There are very few things in this world that humanity knows for certain. We know that two plus two equals four, we know that fire is hot and ice is cold, and we know that all things must come to an end. The certainties of the universe are finite, though - the uncertainties are essentially infinite, and among those are the true versions of events that occur far away from us. Perhaps the most prominent recent example is the real series of events that have occurred (and are occurring) in the eastern portion of the nation of Ukraine. Conflict there has raged since 6 April 2014 between pro-Russian separatists and the Ukrainian military, and there have been numerous claims and confirmations that Russian army members have been giving military assistance to the rebels. From my research, I have found there to be not two but three sides at hand, not in the conflict itself but in the international understanding of the crisis. The Russian government, notorious for twisting the truth before the international community, has denounced accusations against it and stated repeatedly that is has no hand in the fighting. However, Russia has since laid claim to the southern Ukrainian region of the Crimean Peninsula, a claim most nations (the United States included) refuses to recognize. The majority of international opinion has sided with Ukraine, with countries like the U.S. even sending non-weaponry equipment and supplies to the Ukrainian army. The Unites States has labeled the rebels as terrorists and repeatedly pushed for economic sanctions on Russia as a result of its lethal meddling. It is the third side of the argument that is the most provocative and perhaps most fascinating: that the Ukrainian government has lied just as Russia has, and that the conflict is merely a civil war which Ukraine has exaggerated. This side is supported more by Russia than anyone else, but remains on the table due to the lack of an agreement by all parties involved - in today’s scientifically-influenced society (and especially in matters as delicate as this), a true statement can only be defined as one that is universally agreed upon. It is the Russian argument that holds the most focus - the other two sides agree that Russia is at least not being entirely honest with the rest of the world. In Russia itself, citizens and officials alike are expected to toe Vladimir Putin’s line or face consequences. These consequences can include harassment and imprisonment, as the world has learned in the years since Putin took power, and it is suspected that death is even a penalty dealt by the government outside the courtroom. Boris Nemtsov, an opposition leader to Putin and outspoken critic of Russian intervention in Ukraine, was shot dead in late February near Moscow’s Red Square. The Nemtsov Assassination is the most recent and glaring example of the restrictions made on the vital right to Freedom of Speech in Russia, a right guaranteed in the United States constitution’s Bill of Rights. In America, the right to freedom of speech is almost taken for granted, and has been upheld by numerous decisions as meaning that the citizens of the country have the right to say essentially whatever the want about the government or its actions, and are actually encouraged to do so to perpetuate democracy. The right is supposedly guaranteed in Russia as well, but in a nation where overpowered government has been a mainstay for centuries this right is bent and sometimes trampled on outright. Debate rages as to whether or not Putin’s government ordered Nemtsov’s killing, but inside Russia entire marches and rallies have been held in Nemtsov’s honor and in opposition to Putin. Nemtsov led protesters and the opposition Republican Party of Russia until his death, and is considered a hero by Russians and foreigners alike in the wake of his murder. Freedom of speech in Russia has reached a critical point with the Ukraine Crisis, leaving the world and Russian people to wonder how the citizens of Russia will react if their government continues on its fall to authoritarianism and moves away from the protection of individual rights.
Freedom of speech is the first amendment in the Bill of Rights. It allows for being able to say what you want, print what you want publically, and speak your part in the country. But in what circumstance is your freedom being pushed to its limits? What is too controversial or is thought too hurtful to the public? That is what all these journalists among others are asking themselves about certain political cartoons and articles. I think that there should be a limit to your freedom of speech, and you should know what is acceptable and right. There are many examples of the abuse of freedom of speech.
One example of abusing freedom of speech is the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine company that has been attacked a number of times. After the most recent shootings, the company and its followers started to protest their free speech right, and how they should be able to publish what they want. If it is leading to people getting killed, then you should not be able to print everything that you think is right. Another big example is the recent riots in Baltimore, Maryland. The riots occurred after the police beat a black man to death while he was in custody. This caused many other black people to riot against the police and start to burn buildings and break into them. Some people were arguing that they had right of assembly, and also that something unfair and ludacris had happened to one of the underclass. I don’t think in any circumstance its okay to riot and kill people, no matter what happens- freedom of assembly or not. Freedom of speech isn’t allowed to you to hurt others- it is for your own well-being. A society called the SPJ (Society of Professional Journalists) works to protect the rights of journalists nationwide. They fight for their free speech and freedom of press, too. They usually decide if something is too offensive for the public to see. They speak for the public and do what they think is best. All these reasons and examples show how some people abuse their right to free speech and press, and I believe there should be a limit to what you can put out- whether it is too offensive or too dicey for the public, there should be some sort of regulation on what is produced in newspapers. The Freedom of Press right is included in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Freedom of Press is the right to gather, publish, and release information without government interference or censorship. Recently, there have been riots in Baltimore to protest the “mysterious” murder of Freddie Grey that was caused by injuries he acquired while in custody. The cops who were responsible have been suspended and their identity have been hidden. Riots have broke out asking for justice. A curfew has been put into place but that still doesn't stop the riots. They have burned stores and robbed stores and so much more. However, the media doesn't show both sides. In these riots there are journalists and photographers to document this event, however, they are getting injured by the rioters. In an article by Al Tompkins of Poynter, he states that at least nine have been injured. They’re just doing the job they get paid for and in return they get attacked and robbed. They are trying to capture the event but they can’t get anything without the possibility of getting injured. The protesters believe that attacking the journalists will somehow help them prevail. The journalists believe they’re doing nothing wrong. Journalists always get censored whether it is by CEO's, the government when talking about politicians, or even celebrities. They always have to try to say what people want them to say. So many times they aren't writing what they really want to write. Students even get censored. A few cases include Bethel School District. No. 403 v. Fraser in 1986 and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier in 1988. Extreme cases of censorship include violence. They are many people around the world that agree attacking or injuring journalists is wrong. For instance, the Committee to Protect Journalists has a campaign to try and end the restrictions journalists have. They are being murdered and censored and they believe it is wrong and should stop. Even non-protesters in Baltimore believe injuring journalists is wrong. One editor in Baltimore was getting beaten up by a police officer and the bystanders were continually yelling “he’s a photographer.” Even they know that journalists are people trying to earn a living and shouldn't be stopped from documenting this event.
Personally, I believe freedom of press is one of the most important rights because it can show truths about our world. If there is censorship then not everything that comes out will come out. Censorship just hides the truth from us because if one company or the government believe what you are going to publish is wrong then they can stop you. They stop you through intimidation but don’t we deserve to know everything about this country? How does freedom of the press relate to the injuries in Baltimore. Well, the riots are happening due to the way part of the government (the police officers) acted when they had Grey in custody. Therefore, you can say the government is somewhat responsible for the protests, but I’m not saying the government is responsible for all the damage to the city. The rioters are stopping journalists from gathering information because they’re stealing their equipment. Journalists are being stopped from obtaining information due to an event partly caused by the government. So, in a way the government is censoring these journalists. They are doing it unintentionally. This right matters a lot to me because I want to be a sports journalists or broadcaster when I grow up. I want to be able to gather information that I can later release without being told no. This right will be deeply ingrained in my future. Even now, I want to be able to gather information without someone looking over my shoulder saying you can but not this information. My parents raised me to say what I believe and don't let anyone take away your opinion. By censoring, we lose our opinion. I believe this strongly because it is how I was raised. It is ingrained in my brain and always will be. My parents think the same way because they say what they believe and don't let anyone stop them. I love that about my parents and believe everyone should have that mindset. Freedom of Press is one of the most important rights and should be preserved at all times. My topic that I was researching was the first amendment, more specifically the freedom of press or the freedom of expression. My first topic I researched was the cigarette packaging ban in Ireland that is currently being debated. The first country to pass the law to make cigarette packaging completely plain olive green package with disturbing, gruesome pictures of the human body diseased and rotting.
Cigarette packages used to only have a small health warnings on the side or bottom, still telling what could happen to you, but in a simple few words, "Warning: smoking may cause lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and may complicate pregnancy." In my opinion, that would be good enough, but in Australia and soon to be Ireland, it needs to be said in a more gruesome way. In Australia, a large percentage of cigarette smokers quit smoking after this law was passed. The cigarette companies are losing their business fast and if every country starts to debate the plain packaging law, some of the largest companies could lose up to 60% of their customers, possibly pushing them out of business. I think this law contradicts the first amendment, freedom of press. The government shouldn't be able to make every cigarette package the same package, not being able to have their own logo on their own product. Let's take children's toys, McDonald's, alcoholic beverages or even school supplies as examples, they're all allowed to have their brand logo on their packages being sold, so why hasn't government revoked their right to advertise their products with their brands to make them all the same plain packaging. Children's toys would be covered in pictures of little kids choking on the small parts, as warned on all children's toys with small parts included. Alcoholic beverages would be covered of gruesome pictures of people with alcohol poisoning or people that had died from drinking way too much. My main point being, you can't revoke a company's right to brand their own product. It's already known that they could potentially be dangerous to health, pictures of what it could do is not necessary and is disgusting, these photos should not be allowed to take up 65% of the packaging and brand should be allowed to have their logo on their products. With advancements in technology today such as social media, it creates a new atmosphere for communication both positive and negative. Over the years, cyberbullying has become a leading issue for both teens and adults, with harmful comments about others for the whole world to see. When the law takes over, do restrictions made on cyber bullies violate their freedom of speech? Or is the law ultimately protecting those affected?
There is a fine line between freedom of expression online and criminal threats to innocent people. Some say that these harsh comments are a way of therapeutically venting their feelings to the world with no intention of putting someone's life on the line. Is this right still intact however when people feel that they are in danger? This causes a problem for law enforcers when the bully claims their comment to be a joke or just a way of self-expression if no physical harm has been done. While cyber bullying is hard to be determined harmful by the law, groups such as the End to Cyber Bullying Organization work to help raise awareness for these problems and victims today. With a large support system for those affected these groups help to show how dangerous these online threats turn out to be. Legal cases such as United States v. Drew prove the difficulties of successful justice for victims of cyberbullying. A fake MySpace account created by a neighbor, Lori Drew, and her daughter caused 13 year old Megan Meier to commit suicide after receiving comments and threats, saying how “the world would be a better place without you”. For most cases, the consequence for such a crime would be a sentence to three years in prison and a $300,000 fine, however Lori Drew ultimately received no charges due to the fact that in technicality no criminal laws were broken during the time of her use of the MySpace page. Is this a criminal offense if the child was talked down so much until she died? There comes a point when threats turn to physical harm, and those involved still get away with their crime due to indirect contact with the victim. Opinions differ between when the law should take charge, and when the situation should be blown off. Freedom of speech by definition the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Questions still arise today on whether this right can still be preserved or not based on the violent threat of others shared to the general public. Most people do not have a point of view about this issue written in stone. Each case of cyberbullying differs in terms of cause and intensity, which makes others think differently. This also causes trouble when it comes in contact with the law, on whether or not the severity of case is significant. Till this day, the line between threats and the law still remain blurry, ultimately affecting how the right to people's freedom of speech is perceived in today’s society. I read a passage about the 2013 Boston Marathon shooting. This topic is related to the 4th amendment in the Bill of Rights. Even though the event occurred in 2013, the court case is still going on (the article was posted on April 26th). Two brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev detonated two homemade bombs near the Copley Square finish line just as the first wave of runners were completing the race. The two men killed three people and injured 264. There were two viewpoints on this topic that stood out to me. The first is Tom Grilk, the executive director of the Boston Athletic Association who said, "For us, the core principle is the Boston Marathon is an international athletic event focused on competition and excellence.” He also stated, “What happened in 2013 was the closest and perhaps most poignant part of our history, but part of the history. The history going forward would be written by the people who come and run and watch and participate in all the ways that people do.'' I think Tom has the right perspective on what happened and what he wants to happen for all of the next marathons he will organize. The second viewpoint is from a man named William B. Evans, a Boston Police commissioner. “Security will be intensive, citing road closures, enhanced security checkpoints and bomb detection dogs throughout the route.” Evans said. “Backpacks, shoulder bags and coolers would be subject to searches,” he added. William B. Evans has a very important viewpoint on this topic. He is planning to do the right thing to prevent this from ever happening again and protecting tens of thousands of lives. From a different point of view, some could view this topic as the ninth amendment. The ninth amendment says “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be constructed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This amendment is, in a way, protecting rights that don't clearly exist but protects what is right. This relates to the Boston Marathon Bombing because there isn’t a specific law for this type of security. In my opinion, I understand why they didn't use to be so protective at these events. If I went to the marathon, I would want security guards checking all of my bags and what not, you need privacy. But at the same time I understand why they are cracking down on the security at these events. It’s because of people like Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and I would rather be checked and be safe than have more privacy over my things and have the possibility of being harmed. This was an interesting topic to research because its good to know what is happening. Most people can relate to this because everyone, in their own ways, wants privacy and protection. You just have to find a balance between the two.
|
ArchivesAuthorThese posts are by student authors. Categories |