be some levels of restriction. If material contains any kind of child pornography, real rape or any non-consenting individual being forced to participate, or real murder, the speech should not be protected because that content would be illegal. How the government might go about looking for and confirming that illegal content is another problem. There should also be restrictions on where sexual content should be posted. Such as nowhere a child might be able to attain access, such as children’s sites and public forums such as youtube. It should be restricted to private sites where people have to confirm their age or are at least given a disclaimer. We should be operating under a "harm" theory rather than an "offense"
theory.
People have very diverse opinions when it comes to what offends them, but harm is a little easier to classify. Any form of speech that can be proven harmful should not be protected. But a clear and present danger test needs to be applied to make sure that the material in question can actually cause harm, and not just offense. Such as anything exploiting children, or something sexual posted where children may see it and possibly be mentally harmed.
Levels of protection should vary when it comes to different forums of media, particularly with the concern of protecting children from possibly offensive materials. Adults (for the most part) are educated and experienced enough to handle offensive material. They can always change the channel, stay away from websites, and judge for themselves whether or not a program or print article is for them. One may argue that they’re “held captive” when they turn on the radio and instantly hear something offensive, whether they quickly change the station or not. But so long as they’re a mature adult, no real damage can be done. In reference to the Miller v. California case, I would have to agree with the dissenting justices Douglas, Brenna, Stewart, and Marshall. Who believed that consenting adults should be allowed to view what they want and that others can easily avoid material they don't want to see. Children however are impressionable, inexperienced, and easily traumatized. Sexual images can be harmful to them because they don’t know what to make of the images and they can become confused. We need to protect children from harm, but we also need to protect the free speech rights of adults. Therefore we need to apply high level of scrutiny and only censor material that is poses real harm to children. Mediums like cable, radio, and movies already have effective methods in play to prevent children from being exposed to sexual content.
We have the ratings system for television and movies, indecent material isn’t allowed on the radio between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. as a result of FCC v. Pacifica, and indecent print materials aren’t suppose to be sold to children as decided in Ginsburg v. NY. Online sites are supposed to have disclaimers and other methods of confirming age. But those methods are often easily bypassed or fooled. I know personally that anyone can have a “Mature” video game mailed to their home after they “confirm” their age with a few clicks and no real identification method. So even despite these small safeguards children are capable of viewing indecent material online. The same can also be said for cable television. All a child has to do is stay up late enough and they can easily be exposed to offensive material. That’s where the parents come in though. If we want free speech and rights then we can’t ask the government to run everything for us. We have to run our own lives and if a parent is afraid of their child being exposed to indecent material, they need to watch their kid. Parents can install blockers and filters on their internet and thus prevent certain websites from being viewed. Most cable providers also provide the option to have parental controls installed into their cable service. With that they can block certain channels and have shows with certain mature ratings also blocked. We don’t always need the government to shield us from material.
I would not support any kind of federal law that banned sexual materials altogether. People have the right to express their sexuality. It can also be argued that pornography or erotica can be seen as therapeutic. An individual may be sexually frustrated or confused and rather than going out into the streets to hire a hooker, or possibly rape someone, they can log onto the internet and peacefully satisfy their desires. I once read an article (I wish I still had it) about how violent video games and pornography are very therapeutic because they allow people to fulfill desires and urges vicariously through the digital world. The only kind of regulation I would support would be to just monitor these sexual indecent sites and postings for any possible illegal doings such as rape, murder, or exploitation of minors. Other than that, the American people should be free to express themselves sexual just as they do in other ways. I agree with the Reno vs. ACLU case that the regulation of online content would more likely interfere with the free exchange of ideas, rather than protect it.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Ali Al-Timimi
10/8/09
Blog #2 Option #1
As a Supreme Court justice considering a First Amendment appeal of Ali Al-Timimi’s case. My decision is to uphold the Brandenburg v. Ohio standard for prosecuting incitements against the government. Under the right to free speech, people are allowed to have and express any opinions and ideas they may have. And even when that speech becomes hateful and threatening they still have the right to express it until direct proof of immediate and or imminent threat is discovered. Brandenburg himself was protected because even though he made threats of revenge against the government, he never told anyone to do anything specific and he never referenced any kind of specific action or time it would take place. He also never mentioned any individuals specifically but rather just the government as a whole and we are within our rights to make statements about what should be done within or to our government, so long as we don’t immediately incite any direct and specific violence.
I agree with philosopher John Stuart Mill in his beliefs that all citizens have the right to their opinion and to express it no matter how unpopular it may be. Brandenburg may have racist and revolutionary ideas that many people do not agree with, but as long as they express their beliefs peacefully and do not force their views on others, they’re protected by free speech. Mill said, "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
I also believe that the harm principle is important when considering the use of Brandenburg v. Ohio standards. Free speech protects our right to express our opinions and exchange ideas. But those rights should be restricted only when speech is intended to lead to the imminent and immediate harm of other people. When speech directly incites that a specific person or organization should be the target of violence and that certain people should and or will carry out that violence the speech should no longer be protected under First Amendment rights. When a speaker is telling a particular person or group of people to directly do something harmful, he is no longer expressing an idea he is directing and inciting harm on another person.
Given the facts concerning the Ali Al-Timimi case it is my decision to uphold the conviction. It is my opinion that Ali-Timimi’s words and actions are not protected by freedom of speech. If Mr. Timimi had only expressed his views and made statements concerning what he feels should be done then he would be within his rights. However, according to the testimony from his conspirators he did more than just speak his views. Stated within Count 1 article 3 in the indictment against Timimi, on or about September 16 Ali Al-Timimi told his listeners that American troops that who were likely to arrive in Afghanistan were legitimate targets of the violent jihad and that his listeners had a duty to engage them. During that same time he also discussed obtaining military-style training from Lashkar-e-Taiba, a known terrorist sect, in order to join the mujahedeen (violent jihad) against American troops in Afghanistan. Around September 17, 2001, Timimi advised his listeners on how to reach the Lashkar-e-Taiba camp undetected. Then those listeners traveled to the Pakistan Embassy in Washington D.C. to apply for Visas to travel to Pakistan. Then on or around September 18 and 19 his listeners traveled to Pakistan. Timimi would have been within his rights if he had only expressed his opinion verbally. But once he started giving instructions, that his listeners followed by traveling to Pakistan, then it becomes cleat that Mr. Timimi and his followers were headed towards an imminent violent confrontation with U.S. troops.
Around October 15, 2001 during a meeting Al-Timimi told another group of listeners that they were obligated to help the Taliban in the face of an attack by the United States (article 20). Around October 21, 2001 Al-Timimi counseled an associate that they were obligated to the Taliban, and “the Arabs with them” by “body, wealth and word even if some find that distasteful” (article 21).
There are plenty more charges against Al-Timimi mentioned in the indictment. However I feel that those that I have mentioned above are sufficient to support my decision to uphold Al-Timimi’s conviction. When Al-Timimi told his listeners that American troops would be legitimate targets, he specifically incited harm against a specific group. It could still be argued that there was no proof yet, that he was inciting imminent harm though. But when he advised that they also receive military style training, then travel to D.C. for visas, then the travel to Pakistan with instructions on how to remain undetected where they received training with various firearms, it showed that Al-Timimi’s words were leading to the eventual yet immanent harm of U.S. troops. He also told his listeners that they were obligated to do these things, he convinced them that they perhaps didn’t have a choice. He also told them to keep their meetings a secret. Keeping their plans and ideas secret does not allow for a free exchange of ideas, telling people that their obligated to follow an idea is also not a free exchange. And thus for reasons like this Al-Timimi is not protected by freedom of speech because his words went beyond just speech, he gave specific instructions and ideas that would have immanently led to the harm of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Blog #2 Option #1
As a Supreme Court justice considering a First Amendment appeal of Ali Al-Timimi’s case. My decision is to uphold the Brandenburg v. Ohio standard for prosecuting incitements against the government. Under the right to free speech, people are allowed to have and express any opinions and ideas they may have. And even when that speech becomes hateful and threatening they still have the right to express it until direct proof of immediate and or imminent threat is discovered. Brandenburg himself was protected because even though he made threats of revenge against the government, he never told anyone to do anything specific and he never referenced any kind of specific action or time it would take place. He also never mentioned any individuals specifically but rather just the government as a whole and we are within our rights to make statements about what should be done within or to our government, so long as we don’t immediately incite any direct and specific violence.
I agree with philosopher John Stuart Mill in his beliefs that all citizens have the right to their opinion and to express it no matter how unpopular it may be. Brandenburg may have racist and revolutionary ideas that many people do not agree with, but as long as they express their beliefs peacefully and do not force their views on others, they’re protected by free speech. Mill said, "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
I also believe that the harm principle is important when considering the use of Brandenburg v. Ohio standards. Free speech protects our right to express our opinions and exchange ideas. But those rights should be restricted only when speech is intended to lead to the imminent and immediate harm of other people. When speech directly incites that a specific person or organization should be the target of violence and that certain people should and or will carry out that violence the speech should no longer be protected under First Amendment rights. When a speaker is telling a particular person or group of people to directly do something harmful, he is no longer expressing an idea he is directing and inciting harm on another person.
Given the facts concerning the Ali Al-Timimi case it is my decision to uphold the conviction. It is my opinion that Ali-Timimi’s words and actions are not protected by freedom of speech. If Mr. Timimi had only expressed his views and made statements concerning what he feels should be done then he would be within his rights. However, according to the testimony from his conspirators he did more than just speak his views. Stated within Count 1 article 3 in the indictment against Timimi, on or about September 16 Ali Al-Timimi told his listeners that American troops that who were likely to arrive in Afghanistan were legitimate targets of the violent jihad and that his listeners had a duty to engage them. During that same time he also discussed obtaining military-style training from Lashkar-e-Taiba, a known terrorist sect, in order to join the mujahedeen (violent jihad) against American troops in Afghanistan. Around September 17, 2001, Timimi advised his listeners on how to reach the Lashkar-e-Taiba camp undetected. Then those listeners traveled to the Pakistan Embassy in Washington D.C. to apply for Visas to travel to Pakistan. Then on or around September 18 and 19 his listeners traveled to Pakistan. Timimi would have been within his rights if he had only expressed his opinion verbally. But once he started giving instructions, that his listeners followed by traveling to Pakistan, then it becomes cleat that Mr. Timimi and his followers were headed towards an imminent violent confrontation with U.S. troops.
Around October 15, 2001 during a meeting Al-Timimi told another group of listeners that they were obligated to help the Taliban in the face of an attack by the United States (article 20). Around October 21, 2001 Al-Timimi counseled an associate that they were obligated to the Taliban, and “the Arabs with them” by “body, wealth and word even if some find that distasteful” (article 21).
There are plenty more charges against Al-Timimi mentioned in the indictment. However I feel that those that I have mentioned above are sufficient to support my decision to uphold Al-Timimi’s conviction. When Al-Timimi told his listeners that American troops would be legitimate targets, he specifically incited harm against a specific group. It could still be argued that there was no proof yet, that he was inciting imminent harm though. But when he advised that they also receive military style training, then travel to D.C. for visas, then the travel to Pakistan with instructions on how to remain undetected where they received training with various firearms, it showed that Al-Timimi’s words were leading to the eventual yet immanent harm of U.S. troops. He also told his listeners that they were obligated to do these things, he convinced them that they perhaps didn’t have a choice. He also told them to keep their meetings a secret. Keeping their plans and ideas secret does not allow for a free exchange of ideas, telling people that their obligated to follow an idea is also not a free exchange. And thus for reasons like this Al-Timimi is not protected by freedom of speech because his words went beyond just speech, he gave specific instructions and ideas that would have immanently led to the harm of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Blog 1 - Your God My Speech
10/2/09
I believe that laws governing communication should primarily protect an individual universal civil liberty even if asserted against the group. We need to protect individuals’ rights rather than reinforcing group beliefs because not everyone wants to be part of a group, even if they’re born into a group, such as a religion. They may one day decide that they don’t believe in that religion and they need the right to explain why those beliefs are not for them.
We can look at history for an example; if colonists hadn’t been able to speak out against the injustices put on them by England, then America might still be living under British rule. Individuals have to assert themselves against a group in order to gain their rights to form their own group. In modern America we have a variety of groups to join; its part of the freedom of being American. And one the key attributes of our freedom is that our different groups are not forced to follow the laws/rules of other groups. Naturally there is the law which everyone has to follow. Laws that serve society rather than group beliefs and practices. People shouldn't have to follow a group's law, but there should be an agreed on set of laws for those living within a society. Groups and individuals would have to agree on a process of how laws are made and for what reasons. These laws would be made agreed upon by an elected government or council, depending on the kind of society. Laws like those would be to ensure the safety and security of a society but they wouldn't regulate the everyday lives and traditions of people and their groups. And so long as a group operates peacefully and within the common laws, they can live pretty much however they want.
In some Islamic cultures women are required to wear Burqas as part of their religious traditions. However many feel that it’s an outdated and oppressive requirement. In some middle-eastern parts of the world the Burqa is beginning to fade away. But in parts of Afghanistan under rule of the Taliban, women are forced into this practice in fear of death. Many women and other Islamic people may still wish to follow most of their religious practices, but they’re being forced into following the rules proposed by other groups and not their own leaders. Here in America we’re allowed to follow our religion of choice in whatever degree we please, the government doesn’t force us to follow our religion the way they see fit. If the individual’s right to speak out against a group wasn’t protected in America, it’s possible that women may still be unable to vote today.
When it comes to the controversy surrounding the cartoon depicting Muhammad, it’s certainly a slippery slope. On one hand there is the right to freedom of speech. Jyllands-Posten claimed that it was making a point about being able to satirize every kind of religion, and that they felt that Muslims wanted special treatment. But we also have the fact that within the Muslim religion itself, they’re forbidden to depict Muhammad at all, much less disdainfully so it’s clearly an offensive issue to them. It’s also true though that so long as we aren’t part of a group we shouldn’t have to follow that group’s rules. In America, I feel that if I were judging this would be an easy case. The newspaper is within its rights to print whatever it wants under the first amendment. In my personal belief it kind of seems like the paper almost wanted to start trouble, but so long as they don’t hurt anyone or intentionally promote violence among others they can say or print anything, especially a fictitious depiction. However in Denmark there is a law under their Danish Criminal Code. Section 140 of the code is known as the blasphemy law, prohibits disturbing public order by publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any lawfully existing religious community in Denmark. Jyllands-Posten was found innocent of any criminal intent, and the judge stated that Journalists are to be allowed to publish things that may be considered blasphemy if their comments relates to a topic of public interest. Seeing as how Jyllands-Posten claimed that the point of their cartoon was to raise questions about the treatment of Islamic culture in society, I would judge that they were within their rights and that they should be protected. Intent should be considered in cases such as this. The speakers claimed that there intent was to raise questions about Islamic culture in Society, so it seems that there was no criminal intent. However the message itself needs to also be considered. One may be able to lie about their original intent, so the message needs to be given a great amount of scrutiny to make sure that the message does match the claimed intent.
With regards to a different case, that of whether filmmakers in Dubai should be allowed to have the same rights as those in Hollywood, it’s hard to insist that they should. Never having been to India myself, and not knowing how the people themselves may feel, it’s hard to make a judgment. The majority of Dubai movie-goers may hate the idea of Dubai films becoming more like Hollywood. I could certainly understand if they wanted to keep their movies the way they are in fear of losing that part of their culture. Or they could love the idea, and I personally think that their opinion should be considered rather than just the government’s censors.
Thinking from a strictly financial point of view, it would be foolish for them not to. They want to bring in American companies to make movies and they also need more people to work the labor side of the process. But when it comes to the rights of the people, they may be prevented from fully expressing a compelling story if they do not have greater rights. Film is mostly a form of entertainment but it can also be used as an agent of social change and help spread awareness of an issue. Filmmakers not having the same rights as Hollywood studios are incapable of bringing certain messages and issues into their films. If the filmmakers in Dubai adhered to universal human rights, rather than laws that serve to protect their religious institutions then it would be possible for them to make films that truly impact their society.
I believe that laws governing communication should primarily protect an individual universal civil liberty even if asserted against the group. We need to protect individuals’ rights rather than reinforcing group beliefs because not everyone wants to be part of a group, even if they’re born into a group, such as a religion. They may one day decide that they don’t believe in that religion and they need the right to explain why those beliefs are not for them.
We can look at history for an example; if colonists hadn’t been able to speak out against the injustices put on them by England, then America might still be living under British rule. Individuals have to assert themselves against a group in order to gain their rights to form their own group. In modern America we have a variety of groups to join; its part of the freedom of being American. And one the key attributes of our freedom is that our different groups are not forced to follow the laws/rules of other groups. Naturally there is the law which everyone has to follow. Laws that serve society rather than group beliefs and practices. People shouldn't have to follow a group's law, but there should be an agreed on set of laws for those living within a society. Groups and individuals would have to agree on a process of how laws are made and for what reasons. These laws would be made agreed upon by an elected government or council, depending on the kind of society. Laws like those would be to ensure the safety and security of a society but they wouldn't regulate the everyday lives and traditions of people and their groups. And so long as a group operates peacefully and within the common laws, they can live pretty much however they want.
In some Islamic cultures women are required to wear Burqas as part of their religious traditions. However many feel that it’s an outdated and oppressive requirement. In some middle-eastern parts of the world the Burqa is beginning to fade away. But in parts of Afghanistan under rule of the Taliban, women are forced into this practice in fear of death. Many women and other Islamic people may still wish to follow most of their religious practices, but they’re being forced into following the rules proposed by other groups and not their own leaders. Here in America we’re allowed to follow our religion of choice in whatever degree we please, the government doesn’t force us to follow our religion the way they see fit. If the individual’s right to speak out against a group wasn’t protected in America, it’s possible that women may still be unable to vote today.
When it comes to the controversy surrounding the cartoon depicting Muhammad, it’s certainly a slippery slope. On one hand there is the right to freedom of speech. Jyllands-Posten claimed that it was making a point about being able to satirize every kind of religion, and that they felt that Muslims wanted special treatment. But we also have the fact that within the Muslim religion itself, they’re forbidden to depict Muhammad at all, much less disdainfully so it’s clearly an offensive issue to them. It’s also true though that so long as we aren’t part of a group we shouldn’t have to follow that group’s rules. In America, I feel that if I were judging this would be an easy case. The newspaper is within its rights to print whatever it wants under the first amendment. In my personal belief it kind of seems like the paper almost wanted to start trouble, but so long as they don’t hurt anyone or intentionally promote violence among others they can say or print anything, especially a fictitious depiction. However in Denmark there is a law under their Danish Criminal Code. Section 140 of the code is known as the blasphemy law, prohibits disturbing public order by publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any lawfully existing religious community in Denmark. Jyllands-Posten was found innocent of any criminal intent, and the judge stated that Journalists are to be allowed to publish things that may be considered blasphemy if their comments relates to a topic of public interest. Seeing as how Jyllands-Posten claimed that the point of their cartoon was to raise questions about the treatment of Islamic culture in society, I would judge that they were within their rights and that they should be protected. Intent should be considered in cases such as this. The speakers claimed that there intent was to raise questions about Islamic culture in Society, so it seems that there was no criminal intent. However the message itself needs to also be considered. One may be able to lie about their original intent, so the message needs to be given a great amount of scrutiny to make sure that the message does match the claimed intent.
With regards to a different case, that of whether filmmakers in Dubai should be allowed to have the same rights as those in Hollywood, it’s hard to insist that they should. Never having been to India myself, and not knowing how the people themselves may feel, it’s hard to make a judgment. The majority of Dubai movie-goers may hate the idea of Dubai films becoming more like Hollywood. I could certainly understand if they wanted to keep their movies the way they are in fear of losing that part of their culture. Or they could love the idea, and I personally think that their opinion should be considered rather than just the government’s censors.
Thinking from a strictly financial point of view, it would be foolish for them not to. They want to bring in American companies to make movies and they also need more people to work the labor side of the process. But when it comes to the rights of the people, they may be prevented from fully expressing a compelling story if they do not have greater rights. Film is mostly a form of entertainment but it can also be used as an agent of social change and help spread awareness of an issue. Filmmakers not having the same rights as Hollywood studios are incapable of bringing certain messages and issues into their films. If the filmmakers in Dubai adhered to universal human rights, rather than laws that serve to protect their religious institutions then it would be possible for them to make films that truly impact their society.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)