SPEECH NOT SO FREE IN BRITAIN
A Muslim cleric explored the limits of free speech in Great Britain and will be getting jail time for his trouble. Abdullah el Faisal has been sentenced to nine years in prison for the crime of "soliciting murder against persons unknown" by urging his followers to kill Hindus, Jews and Americans. He was also convicted on three charges of incitement of racial hatred. The judge recommended that el Faisal be deported after his sentence, presumably to his native land of Jamaica.
The conviction was the first obtained in more than a century under a British law passed in 1861.
The U.S. is more lenient on hatemongers, preferring to wait until they actually do something, such as arson or murder. However, under various "hate crimes" statutes, prosecutors can tack on an additional charge if they can show that the defendant was motivated by hatred of the victim's race, sexual orientation, or other attribute. According to the FBI, 9,730 "bias-motivated incidents" were reported nationwide in 2001.
Friday, March 07, 2003
Thursday, March 06, 2003
CAMPUSES SEE UPTICK IN POLITICAL INTEREST
Yesterday's anti-war demonstrations on college campuses across the country are part of a general upsurge in interest in politics and public affairs by college students. Whether the participation level will reach the peak of intensity seen during the Vietnam war remains to be seen and is rather doubtful, considering that the Vietnam generation felt it had more of a stake because of the draft. Today's volunteer military makes the war somewhat remote from the experience of most college students.
Nevertheless, political activity has been increasing in the past couple of years, according to the annual survey of college and university freshman nationwide conducted by UCLA. (click here for the press release.) The 2002 survey showed that 33 percent of freshmen thought "keeping up to date with public affairs" is "very important" or "essential." That's not much, and well below the all-time high of 60 percent in 1966, but it's an improvement from the all-time low of 28 percent in the year 2000.
Last year's survey asked about participation in organized demonstrations, and found that 48 percent claimed to have participated in a demonstration in the past year. That was up from 45 percent in 2000 and way up from 16 percent back in 1966. So it appears that as students are less interested in keeping up with public affairs, they are more willing to participate in demonstrations. Makes you wonder how much deep thought is going into some of the demonstrations.
Yesterday's anti-war demonstrations on college campuses across the country are part of a general upsurge in interest in politics and public affairs by college students. Whether the participation level will reach the peak of intensity seen during the Vietnam war remains to be seen and is rather doubtful, considering that the Vietnam generation felt it had more of a stake because of the draft. Today's volunteer military makes the war somewhat remote from the experience of most college students.
Nevertheless, political activity has been increasing in the past couple of years, according to the annual survey of college and university freshman nationwide conducted by UCLA. (click here for the press release.) The 2002 survey showed that 33 percent of freshmen thought "keeping up to date with public affairs" is "very important" or "essential." That's not much, and well below the all-time high of 60 percent in 1966, but it's an improvement from the all-time low of 28 percent in the year 2000.
Last year's survey asked about participation in organized demonstrations, and found that 48 percent claimed to have participated in a demonstration in the past year. That was up from 45 percent in 2000 and way up from 16 percent back in 1966. So it appears that as students are less interested in keeping up with public affairs, they are more willing to participate in demonstrations. Makes you wonder how much deep thought is going into some of the demonstrations.
Wednesday, March 05, 2003
PETA CLAIMS CONTROL OF HISTORICAL MEMORY OF HOLOCAUST
The ever-litigious People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals could end up on the wrong end of a lawsuit. PETA, which is fond of sending threatening legal letters to people who disagree with it, now stands accused of misusing photographs purchased from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. PETA is using the photos in its traveling show that compares Holocaust victims to farm animals. The Museum is not amused and has written to PETA to say:
"The Museum's Photograph Use Agreement, which governs usage of photographic reproductions, states that 'The USHMM reserves the right to restrict the uses of reproductions, to request prior review and approval of display formats and/or publication proofs, and to otherwise ensure that reproductions are used with respect and dignity.’ Consistent with this provision, this letter constitutes actual notice that PETA is required to immediately remove from PETA's website any and all photographic images and textual materials obtained from the Museum, and immediately cease using these materials in any pamphlets, public displays, and any other manner."
PETA has shot back:
"PETA has informed the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum that it has no intention of ceding to the museum's demand to stop displaying photos of Nazi death camps, which PETA purchased from the museum, alongside scenes of animals being herded, confined, crowded, beaten, and slaughtered on factory farms and in slaughterhouses."
PETA goes on to insist that its use of the photos is "consistent with the Museum's mission statement."
Anyone who buys photos knows that the use is frequently restricted. The seller retains certain rights (assuming the seller claims them to begin with). PETA is on weak legal grounds here. It is on even weaker political and moral grounds because it presumes to tell USHMM what the museum's mission is. Nobody ever accused PETA of any humility.
The photographs could be easily replaced from other sources that are less scrupulous about usage or less able to claim copyright. It will be interesting to see whether USHMM can successfully claim the right to control usage of the pictures. PETA, in the meantime, is committing a self-inflicted wound.
The ever-litigious People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals could end up on the wrong end of a lawsuit. PETA, which is fond of sending threatening legal letters to people who disagree with it, now stands accused of misusing photographs purchased from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. PETA is using the photos in its traveling show that compares Holocaust victims to farm animals. The Museum is not amused and has written to PETA to say:
"The Museum's Photograph Use Agreement, which governs usage of photographic reproductions, states that 'The USHMM reserves the right to restrict the uses of reproductions, to request prior review and approval of display formats and/or publication proofs, and to otherwise ensure that reproductions are used with respect and dignity.’ Consistent with this provision, this letter constitutes actual notice that PETA is required to immediately remove from PETA's website any and all photographic images and textual materials obtained from the Museum, and immediately cease using these materials in any pamphlets, public displays, and any other manner."
PETA has shot back:
"PETA has informed the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum that it has no intention of ceding to the museum's demand to stop displaying photos of Nazi death camps, which PETA purchased from the museum, alongside scenes of animals being herded, confined, crowded, beaten, and slaughtered on factory farms and in slaughterhouses."
PETA goes on to insist that its use of the photos is "consistent with the Museum's mission statement."
Anyone who buys photos knows that the use is frequently restricted. The seller retains certain rights (assuming the seller claims them to begin with). PETA is on weak legal grounds here. It is on even weaker political and moral grounds because it presumes to tell USHMM what the museum's mission is. Nobody ever accused PETA of any humility.
The photographs could be easily replaced from other sources that are less scrupulous about usage or less able to claim copyright. It will be interesting to see whether USHMM can successfully claim the right to control usage of the pictures. PETA, in the meantime, is committing a self-inflicted wound.
FREE SPEECH = RIGHT TO BE SILLY . . . OR WORSE
Frank DeFord, sports commentator for National Public Radio, suggested this morning that the female basketball player for Manhattanville College who turns her back on the American flag is out of bounds. DeFord argued that Toni Smith, a sociology major from the Upper West Side of Manhattan, gave up her right to free speech when she joined the team.
Now, it is true that athletes accept some curbs on their free speech rights as part of the cost of participating in sports. Coaches don't tolerate backtalk, for example, and coaches themselves are limited in what they can say about officials.
But turning away from the flag during the National Anthem is purely political speech and has nothing to do with athletics. If Ms. Smith wants to demonstrate in this matter, she should be allowed to do it. She should also recognize, however, that just because society respects her right to free speech doesn't mean that anyone has to respect her opinions, which in this case seem misplaced. Presumably she is against a specific program of our government -- the proposed war in Iraq. Hopefully she is not against the nation as a whole or against allegiance to the nation as symbolized by the flag. She would be better off writing a letter to the editor or participating in a demonstration, rather than making herself the issue. A smart and well-educated young person doesn't necessarily know what the heck she is doing in a political protest.
On the other hand, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals knows exactly what it is doing but seems oblivious to the impact of its speech. PETA is touring an exhibition that compared the massacre of the Jews in the Holocaust with mostly extreme examples of mistreatment of farm animals. Many Jews are outraged by what they view as a trivialization of the Shoah. As Rabbi Barton Lee of the Hillel Jewish Student Center at Arizona State University put it:
"I think that the moral equivalent it pretends to suggest is absurd and insulting to the intelligence of the people passing by and certainly not a productive way of making any kind of case for animals," Lee said. "It is another example of the lengths of stupidity that people will go to promote a cause in an extreme fashion."
Free speech is sometimes its own punishment.
Frank DeFord, sports commentator for National Public Radio, suggested this morning that the female basketball player for Manhattanville College who turns her back on the American flag is out of bounds. DeFord argued that Toni Smith, a sociology major from the Upper West Side of Manhattan, gave up her right to free speech when she joined the team.
Now, it is true that athletes accept some curbs on their free speech rights as part of the cost of participating in sports. Coaches don't tolerate backtalk, for example, and coaches themselves are limited in what they can say about officials.
But turning away from the flag during the National Anthem is purely political speech and has nothing to do with athletics. If Ms. Smith wants to demonstrate in this matter, she should be allowed to do it. She should also recognize, however, that just because society respects her right to free speech doesn't mean that anyone has to respect her opinions, which in this case seem misplaced. Presumably she is against a specific program of our government -- the proposed war in Iraq. Hopefully she is not against the nation as a whole or against allegiance to the nation as symbolized by the flag. She would be better off writing a letter to the editor or participating in a demonstration, rather than making herself the issue. A smart and well-educated young person doesn't necessarily know what the heck she is doing in a political protest.
On the other hand, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals knows exactly what it is doing but seems oblivious to the impact of its speech. PETA is touring an exhibition that compared the massacre of the Jews in the Holocaust with mostly extreme examples of mistreatment of farm animals. Many Jews are outraged by what they view as a trivialization of the Shoah. As Rabbi Barton Lee of the Hillel Jewish Student Center at Arizona State University put it:
"I think that the moral equivalent it pretends to suggest is absurd and insulting to the intelligence of the people passing by and certainly not a productive way of making any kind of case for animals," Lee said. "It is another example of the lengths of stupidity that people will go to promote a cause in an extreme fashion."
Free speech is sometimes its own punishment.
Monday, March 03, 2003
WHO SAYS WHAT'S KOSHER? COURT STRIKES DOWN STATE LAW
The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand an appeals court ruling that kosher according to Conservative Jewish rabbis is just as good as kosher according to Orthodox rabbis. The appeals court had ruled that New York State cannot enforce its law treating disagreements about the specific meaning of kosher as consumer fraud. The law, which was passed in 1915, caused the state to be excessively entangled with religion, the ruling said, not to mention putting a particular faction in charge of the meaning of commercial speech.
Orthodox rabbis dominate the state board that enforces the law and sends inspectors to butcher shops and other establishments dealing in kosher food, according to the court decision. Naturally they favor their own interpretations, which are stricter than those of Conservative rabbis. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit -- kosher butchers from Long Island -- are Conservative. One of the issues in the case was how much salt should be applied to meat to get the blood out, as required by Jewish dietary laws. Click here to see the New York Times article on the case.
New York's kosher laws are an excellent example of an attempt by the state to control speech for the benefit of one particular party or group. By gaining control of a designation that is important to some consumers, the particular group (in this case, the Orthodox) can impose their beliefs on others.
Far better to leave this sort of thing to the market through kosher-certifying agencies that can grant, or withhold, their seal based on the establishment's adherence to clearly defined requirements. Consumers can decide which seal, if any, is important to them.
The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand an appeals court ruling that kosher according to Conservative Jewish rabbis is just as good as kosher according to Orthodox rabbis. The appeals court had ruled that New York State cannot enforce its law treating disagreements about the specific meaning of kosher as consumer fraud. The law, which was passed in 1915, caused the state to be excessively entangled with religion, the ruling said, not to mention putting a particular faction in charge of the meaning of commercial speech.
Orthodox rabbis dominate the state board that enforces the law and sends inspectors to butcher shops and other establishments dealing in kosher food, according to the court decision. Naturally they favor their own interpretations, which are stricter than those of Conservative rabbis. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit -- kosher butchers from Long Island -- are Conservative. One of the issues in the case was how much salt should be applied to meat to get the blood out, as required by Jewish dietary laws. Click here to see the New York Times article on the case.
New York's kosher laws are an excellent example of an attempt by the state to control speech for the benefit of one particular party or group. By gaining control of a designation that is important to some consumers, the particular group (in this case, the Orthodox) can impose their beliefs on others.
Far better to leave this sort of thing to the market through kosher-certifying agencies that can grant, or withhold, their seal based on the establishment's adherence to clearly defined requirements. Consumers can decide which seal, if any, is important to them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)