Overall, I think the most effective strategy for change is putting a face to an issue, and personal narratives. One example, in particular, would be the 5 by 7" -ish cards Nancy Amedi brough to class, which had information on a state issue on one side, and then had a photo of someone holding a sign of that same measure/issue, which they were in support of, and the photo indicated what district they were from. Relationships and people are powerful; it's how we all stay connected and feel we are a part of something bigger. That said, these types of brief snippets into another's life/feelings on an issue, or even a full narrative of someone affected by the issue, is very powerful.
An example of an ineffective strategy for change would be the "treddle pump" bike design for women farmers in Africa. The project designer clearly didn't acutally connect with or speak to the women he was trying to help, as it's not socially acceptable for women to ride bikes, particularly in Ghana. Thus, the design was unsuccessful there, but then it was very successful in Tanzania, where it is socially acceptable for women to ride bikes. This is an example of why every speaker, video, and many chapters in our text emphasize the importance of not only connecting to an issue, but also connecting to those affected by the issue.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Narrative & Influence - in-class post
There was one, brief story/image that stood out to me when guest speaker, Alaina Dix, came to speak about Puget Sound Sage and those who drive port trucks. There are a few reasons why this story stood out to me, one of which may simply be that, before Alaina spoke, we watched the intense film on the history of indentured servants. I'd like to think that, as time has passed, we've learned and found ways to better treat/pay those involved in work, like driving a port truck. However, after hearing Alaina speak, I was discouraged and disappointed to learn that we have not.
Alaina began by giving us some background on what's going on with the "clean and safe" port campaign. Then we learned that port truck driving is no longer a paying union job. Drivers now must pay for their truck, fuel, maintenance, insurance, and any enviro. friendly demands upon the trucks. After she set this up (avisory rhetorical tenant), to emphsize just how broke these drivers are, she went on to say that many drivers sleep/live in the back of their trucks and then get up and go back to work in the morning. This mental image was the final push, and I really recognized what a truly big issue this is.
Alaina then went on to name the well-known corporations, like WalMart, CostCo, Office Max, etc., which are places most of us have heard do "dirty" work for profits; when she explained that they balloon their prices by having low-paid drivers, garbage men, and train and ship yard workers, I was also then able to recognize how interconnected we are in terms of consumption, big corporations, and low-paid workers.
Alaina began by giving us some background on what's going on with the "clean and safe" port campaign. Then we learned that port truck driving is no longer a paying union job. Drivers now must pay for their truck, fuel, maintenance, insurance, and any enviro. friendly demands upon the trucks. After she set this up (avisory rhetorical tenant), to emphsize just how broke these drivers are, she went on to say that many drivers sleep/live in the back of their trucks and then get up and go back to work in the morning. This mental image was the final push, and I really recognized what a truly big issue this is.
Alaina then went on to name the well-known corporations, like WalMart, CostCo, Office Max, etc., which are places most of us have heard do "dirty" work for profits; when she explained that they balloon their prices by having low-paid drivers, garbage men, and train and ship yard workers, I was also then able to recognize how interconnected we are in terms of consumption, big corporations, and low-paid workers.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Law Paper #2
Westboro Baptist Church Hate Speech: Protection & Censorship
The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) members have become publicly well known and hated because of their regularly staged protests. They have protested at funerals of victims of plane crashes, car accidents, and murder, as well as at funerals for American soldiers. They protest at events featuring world leaders, and are protesting in foreign countries. Since the Church protests issues related to homosexuals/homophobia, murder, accidents, politics, and war soldiers, it is difficult to generalize and protect or censor all of their hate speech. Thus, it is my belief that, while specifically considering Chafee’s theory of “protecting speech that serves the social interest,” as well as Emerson’s “expression-action” theory, some of the Church’s hate speech/acts of protest should be protected, and some should be censored.
What is most important to consider about Chafee’s theory is his concern for expression that serves an “individual interest” and that which serves a “social interest” (Herbeck and Tedford 435). Also, Chafee believes in punishment for “worthless” speech, while “worthwhile” speech deserves maximum protection. “Worthless” speech involves “[…] profane, indecent, or defamatory” language, which is of “[…] slight social value as a step toward truth;” “worthwhile” speech involves “[…] the greater social interests of ‘order, morality, and the training of the young and the peace of mind of those who hear and see’” (Herbeck and Tedford 436). Considering that the Church has made public statements that “we’re a doomed country – a doomed generation” and has made signs saying “Thank God for dead soldiers,” (Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church) Chafee’s theory would surely consider this “worthless” speech, as it is not constructive, nor does it serve the greater social interest Chafee discusses.
Thomas Emerson’s “expression-action” theory attempts to make distinctions between that which he considers “expression,” which “[…] must be freely allowed and encouraged,” and that which he considers “action,” which “[…] can be controlled, subject to other constitutional requirements, but not by controlling expression” (Tedford and Herbeck 438). When Emerson’s applies expression versus action to cases involving sedition, defamation, obscenity, and provocation to anger, the much of the Church’s hate speech/acts would likely be protected, but some wouldn’t. For example, “[…] when libel is directed toward a private individual in a way that does harm that person’s feelings, it shifts from expression to action […] and is no longer protected” (Tedford and Herbeck 439). Thus, some of the Church’s funeral protests probably wouldn’t be protected, as the families are directly affected and hurt.
With the Church, it is also difficult to decide what type of action to take when considering whether this type of hate speech/action should be subject to a “bad tendency” test or an “immediate incitement” test. In the Brandenburg vs. Ohio case, which resulted in the incitement standard, the Ku Klux Klan leader actually states that, although they are “[…] not a revengent organization […] it is possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken” (Tedford and Herbeck 65). They also had a video which included phrases “[…] that were derogatory of Negroes, and, in one instances, of Jews” (Tedford and Herbeck 65). The Church has videos on their website entitled “Thank God for Katrina,” “God Blew Up the Troops,” “Fag Soldier in Hell,” and “The Beast Obama;” although the Church is clearly in support of natural disasters and war tragedies, which they consider to be, in a sense, Gods vengeance, they do not threaten to take any sort of revenge, other than the protesting, themselves. The incitement test does protect even threatening speech (Tedford and Herbeck 66). The Church’s hate speech, then, would be fully protected if it were subject to the incitement test, and this is the test they should be subjected to, rather than the “bad tendency” test.
The “bad tendency” test is primarily concerned with the possibility of danger, which includes the threat of violence; the test “[…] allows government to stop or punish speech early in its utterance on the grounds that it has a ‘tendency’ to create a serious problem sometime in the future” (Tedford and Herbeck 465). This “nip-it-in-the-bud” approach has been used against the Church; for example, when the Church announced their plans to go to Great Britain to protest a play about the murder of a young gay man, The United Kingdom Border Agency said it would prevent them from entering the country (Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church). In the case that resulted in this test, Dennis v. the United States, the “gravity of evil” presented by communism, and their threats to overthrow the government, were so great that they didn’t want to wait for something to happen before stopping it. In my opinion, although the WBC claims to hold only “peaceful” protests, the primary issue is that the “gravity of evil” is so great that others may attack them, and that should be of great concern, especially when considering the safety of the community and those who are a part of whatever event is being protested. Thus, although I wouldn’t subject them to this type of test, I do believe there are other ways, such as time, place, and manner restrictions, which can be used to protect the community from violence toward the protestors, and, potentially, innocent victims of any attacks made on “the most hated family in America.”
One example of the violence caused by WBC hate speech was during a picket in Seaford, Delaware (May, 2006). Angered by the hate speech, “[…] a mob broke through police lines and tried to assault WBC members who fled into a police van. Some of the mob then began banging on the van attempting to get inside. Two windows of the van were shattered before the van could get away” (Westboro Baptist Church). Additionally, when the WBC picketed a marine’s funeral in Maryland (October, 2007), they caused such great and “intentional emotional distress” against the family of the marine that they were sued by the family, and have been held accountable for $5 million in damages (Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church).
Considering the danger and emotional distress caused by these two instances, constraints of time, place, and manner should be implemented for this group. In a 1993 Florida case regarding picketing around women’s clinics, the state court “[…] enjoined abortion protestors from interfering with access to a women’s clinic […] by creating a 36-foot buffer zone around clinic property (Tedford and Herbeck 275). They also prohibited chanting, singing, and other noisy demonstrations, as well as displaying “images observable” to patients in the clinic. Picketers were also not allowed to approach patients or clinic employees within 300 feet of the clinic.
The type of limitations implemented in the Florida women’s clinic case would be most effective for this group. “[…] [A] number of states and the federal government have [already] passed laws designed to limit the group’s ability to disrupt funerals” (Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church) Leader of the Church, Fred Phelps, “[…] has repeatedly challenged the legislation, on both free speech and freedom of religion grounds, with some measure of success” (Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church). Additionally, the group is extremely media hungry and considers any media attention a victory. That said, if action is taken that is more stringent or repressive to the group than certain time, place, and manner restrictions, it is likely that the WBC will strike back and feed off the media attention. They may also need this type of venting process/outlet, so that they don’t end up engaging in greater, more dangerous and dramatic acts of hate. In the end, then, most of the WBC’s messages will be given the most protection, while some of their hate speech plus protest actions will be limited in order to protect their safety, as well as the safety and emotional stability of the community and funeral goers.
Works Cited
"Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church." ADL: Fighting Anti-Semitism, Bigotry and Extremism. 22 May 20.
Tedford, Thomas L. Freedom of speech in the United States. State College, Pa: Strata Pub., Inc., 2005.
"Westboro Baptist Church -." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 26 May 2009.
Westboro Baptist Church Home Page. 22 May 2009
Westboro Baptist Church Home Page. 22 May 2009
The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) members have become publicly well known and hated because of their regularly staged protests. They have protested at funerals of victims of plane crashes, car accidents, and murder, as well as at funerals for American soldiers. They protest at events featuring world leaders, and are protesting in foreign countries. Since the Church protests issues related to homosexuals/homophobia, murder, accidents, politics, and war soldiers, it is difficult to generalize and protect or censor all of their hate speech. Thus, it is my belief that, while specifically considering Chafee’s theory of “protecting speech that serves the social interest,” as well as Emerson’s “expression-action” theory, some of the Church’s hate speech/acts of protest should be protected, and some should be censored.
What is most important to consider about Chafee’s theory is his concern for expression that serves an “individual interest” and that which serves a “social interest” (Herbeck and Tedford 435). Also, Chafee believes in punishment for “worthless” speech, while “worthwhile” speech deserves maximum protection. “Worthless” speech involves “[…] profane, indecent, or defamatory” language, which is of “[…] slight social value as a step toward truth;” “worthwhile” speech involves “[…] the greater social interests of ‘order, morality, and the training of the young and the peace of mind of those who hear and see’” (Herbeck and Tedford 436). Considering that the Church has made public statements that “we’re a doomed country – a doomed generation” and has made signs saying “Thank God for dead soldiers,” (Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church) Chafee’s theory would surely consider this “worthless” speech, as it is not constructive, nor does it serve the greater social interest Chafee discusses.
Thomas Emerson’s “expression-action” theory attempts to make distinctions between that which he considers “expression,” which “[…] must be freely allowed and encouraged,” and that which he considers “action,” which “[…] can be controlled, subject to other constitutional requirements, but not by controlling expression” (Tedford and Herbeck 438). When Emerson’s applies expression versus action to cases involving sedition, defamation, obscenity, and provocation to anger, the much of the Church’s hate speech/acts would likely be protected, but some wouldn’t. For example, “[…] when libel is directed toward a private individual in a way that does harm that person’s feelings, it shifts from expression to action […] and is no longer protected” (Tedford and Herbeck 439). Thus, some of the Church’s funeral protests probably wouldn’t be protected, as the families are directly affected and hurt.
With the Church, it is also difficult to decide what type of action to take when considering whether this type of hate speech/action should be subject to a “bad tendency” test or an “immediate incitement” test. In the Brandenburg vs. Ohio case, which resulted in the incitement standard, the Ku Klux Klan leader actually states that, although they are “[…] not a revengent organization […] it is possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken” (Tedford and Herbeck 65). They also had a video which included phrases “[…] that were derogatory of Negroes, and, in one instances, of Jews” (Tedford and Herbeck 65). The Church has videos on their website entitled “Thank God for Katrina,” “God Blew Up the Troops,” “Fag Soldier in Hell,” and “The Beast Obama;” although the Church is clearly in support of natural disasters and war tragedies, which they consider to be, in a sense, Gods vengeance, they do not threaten to take any sort of revenge, other than the protesting, themselves. The incitement test does protect even threatening speech (Tedford and Herbeck 66). The Church’s hate speech, then, would be fully protected if it were subject to the incitement test, and this is the test they should be subjected to, rather than the “bad tendency” test.
The “bad tendency” test is primarily concerned with the possibility of danger, which includes the threat of violence; the test “[…] allows government to stop or punish speech early in its utterance on the grounds that it has a ‘tendency’ to create a serious problem sometime in the future” (Tedford and Herbeck 465). This “nip-it-in-the-bud” approach has been used against the Church; for example, when the Church announced their plans to go to Great Britain to protest a play about the murder of a young gay man, The United Kingdom Border Agency said it would prevent them from entering the country (Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church). In the case that resulted in this test, Dennis v. the United States, the “gravity of evil” presented by communism, and their threats to overthrow the government, were so great that they didn’t want to wait for something to happen before stopping it. In my opinion, although the WBC claims to hold only “peaceful” protests, the primary issue is that the “gravity of evil” is so great that others may attack them, and that should be of great concern, especially when considering the safety of the community and those who are a part of whatever event is being protested. Thus, although I wouldn’t subject them to this type of test, I do believe there are other ways, such as time, place, and manner restrictions, which can be used to protect the community from violence toward the protestors, and, potentially, innocent victims of any attacks made on “the most hated family in America.”
One example of the violence caused by WBC hate speech was during a picket in Seaford, Delaware (May, 2006). Angered by the hate speech, “[…] a mob broke through police lines and tried to assault WBC members who fled into a police van. Some of the mob then began banging on the van attempting to get inside. Two windows of the van were shattered before the van could get away” (Westboro Baptist Church). Additionally, when the WBC picketed a marine’s funeral in Maryland (October, 2007), they caused such great and “intentional emotional distress” against the family of the marine that they were sued by the family, and have been held accountable for $5 million in damages (Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church).
Considering the danger and emotional distress caused by these two instances, constraints of time, place, and manner should be implemented for this group. In a 1993 Florida case regarding picketing around women’s clinics, the state court “[…] enjoined abortion protestors from interfering with access to a women’s clinic […] by creating a 36-foot buffer zone around clinic property (Tedford and Herbeck 275). They also prohibited chanting, singing, and other noisy demonstrations, as well as displaying “images observable” to patients in the clinic. Picketers were also not allowed to approach patients or clinic employees within 300 feet of the clinic.
The type of limitations implemented in the Florida women’s clinic case would be most effective for this group. “[…] [A] number of states and the federal government have [already] passed laws designed to limit the group’s ability to disrupt funerals” (Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church) Leader of the Church, Fred Phelps, “[…] has repeatedly challenged the legislation, on both free speech and freedom of religion grounds, with some measure of success” (Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church). Additionally, the group is extremely media hungry and considers any media attention a victory. That said, if action is taken that is more stringent or repressive to the group than certain time, place, and manner restrictions, it is likely that the WBC will strike back and feed off the media attention. They may also need this type of venting process/outlet, so that they don’t end up engaging in greater, more dangerous and dramatic acts of hate. In the end, then, most of the WBC’s messages will be given the most protection, while some of their hate speech plus protest actions will be limited in order to protect their safety, as well as the safety and emotional stability of the community and funeral goers.
Works Cited
"Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church." ADL: Fighting Anti-Semitism, Bigotry and Extremism. 22 May 20
Tedford, Thomas L. Freedom of speech in the United States. State College, Pa: Strata Pub., Inc., 2005.
"Westboro Baptist Church -." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 26 May 2009
Westboro Baptist Church Home Page. 22 May 2009
Westboro Baptist Church Home Page. 22 May 2009
Communication & Social Change Blog #3: Guest Speaker Haven Ley from The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Over the course of this term, we’ve had many guest speakers discuss their interesting experiences working with non-profit organizations and social movements. Many people who spoke about their work talked about starting with little financial and community support, building relationships, and thus building up their organization/movement. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, however, clearly has a “leg up,” particularly in terms of building their foundation and funding; the speaker from the foundation, Haven Ley, and her work in agricultural development, was especially interesting to me.
Although the Gates foundation is far bigger and more well known than other foundations/organizations, Haven Ley said the foundation can’t do “anything,” nor can they go into projects, without maintaining strong relationships. This is something that every speaker has told the class about their approach toward making change and building up their organization. The snappy PowerPoint, accompanied with remarkable photographs, definitely indicated that the foundation covered every aspect of what it means to be an organization working toward social change, such as having a core belief, as step-by-step reasoning that justified their “areas of focus,” and a mission for their “global development” department. Their “core belief:” “All lives have equal value” is short and to the point, and it’s something I believe all people can stand behind.
The Foundation’s “global development” department, which comprises 25% of the foundation, focuses on the lives of those living on less than $1 a day. Their mission is to increase the opportunities for people in developing countries to overcome hunger and poverty. With the knowledge that agriculture has been neglected in sub-Saharan Africa over the past twenty years, the Foundation decided to invest their efforts in agriculture. I think this is an extremely valuable type of work to do in a developing, struggling area, as it is directly focusing on the work/source of money for many people, the land, and nourishment. Also, I really respect that the foundation heavily invests in doing “relentless” research to get to know the women farmers they’re fighting for. The Foundation takes a systemic look at the agricultural system, and tries to make change on that level; however, their projects are a great example of how interconnected personal, community and systemic change can be.
When Ley discussed the Foundation’s projects and grant profiles, it was abundantly clear that nothing is gender neutral in this work, and many projects have failed because some element was socially unacceptable in the Ethiopian and Tanzanian culture in particular. For example, the “treddle pump” bike design failed in Ethiopia because it isn’t socially acceptable to ride bikes in their culture, whereas it was a highly successful design in Ghana because it is socially acceptable. There was also the shortened ho project (3 feet vs. longer) that failed in Tanzania because women’s babies would fall off their back if they leaned that far over. How is it that people designed these projects without connecting and speaking to the people they are trying to help? It seems ridiculous to skip that step in the process, and, in my opinion, making connections with the people you’re fighting/working for, not just those you want support from, are some of the most valuable and important connections that can be made. Thus, the Foundation is spending more time focusing on understanding the culture and the women they are working to help, although this can be difficult as some do not want to be a part of the process.
It was interesting to hear Ley speak, since she represents an organization that does have a lot of money and support; their advertising and rhetorical approach was clearly still linked to the same ideas as the other organizations, but they have the ability to have more research conducted, provide remarkable advertising and photography, and take on projects that may or may not fail. I’m eager to learn more about the work they do.
Although the Gates foundation is far bigger and more well known than other foundations/organizations, Haven Ley said the foundation can’t do “anything,” nor can they go into projects, without maintaining strong relationships. This is something that every speaker has told the class about their approach toward making change and building up their organization. The snappy PowerPoint, accompanied with remarkable photographs, definitely indicated that the foundation covered every aspect of what it means to be an organization working toward social change, such as having a core belief, as step-by-step reasoning that justified their “areas of focus,” and a mission for their “global development” department. Their “core belief:” “All lives have equal value” is short and to the point, and it’s something I believe all people can stand behind.
The Foundation’s “global development” department, which comprises 25% of the foundation, focuses on the lives of those living on less than $1 a day. Their mission is to increase the opportunities for people in developing countries to overcome hunger and poverty. With the knowledge that agriculture has been neglected in sub-Saharan Africa over the past twenty years, the Foundation decided to invest their efforts in agriculture. I think this is an extremely valuable type of work to do in a developing, struggling area, as it is directly focusing on the work/source of money for many people, the land, and nourishment. Also, I really respect that the foundation heavily invests in doing “relentless” research to get to know the women farmers they’re fighting for. The Foundation takes a systemic look at the agricultural system, and tries to make change on that level; however, their projects are a great example of how interconnected personal, community and systemic change can be.
When Ley discussed the Foundation’s projects and grant profiles, it was abundantly clear that nothing is gender neutral in this work, and many projects have failed because some element was socially unacceptable in the Ethiopian and Tanzanian culture in particular. For example, the “treddle pump” bike design failed in Ethiopia because it isn’t socially acceptable to ride bikes in their culture, whereas it was a highly successful design in Ghana because it is socially acceptable. There was also the shortened ho project (3 feet vs. longer) that failed in Tanzania because women’s babies would fall off their back if they leaned that far over. How is it that people designed these projects without connecting and speaking to the people they are trying to help? It seems ridiculous to skip that step in the process, and, in my opinion, making connections with the people you’re fighting/working for, not just those you want support from, are some of the most valuable and important connections that can be made. Thus, the Foundation is spending more time focusing on understanding the culture and the women they are working to help, although this can be difficult as some do not want to be a part of the process.
It was interesting to hear Ley speak, since she represents an organization that does have a lot of money and support; their advertising and rhetorical approach was clearly still linked to the same ideas as the other organizations, but they have the ability to have more research conducted, provide remarkable advertising and photography, and take on projects that may or may not fail. I’m eager to learn more about the work they do.
Communication Rights and Law Blog #3: Copyright, Defamation, Parody, and Satire
I found our class lecture on copyright, defamation, parody, and satire to be very thought provoking. I found it difficult to answer the question, “when does a joke go too far?” Also, It was intriguing to learn more about the background on copyright in relation to parody and satire, as the information states that original works of authorship are “sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than a transitory duration of expression” (Permber and Calvert 572). Thus, once your copyrighted work is released, anyone has the ability to reproduce the work in a less than flattering or crediting way. What’s interesting, though, is that the courts will look at the amount of pages, minutes, lyrics, etc., that someone/a group is using for a parody. After considering some of the cases and parodies we discussed in class, I think that this type of consideration is important.
First, I thought of the James Blunt parody on his song, “You’re Beautiful,” which is called “You’re Pitiful.” The parody does, in a way, ruin the song for me, as all I can hear is “You’re Pitiful” when I hear the original (although I didn’t like the original a lot, so it’s no big loss). The lyrics of “You’re Pitiful” are also a very harsh blow to who he is as an artist. Thus, the value of the work, for me, has been lessened.
When considering “The Daily Show” case, I started thinking about many Saturday Night Live skits, also. We’ve talked about how the grassroots network, and the Internet/rapid technological advances, are what some believed resulted in Obama’s win; I would also argue that many of the SNL and other TV skits, which mocked, defamed, and discredited Palin and McCain, may have lowered their credibility so much that it, like the grassroots network, contributed to Obama’s win. Since it is all done in good humor, though, this type of work tends to fall under parody, which is a “critically and usually humorous effort to lampoon a creation,” rather than defamation (Tedford and Herbeck 589). This is less related to copyright laws, and more related to parody and defamation, but it got me thinking about the use of people’s name, face, and works.
In the end, what’s most important, in my opinion, to consider when observing or hearing a parody piece on copyrighted works, is the “transformative” dimension it may have. This dimension is regarding the “[…] way a work takes an original and transforms it into something different.” Moreover, it’s especially “sticky” when thinking about the effect of use upon “[…] the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work” (Bammert’s handout – April 22nd, 2009).
First, I thought of the James Blunt parody on his song, “You’re Beautiful,” which is called “You’re Pitiful.” The parody does, in a way, ruin the song for me, as all I can hear is “You’re Pitiful” when I hear the original (although I didn’t like the original a lot, so it’s no big loss). The lyrics of “You’re Pitiful” are also a very harsh blow to who he is as an artist. Thus, the value of the work, for me, has been lessened.
When considering “The Daily Show” case, I started thinking about many Saturday Night Live skits, also. We’ve talked about how the grassroots network, and the Internet/rapid technological advances, are what some believed resulted in Obama’s win; I would also argue that many of the SNL and other TV skits, which mocked, defamed, and discredited Palin and McCain, may have lowered their credibility so much that it, like the grassroots network, contributed to Obama’s win. Since it is all done in good humor, though, this type of work tends to fall under parody, which is a “critically and usually humorous effort to lampoon a creation,” rather than defamation (Tedford and Herbeck 589). This is less related to copyright laws, and more related to parody and defamation, but it got me thinking about the use of people’s name, face, and works.
In the end, what’s most important, in my opinion, to consider when observing or hearing a parody piece on copyrighted works, is the “transformative” dimension it may have. This dimension is regarding the “[…] way a work takes an original and transforms it into something different.” Moreover, it’s especially “sticky” when thinking about the effect of use upon “[…] the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work” (Bammert’s handout – April 22nd, 2009).
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Law Blog - Answer to Ben's Question (creationism, evolution, and the science drama)
In 1928 the state of Arkansas passed an antievolution law that prohibited any teacher in the public schools from teaching the theory that mankind evolved from a lower order of animals. In 1968, Susan Epperson (a biology teacher) challenged the law in the courts determine whether or not she could teach a chapter on evolution. After the Supreme Court of Arkansas upheld the law, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision and declared the antievolution law an unconstitutional infringement. (pg. 128)
Q: If you were a teacher, what would your stance be on this ruling? How do you think your stance would change if you taught at a private university? What is the importance of this case to the conflict between church and state?
This case was particularly interesting to read about, especially when considering the debate in class Monday, as debaters were struggling to fight for creationism in science courses, whereas this case presents the original struggle to get evolution in the science classrooms. If I were a teacher, I would definitely agree with the final ruling that dubbing creationism as “creation science,” and teaching it as such, is for the “[…] specific purpose of advancing religion,” and that it “lacks legitimate education value because ‘creation science’ as defined in the statute is simply not science” (Tedford and Herbeck 129). Although many private universities are linked to religion, like our Jesuit University, I would continue to hold strong in my opinion if I were teaching at a private school. People at a private school may be able to better argue for creationism, as it doesn’t involve tax dollars, but they also have the benefit of teaching a range of courses and have the benefit of placing creationism teachings under religious studies, or something that isn’t considered science.
If I were teaching at the time that this case arose in 1928, like Susan Epperson, I would feel extremely conflicted. On the one hand, the new textbooks actually provided a chapter on the science behind evolution, which implies that it is truly valuable and important information to be teaching; however, with the knowledge of the Arkansas law against teaching evolution, I would be conflicted, and I admire Epperson for challenging this law. I would also consider myself to be in good company, since even Jefferson, in 1814, experienced censorship regarding a book he was attempting to publish on the creation of the world, which also highlights just how far back and how loaded this issue truly is (Tedford and Herbeck 126). If I were teaching, and/or in the shoes of Epperson, I would find myself in a struggle between what I believed to be considered academic freedom as well as quality teaching of the sciences, and my own beliefs regarding God and religion. Surely Epperson had to deal with the antievolution fundamentalists, who’s campaign was “[…] waged in simple either-or terms-heaven versus hell, religion versus irreligion, Christians versus sinners” (Tedford and Herbeck 127). It would be extremely difficult to be simultaneously fighting for education you believe in, while also, most likely, having your faith, religion, and beliefs called into question.
What I think is most interesting about this debate, especially when considering what it says about the conflicts and separation between church and state, is the language used on both sides of the issue. First, the statute that made it a crime to teach evolution in the classroom becomes known as “the monkey law,” and the antievolutionists adopted this name for their campaign to have the same law in their state. This name, in itself, is an attempt to instill a sense of silly-ness and fear when considering evolution as a science, and considering humans to be similar to monkeys. Then, the antievolutionists want creationism to be considered “creation science;” flash-forward to today, and even the debate on Monday, and now people are pushing for creationism to be taught as “intelligent design.” The language/titles around creationism vs. evolution seem to be one of the more powerful tools in guiding people’s opinion and decision on the matter, which is true for many of the cases we’ve discussed.
In the end, in regards to the conflict between church and state, I believe this case was a victory and it is an indication to the public that “[…] no level of government in the United States has the right to censor the teaching of scientific fact and opinion in tax-supported schools on the basis that the teachings are in conflict with the religious beliefs of the majority in the community” (Tedford and Herbeck 128).
Q: If you were a teacher, what would your stance be on this ruling? How do you think your stance would change if you taught at a private university? What is the importance of this case to the conflict between church and state?
This case was particularly interesting to read about, especially when considering the debate in class Monday, as debaters were struggling to fight for creationism in science courses, whereas this case presents the original struggle to get evolution in the science classrooms. If I were a teacher, I would definitely agree with the final ruling that dubbing creationism as “creation science,” and teaching it as such, is for the “[…] specific purpose of advancing religion,” and that it “lacks legitimate education value because ‘creation science’ as defined in the statute is simply not science” (Tedford and Herbeck 129). Although many private universities are linked to religion, like our Jesuit University, I would continue to hold strong in my opinion if I were teaching at a private school. People at a private school may be able to better argue for creationism, as it doesn’t involve tax dollars, but they also have the benefit of teaching a range of courses and have the benefit of placing creationism teachings under religious studies, or something that isn’t considered science.
If I were teaching at the time that this case arose in 1928, like Susan Epperson, I would feel extremely conflicted. On the one hand, the new textbooks actually provided a chapter on the science behind evolution, which implies that it is truly valuable and important information to be teaching; however, with the knowledge of the Arkansas law against teaching evolution, I would be conflicted, and I admire Epperson for challenging this law. I would also consider myself to be in good company, since even Jefferson, in 1814, experienced censorship regarding a book he was attempting to publish on the creation of the world, which also highlights just how far back and how loaded this issue truly is (Tedford and Herbeck 126). If I were teaching, and/or in the shoes of Epperson, I would find myself in a struggle between what I believed to be considered academic freedom as well as quality teaching of the sciences, and my own beliefs regarding God and religion. Surely Epperson had to deal with the antievolution fundamentalists, who’s campaign was “[…] waged in simple either-or terms-heaven versus hell, religion versus irreligion, Christians versus sinners” (Tedford and Herbeck 127). It would be extremely difficult to be simultaneously fighting for education you believe in, while also, most likely, having your faith, religion, and beliefs called into question.
What I think is most interesting about this debate, especially when considering what it says about the conflicts and separation between church and state, is the language used on both sides of the issue. First, the statute that made it a crime to teach evolution in the classroom becomes known as “the monkey law,” and the antievolutionists adopted this name for their campaign to have the same law in their state. This name, in itself, is an attempt to instill a sense of silly-ness and fear when considering evolution as a science, and considering humans to be similar to monkeys. Then, the antievolutionists want creationism to be considered “creation science;” flash-forward to today, and even the debate on Monday, and now people are pushing for creationism to be taught as “intelligent design.” The language/titles around creationism vs. evolution seem to be one of the more powerful tools in guiding people’s opinion and decision on the matter, which is true for many of the cases we’ve discussed.
In the end, in regards to the conflict between church and state, I believe this case was a victory and it is an indication to the public that “[…] no level of government in the United States has the right to censor the teaching of scientific fact and opinion in tax-supported schools on the basis that the teachings are in conflict with the religious beliefs of the majority in the community” (Tedford and Herbeck 128).
Communication & Social Change - Blog #2 - Answer to Michelle's question
Communication & Social Change - Blog #2
Response to Michelle's Week 8 Question #1
1. In social movements, arguments from transcendence are used to “challenge institutions and to counter the persuasive efforts that threaten norms, values, and hierarchical relationships.” By creating these dichotomies, social movements develop their legitimacy. Many social movement organizations choose these strategies to gain a public approval. While this is great in building their legitimacy in the social arena, many times, these dichotomies, I feel, also separate organizations within social movements. For example, in the animal rights movement, PETA claims themselves to be the largest and fastest growing organization within the movement. However while they argue that this is true, they also are then arguing that other organizations within the movement are not as good and therefore as not as legitimate. While the organization may be boosted, others lose their legitimacy. Do you think my claim is true? If so what can be done? If not why not?
As we've learned through readings, guest speakers, and lectures, when it comes to social movements and their organizations, especially non-profit organizations, it can be very difficult to gain recognition, legitimacy, and a voice within a movement. Thus, employing a rhetoric of transcendence can be very effective, and I, for the most part, believe it can be one of the most effective ways to show the distinctions between what the organization stands behind, and why their stance is the better, stronger, or the more ethical one. The reason it can be most effective is because, as the text claims, "[t]heorists agree that confrontation is essential for the rise of a social movement" (Stewart et al 225). However, this type of rhetoric, like all rhetoric stemming from confrontation, comparisons, and drama, can backfire. Sometimes one organization can present a more effective and convincing rhetoric of transcendence than the opposing side/organization; then, as the text states, "[t]he social movement must develop an effective rebuttal strategy to continue its momentum toward meaningful social change" (Stewart et al 225).
Michelle is concerned that, while builing up one organization, this type of rhetoric causes other organizations within a movement to lose their legitimacy; usually, though, this type of rhetoric is used to challenge and confront the other side of the same movement, and not the same side of a movement. The text states, "In a rhetoric of transcendence, persuaders argue that a person, group, goal, thing, right, action, or proposal, surpasses, is superior to, or was prior to its opposite" (Stewart et al 225). Thus, the rhetoric is set up to challenge or confront the institutional forces and/or countermovements, and it is not typically used to challenge other organizations that are on their "side." If organizations did use this rhetoric to compete with others on their side, and/or to de-value their work in an attempt to boost their organizations legitimacy, I would definitely agree with Michelle that this strategy does seperate organizations, and it wouldn't be the most effective.
In response to Michelle's question, and the example of PETA, I don't think that by stating that they are the "largest and fastest growing organization within the movement" that they are "arguing that other organizations within the movement are not as good and therefore as not as legitimate." Each organization, whether they fall on the same side of a movement, or they are on different sides, must distinguish themselves and advertise what they may or may not be known for. PETA is one of the more well-known animal rights organizations, so by clarifying and stating that they are the largest is important; however, because their name has been around for a long time, and they are more well known, it may also be important for them to add that they're also "growing." By doing this, they're showing that they are not only committed to the work they've been doing for so long, but that they are also committed to expanding their animal rights work, rather than just maintaing. Additionally, since they've already taken the title of being the "largest and fastest growing organization," this may help other animal rights organizations to distinguish themselves when framing and presenting their work to the public. For example, a different organization could advertise the benefits of being a small organization, or they could compare themselves to PETA and explain how their work is a little different, or they could indicate the similarities, since PETA is so well known. The guest speaker from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for example, explained that the Foundation is often confronted for not doing more environmental/global warming work, and then she went into why they channel their energy and focus upon argiculture and farming in Sub-Saharan Africa.Her comparison of their work to another movement (the green movement) legitimzed and reinforced how important it is for the Foundation to focus upon farming, while other, better suited organizations focus on global warming and energy issues. Thus, both the Foundation's agriculture and farming work, as well as other green movements gained legitimacy when presented through that type of comparison.
Therefore, although I understand Michelle's concerns with this type of rhetoric, I do believe that, although it can be risky, it is one of the more effective ways of showing what an organization is intending to change, and it is most effective in setting up/presenting the legitimacy and importance of their side. Also, when standing on similar sides of an issue, the comparisons made between organizations, and even similar movements, are usually presented in ways that can build up both sides, like with the comparison made during the Gates Foundation talk.
Response to Michelle's Week 8 Question #1
1. In social movements, arguments from transcendence are used to “challenge institutions and to counter the persuasive efforts that threaten norms, values, and hierarchical relationships.” By creating these dichotomies, social movements develop their legitimacy. Many social movement organizations choose these strategies to gain a public approval. While this is great in building their legitimacy in the social arena, many times, these dichotomies, I feel, also separate organizations within social movements. For example, in the animal rights movement, PETA claims themselves to be the largest and fastest growing organization within the movement. However while they argue that this is true, they also are then arguing that other organizations within the movement are not as good and therefore as not as legitimate. While the organization may be boosted, others lose their legitimacy. Do you think my claim is true? If so what can be done? If not why not?
As we've learned through readings, guest speakers, and lectures, when it comes to social movements and their organizations, especially non-profit organizations, it can be very difficult to gain recognition, legitimacy, and a voice within a movement. Thus, employing a rhetoric of transcendence can be very effective, and I, for the most part, believe it can be one of the most effective ways to show the distinctions between what the organization stands behind, and why their stance is the better, stronger, or the more ethical one. The reason it can be most effective is because, as the text claims, "[t]heorists agree that confrontation is essential for the rise of a social movement" (Stewart et al 225). However, this type of rhetoric, like all rhetoric stemming from confrontation, comparisons, and drama, can backfire. Sometimes one organization can present a more effective and convincing rhetoric of transcendence than the opposing side/organization; then, as the text states, "[t]he social movement must develop an effective rebuttal strategy to continue its momentum toward meaningful social change" (Stewart et al 225).
Michelle is concerned that, while builing up one organization, this type of rhetoric causes other organizations within a movement to lose their legitimacy; usually, though, this type of rhetoric is used to challenge and confront the other side of the same movement, and not the same side of a movement. The text states, "In a rhetoric of transcendence, persuaders argue that a person, group, goal, thing, right, action, or proposal, surpasses, is superior to, or was prior to its opposite" (Stewart et al 225). Thus, the rhetoric is set up to challenge or confront the institutional forces and/or countermovements, and it is not typically used to challenge other organizations that are on their "side." If organizations did use this rhetoric to compete with others on their side, and/or to de-value their work in an attempt to boost their organizations legitimacy, I would definitely agree with Michelle that this strategy does seperate organizations, and it wouldn't be the most effective.
In response to Michelle's question, and the example of PETA, I don't think that by stating that they are the "largest and fastest growing organization within the movement" that they are "arguing that other organizations within the movement are not as good and therefore as not as legitimate." Each organization, whether they fall on the same side of a movement, or they are on different sides, must distinguish themselves and advertise what they may or may not be known for. PETA is one of the more well-known animal rights organizations, so by clarifying and stating that they are the largest is important; however, because their name has been around for a long time, and they are more well known, it may also be important for them to add that they're also "growing." By doing this, they're showing that they are not only committed to the work they've been doing for so long, but that they are also committed to expanding their animal rights work, rather than just maintaing. Additionally, since they've already taken the title of being the "largest and fastest growing organization," this may help other animal rights organizations to distinguish themselves when framing and presenting their work to the public. For example, a different organization could advertise the benefits of being a small organization, or they could compare themselves to PETA and explain how their work is a little different, or they could indicate the similarities, since PETA is so well known. The guest speaker from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for example, explained that the Foundation is often confronted for not doing more environmental/global warming work, and then she went into why they channel their energy and focus upon argiculture and farming in Sub-Saharan Africa.Her comparison of their work to another movement (the green movement) legitimzed and reinforced how important it is for the Foundation to focus upon farming, while other, better suited organizations focus on global warming and energy issues. Thus, both the Foundation's agriculture and farming work, as well as other green movements gained legitimacy when presented through that type of comparison.
Therefore, although I understand Michelle's concerns with this type of rhetoric, I do believe that, although it can be risky, it is one of the more effective ways of showing what an organization is intending to change, and it is most effective in setting up/presenting the legitimacy and importance of their side. Also, when standing on similar sides of an issue, the comparisons made between organizations, and even similar movements, are usually presented in ways that can build up both sides, like with the comparison made during the Gates Foundation talk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)