WK 1 DQ 1

What does the expression “media literacy” mean to you? Do you consider yourself to be media-literate? Why or why not? What benefits, if any, would you expect to gain from being media-literate? On the other hand, if you were media-illiterate, might that be a disadvantage for you? How so? Media literacy to me means to be aware and knowledgeable in different types of media and to be able to communicate within those media. This would include the use and application of all forms of media and anything relating to it. I consider myself pretty media literate, because I know how to communicate and send messages through most media. I am an avid internet user so therefore can use any forms the internet has to offer in order to communicate. This would include social networking , instant messaging and of course e mailing. I’m a big social network user especially Twitter, where like every other social networking site you can communicate with people all over the world. For me the benefits of being media literate are that I am more educated an able to use classes such as this one. My being on the internet so often has allowed me to take online courses to whereas someone who isn’t, would have a much harder time in an online class. I would say a disadvantage of being media-illiterate would be being cut off from people who you would otherwise communicate with on a regular basis. For those who have family in the military, being media literate allows them to keep in touch with their family overseas. A person who has more trouble with media and forms of communication will only struggle in the process of trying to be connected with others that are further than a phone call away.
Responses: THURSDAY NOV 8th
Michael- In order to be media literate in my opinion means to have knowledge of different forms of communication. For example a good example of mass media in my opinion is Facebook. In today's electronic driven industries, this form if mass media can be used to reach millions of current and potential clients, supporters, and opinions. You have to be "literate" in this form of communication or media to satisfy some of your everyday work requirements.

I was caught off guard just about a week ago when I was approached by my boss and asked "Can you develop a Facebook, and Twitter account for the unit. I being in the military have never been asked to do such a thing. My boss then told me he wants us to communicate all information on times, changes, and events on this media. His reasoning for this measure was he thinks that the "younger Soldier" will comprehend information better in this format. I agreed to my bosses terms, and I am no developing the pages.

When I think of other forms of media literacy, I think of commercials, radio ads, art programs like Corel or Adobe, and Skype. no matter how you try and not use media, you will be exposed to some format eventually.
My Response: Michael, I agree with your post on Facebook being a good example of being media literate. I too put in my post that the use of social networking is a good example of communicating in relation to media literacy. I too had a previous job where my manager asked our team to think up of a Facebook page for our store that was the only of its kind in our small town. Our ability to start up that page and communicate sales and promotions with customers enabled us to do so much better throughout our fiscal year. With the times changing and social networking becoming more and more prevalent, I see where your boss included the “young soldier” demographic. Being media literate not only positively impacts day to day life but also professional settings, so again, like I said in my post it holds great benefits for everyone to achieve media literacy regardless of need or lack thereof it. Thank you for your post.
Asia-
Part of media literacy is just being aware of what media is. Media is basically communication intended to reach us, the masses, and from that media can be the form of almost anything. Most common forms of media are newspapers, magazines, news, photographs, etc. Another part of media literacy is knowing how to understand what it's goal is. I was introduced to the 30 Second Spot Quiz by Hugh Rank in a previous class ( I attached it in case anyone is interested in checking it out.),and although it was a method to break down the intent and purpose of advertisements, I think it is useful for interpreting other aspects of media. Media literacy is also recognizing more subtle forms of media, like music or even a bumper sticker.

I would say I am media literate. I am aware of all of the avenues that media now has to find an audience. I have a good handle on whether or not media is propaganda, if it is responsible and accurate information, if the goal is to get me to buy something or if the goal is to shift my thinking/promote an agenda. I am not a huge fan of technology ( yes, I know I am taking an online course, but this works best for my schedule ;-) ), so I tend to stay away from excessive internet or smartphone, mp3 player, ipod, etc. use. I still use the telephone book to find a number and I still go to the public library to get information from the books there. Although I consider myself to be "old school," I do try to learn the minimum about all this technology. I think that part of being media literate is to not immerse oneself in it on a daily basis.

A benefit from being media literate is that it is difficult for me to be taken advantage of. I can usually tell when something is sketchy. I am generally cautious by nature, but it helps to have an understanding of what media is and how it can be used. Media can be manipulated quite easily. At this point in the course, I don't know how being media literate could be a disadvantage, but maybe toward the end of the course I may have a different perspective. I think that having as much knowledge as possible is always a good thing when trying to interpret media.

My Response- THURSDAY NOV 8th Asia- I didn’t even think to process media in the forms you did when you said propaganda, responsible and accurate or not. These are great and simple points I wish I would have delved deeper into myself! The 30 second spot quiz was really interesting as well; really smart to add it on here. Where and when have you yourself used this and did you find it helpful or informative? I sometimes wish I was more like you when you say “old school.” I am so obsessed with my phone and twitter that I sometimes have a hard time finding phone numbers and directions and information the old way instead of just using my phone. It is nice to be able to disconnect from everyone through that type of media sometimes. You say you don’t like technology too much and I can understand that completely, but I am wondering what you think of the social networking sites and things alike? I can see the non- appealing nature they can have to people at times and probably feed into stuff like that a lot. Thanks for your thoughts Asia!
WK 2 DQ 1
The battle over illegal piracy and downloading of media seems to have shifted from the music industry to the motion picture industry. Pirated films are hawked on the streets of Asian cities almost before they have been released to theaters. Discount retailers sell bins of movie CD’s and DVD’s that are of dubious origin. What is a studio exec to do in the face of this contagion? Put yourself in the shoes of a Hollywood movie mogul. What is your game plan for protecting your intellectual property? Devise a several-point strategy that will have the digital pirates walking the plank, and explain why your strategy will work. The reason people buy pirated music and movies is because they are most likely low on funds or broke. Movies and music can be so expensive so that why people download illegally. I know that with the music business they’ve in a way accepted the downloading issue and made concert tickets and merchandise more expensive to make up for the lack of money in selling the music. As a movie executive I would want to ensure my movie stayed secret by devising rules that production, crew members, actors, assistance and anyone who was affiliated with the movie wasn’t allowed to take pictures—making it a closed set. I would want everyone to sign privacy contracts and take legal action if these contracts were broken. You could even use encoding for every copy of the movie with a serial number assigned to those who needed it- i.e. the editors, the sound effects crew, and so on, so that if something was leaked, that number would lead you back to the person who did not protect their copy properly. With today’s obsession with technology and everyone’s need to let everyone else know what they are doing, I think that’s why movies get leaked. Along with people needing the money and they sell the pirated movies and people buying them because it’s cheaper than going to the movies.
Erik
Movie pirating is a global issue. Piracy is the biggest worldwide threat to the film industry. While I was in Iraq, we could get pirated movies on dvd for $1.00. We would purchase the DVD's from a "Hajji Shop" and they were indeed movies that had yet to be released in theaters. The quality was often poor and most of them had Arabic subtitles. We jokingly referred to the movies as "Hajji-vision." However, for a dollar per movie, there wasn't much to lose.

Studio exec's are sort of caught between a rock and a hard place. The Hollywood movie mogul still makes good money but does not want "pirates" out there ripping them off. How pro-active should they be? To protect their intellectual property, the filmmaker needs to be able to prevent pirating. There is an option out there, and it's called "Eggup."

According to "Jon Reiss Filmmaker, Author, Strategist " (2012), "Eggup developed a secured Do-it-Yourself distribution platform that allows filmmakers or distributors to upload their films, thus creating an encrypted digital download player called an “Egg”. This will enhance current consumer habits to reach a broader audience effectively while preventing piracy."
My Response
Erik- That’s very interesting to hear about the distribution method you mentioned because in my post I talked about a slightly similar encoding type of method I would want to use if I were in that position. I agree with your point that people won’t care about a DVD’s quality when they can get it so cheap. Going to the movies is expensive now so thus resulting in people pirating movies and music for that matter. Honestly though, these movie executives are making so much money, so why then would they get so upset, unless these pirates are taking credit for their work? I’m sure that could many peoples stance and argument in defense of their pirating movies, but personally, even though it is expensive to go to the movies, I go for the total experience. My phone company even has a little scanner at Harkins where if I put my phone in and scan for a code, I get $1.00 off a large popcorn. Maybe these movie companies should come up with better incentives for their target audiences? Great post!
Aisa
The first thing I would do is to contact my internet service provider and make them aware of my situation. I would ask that a consulting/security "task force" be put together for the sole purpose of eliminating the problem. I would contract them out and pay them a fee in order to devote their time to finding out the source(s) of my problem and eliminating it/them. The ISP has the resources to locate individuals that are committing illegal acts online. I then would pinpoint the market(s) that is seeing the most loss, contact local law enforcement and government agencies to assist in tracking down and prosecuting the offender(s). Another action I would take is to meet with manufacturers of dvd/blue ray players and come up with a way to design new players with software and hardware that will not play pirated dvds or blue ray discs. The goal would be to make it beneficial for the manufacturers to spend the money necessary to change their products; this would not be a quick process, but when it eventually would take effect, those that pirate dvds and blue ray will have a harder time. Of course there are people that already have players that they can watch the bootleg discs on, but that is where having the local authorities involved would pick up the slack. This plan will work because all three steps are an integral part of a net that will result in either apprehension or deterrence of pirates.
My Response
Asia- You came up with a plan pretty similar to mine in the sense of using contracts to ensure that people involved with product would face legal actions if distribution is somehow interrupted. I too think that while my idea or plan may not be the best or cost efficient, these might be steps that movie executives aren’t taking. Why aren’t these big moguls doing more to help piracy? Is it because they are in fact making so much money in the end that they see it as not a big enough issue? I love your idea about making DVD’s and Blue-Ray players different so they cannot play pirated copies. I think that would help tremendously. The piracy warning in the beginning of certain movies isn’t enough. They already have the movie, what good are it then right? Perhaps even adding security codes with DVD’s and Blue-Rays that must be entered into the actual player in order to play their movie would help. If their movie is pirated or boot-leg, they won’t have this code, therefore unable to play their movie. I don’t know if that makes sense or if it sounds silly, but if major movie companies haven’t come up with plans to improve this problem, there must be some financial reason that benefits them that we as consumers don’t understand. Great post Asia!
WK 2 DQ 2
The Federal Communications Commission made it mandatory for all televisions 13 inches or larger, produced after January 1, 2000, to have a V-Chip installed. The V-Chip allows parents to block programs they do not want their children to watch. In addition, all programs—excluding news, sports, and unedited movies on premium cable—are given ratings to indicate how appropriate the program is for children to view. How effective is the V-Chip at protecting children from exposure to inappropriate programming? Why might families not be taking full advantage of this mechanism for governing children’s television viewing habits? Given the ratings and the availability of the V-Chip, how should networks respond to complaints about programming? If utilized correctly, I think the V-Chip could be really effective. The only problem I have with this type of option for censoring TV from kids, differs vastly from the topic of communications- perhaps not- because at the end of the day, if your child wants to watch something they’re not suppose too, they will. I think this helps parents that may be busier than most and can’t be around their kids to actively and personally censor TV for their kids. I don’t have kids, but I have young nieces and a nephew and there is a lot I don’t want them watching, but again, they find a way. Bottom line as adults, parents and role models to younger viewers I just say don’t depend on a chip to govern TV for your kids, do it yourself. I watched some pretty vulgar stuff as a kid, but my parents always were there to teach me from right and wrong—but I digress. Viewers can complain about programming all they want but I don’t think it is up to the networks to clean up or censor their broadcasts. Certain shows are shown at later times for ADULTS and KIDS shows are earlier in the day for a purpose. Like stated above, there’s always the news, and with that I quote the movie Clueless from 1995. “Until mankind is peaceful enough not to have violence on the news, there's no point in taking it out of shows that need it for entertainment value.”
Michael
If patents first of all are just sitting their children in front of television they are wrong. I think the networks do a good job regulating programming. They already offer children's channels, ratings, and try to keep adult programming towards the evening hours. I think that parents need to learn about the technology they posses in those $2000.00 televisions.

The television is not a babysitter, so you really shouldn't have to worry about programming if you are remaining active. I myself select what shows my children watch which is usually one hour a day. I like to play outdoors with my children to keep them busy.
Television commercials alone, are bad enough for children and adults especially around the holidays. Networks should at least explain the ratings a little more by adding commercials and pauses during programs. This will help educate the public on the rating of shows.

As for the V chip, I think the majority of people don't even know they have the technology. I use the locks to protect my cable bill from accidental purchases from premium channels. It works fine for my family. I also put a filter on any program rated over PG-13 on my cable box. Overall you have the power to control your children use it.

My Response
Michael- Thank You!! I agree totally with you on keeping kids active! The amount of which a kid being OUTSIDE is at an all-time low and perhaps taking away from kids imagination! I think some TV is ok for kids here and there, but there’s a whole REAL world out there- go out, play, be active. I too said in my post that networks have their schedules correct yes like you said there are children’s channels. I agree with you also that bottom line it’s the parents responsibility to monitor what their kids are watching not the networks and TV’s these days are computers now. Let’s take advantage of that and protect younger viewers when needed!
Tanecia
The V-chip can only be as effective as the parents or guardians that implement it. I think that the idea of giving shows ratings to gauge how appropriate they are for younger viewers is an effective measure to aid in children not being exposed to more graphic programs but ultimately its use is dependent on the parent. Giving parents guidelines on what is and isn't appropriate is very helpful but it does not ensure the children not being exposed unless it is actually implemented by the adult. The idea of putting these ratings on different programs helps parents in determining what is suitable and what is not suitable to children but families may not take full advantage of this technology because basically our society has become numb to what should be considered graphic material. For instance, networks air shows that are cartoons but are clearly not suitable for children. Shows such as, Family Guy, are inviting to children because of its animation but its content is very adult. I know parents who allow their children to watch shows like this and although it is clearly inappropriate they allow it anyway, therefore, ignoring the rating it is given. Networks should respond simply by announcing that they have given parents the rating system for their children and therefore doing their part in controlling the exposure of children to the contents of their more graphic shows. If families choose to ignore the ratings, it is their choice.
My response
Tanecia- Those cartoons that are meant for adults are perfect examples as to why there is a need for ratings and censoring, because as a child you just see cartoon, but Family Guy, while funny to me, is wildly inappropriate for kids under the age of let’s say 14. Networks can only do so much, and like you said, it’s up to parents to know when to say no and to not let their children watch adult shows. Also I feel like kids these days are tech savvy that even if parents did put on parental controls against certain channels and shows, kids can toggle through them and unlock them, only to possibly set it up to look as if nothing ever happened. Also as someone else stated in this week’s post, that kids can go their friends house and watch stuff that their parents might not. I know that’s how my niece saw and episode of Family Guy when she was only 10. I was so angry that her friend’s parent allowed that and my sister was furious as well. I’m not chastising any parent for allowing their child to watch whatever they want; I’m just saying there should be so more discretion when someone else’s child is over at your house.
Asia
Would you say that the only group of people that don't need to be media literate are children? I totally agree with you on kids needing to go outside to play and stimulate their imaginations. Watching tv should not be a part of a childs recreation, and it is happening way too much. I know that you are technologically savvy, but you in this instance do you feel like technology is dangerous? I am trying to decide if a child is "raised right" does that make it okay for a parent to allow them to watch questionable content. Will that child be influenced to act by what they see on television or will the teachings of the parent prevail? Another issue with watching so much tv is that the children in this nation are more overweight than ever. 2/3 of this country is obese and I think there is a correlation between technology and sedentary lifestyles.
Me
I wouldn’t say that children don’t need to be media literate, but since they are kids, I feel like there are other things they can be focusing on until that necessity gets high on their list. I do think that in a child’s case technology can be counterproductive in lessons of imagination and the use of it. On the flip side, we will be in a future where our doctors and scientists will be so intelligent and grasp new technology quicker only to benefit us. It’s an age old argument that parents need to take responsibility of their children and quit blaming TV, outside influence and now technology. Like I said, when I was younger some of my favorite types of movies were (and still is) horror movies, particularly the ones with a masked murderer chasing high school kids, you know vulgar. Absolutely unsuitable for children, I know; but I was lucky enough to have parents who told me they were just movies and that it obviously was wrong and watching them hasn’t affected my development into a “normal” adult. I agree with you on kids needing to be active, be outside for their health. Older generations didn’t have these problems, but older generations had better weather ha ha. Great thoughts Asia!
Asia
After reading the basic values of journalists in this country by Herbert Gans, the reasons for why news in this country is reported with such a bias is more clear. Since I was old enough to understand what I was reading in the newspapers, I got the impression that there was a good vs. evil slant in what I read. Being an impressionable young person, I began to share that same bias. If I were a journalist when I was younger I would have probably reported the news in the same fashion. As I have gotten older, I began to see that just because an article was penned by an American journalist, that did not mean that it was unbiased or even totally accurate information.

Based on my experiences growing up in this country, I can't see the values that Gans presented influencing me. I was born and raised here, but those values are not representative of who I am or my opinions. With regard to journalism, the values that I think are important are to be unbiased, and to give an honest accounting of what actually happened. I don't think that government is right all of the time, and I don't think government can be trusted all of the time.

I wouldn't want to live in any other country but I am not so patriotic that I would be negligent enough to write articles labeling another country or its citizens the "enemy;" those words are incendiary and words can do a great deal of damage. That just isn't good journalism by any means. I think that journalists should suppress those kinds of values because they do more harm than good. For many of us, what journalists write is all we know of other places, and they need to leave their feelings at the door. The goal should always be to give the news as it happened, no more no less.
Me
Asia – I agree with your statement on different news being broadcast through different media being biased at times. Never in reading any reported news do I allow that reporters view points, if any made apparent, affect or influence my personal opinion about that particular report. Would you say that when you were younger that perhaps you were not necessarily biased about how you interpreted the news because maybe you had your parents or and older influence to help you with that? I know that when I personally was younger I didn’t really understand how to feel about certain news reports, and with the help of my parents and the understanding of their opinion regardless of bias, it helped me form my own opinion. Like you said, now that I am older, I am able to educate myself about current events and cultural happenings, so that if a journalist is biased or makes their opinion very obvious in their article, I can distinguish between fact and opinion. Great post Asia.
WK 3 DQ 2
Many companies are looking for new ways to advertise products or services, such as through product placement in TV, films and video games; website banners and pop-up ads; and cell phone messages. How effective are these methods? As more people turn to satellite radio and mobile devices of all kinds, what are some new advertising possibilities that you envision? Personally for me, the most effective methods of product placement are through the internet and website ads. While I’m several different entertainment sites, I can see out of the corner of my eye an ad for online stores, different products etc, and 3 times out of 5, I’ll click on the ad and find more out about that product and maybe even purchase it. I don’t however find pop up ads effective and merely just annoying. I’m sure I’m part of a large population that just simply “exes” out of those ads as soon as they even come up. Movie trailers on TV get me every time, and their placement on specific channels catered to specific viewers I think is very smart. I think we are going to continue to see more live action ads aka commercials, but not on TV. I have a horoscope app on my phone and every so often when I want to read my horoscope, I have to watch a commercial about Microsoft’s new tablet. While commercials aren’t something of the future, the devices that are being used to watch and access product placement ads are what are changing. That is what companies should continue to go after like cell phones and tablets. That way, their ads are able to reach people even when they are not in front of a TV or just another billboard. It’s there with them in their pockets, briefcases and even backpacks

WK 4 DQ 1 In the wake of Iran’s 2009 election, the U.S. State Department revealed that it had asked Twitter to delay a planned upgrade that would have cut daytime service to Iranians, many of whom had taken to the streets to protest the election outcome and were using social media to communicate with one another. Clearly, the State Department did not want Twitter’s maintenance issues to interfere with the possible overthrow of a hostile regime.
What issues did such a request raise with respect to government influence over the media? Though the request was voluntary, what might it have had in common with censorship? Twitter ultimately decided to delay its maintenance until 1:30 a.m. Tehran time. Do you agree with Twitter’s decision? Why or why not?

I agree with Twitters decision to honor the request of postponing the upgrade. With such a potentially historic event happening in these people’s country, it is important for them to be a part of the conversation and to document their involvement and feelings about the result. The common aspect it would have with censorship would be that itself- censorship. I imagine if the upgrade wouldn’t have been postponed, those who wanted to tweet about the election, wouldn’t have been able to, therefore silencing these people’s rights on commenting on a big part of their political history. I can’t imagine if I hadn’t had the opportunity to tweet or engage in the digital conversation about our elections or even when the U.S elected our first African American President. If twitter hadn’t honored their request to postpone the upgrade, it would have censored the residents of Iran, which in a way I feel would have been wrong. Those of us, who don’t live there, can use their tweets as education, to learn how they feel about what is going on in their country. I don’t see this action raising issues with the government; but then again I am aware that Iran has strict laws and restrictions against freedom of speech and press and also will imprison journalists. I imagine this created some discomfort with officials that have specific views on Iranians sounding off on government issues.
WK4 DQ1 Replys and Response
Kimberlee
I agree with Twitter's decision to delay the upgrade due to Iran's election. The opportunity to talk and or document that historic event in their history was something that the government wanted to do. Yes, there were protest but not as many as there probably could have been. Social media is a way for people to voice their opinion. Twitter allowed Iranians the chance to broadcast the news of the election and share their reactions. How many times have Americans crashed Twitter and Facebook while watching the news? What if Twitter decided to do a major upgrade during one of our elections? How would we feel? Even though our government is no where near what theirs is like, the common courtesy of allowing the Iranians to take part in social media after the election was a great choice. It showed that we cared about them and their government. For once the United States was not seen as selfish or inconsiderate.
My response
Kimberlee- I pretty much put exactly what you said about you agreeing with Twitters decision to delay the upgrade for the mere fact that regardless of rights, it’s necessary to be a part of the conversation on historical event, and twitter is a great platform for that. I think that was a great move on Twitter’s part to also be a part of such a great conversation in the Iranians history. Like you said, how many times have Americans flooded Twitter with tweets about less important things, like who won X-Factor? Such unimportant topics I think take way less precedence over the Iran’s government oriented issues. Again, as I stated in my post, I can’t imagine how I would have felt if Twitter hadn’t allowed me the opportunity to sound off on our elections this year; especially with such hard hitting issues and two candidates with as many haters as lovers. Great thoughts Kimberlee.

Asia
The U.S. used social media to manipulate the people of Iran to further it's own agenda without getting its' hands dirty. If only that were something I had never heard before. But, I digress. One issue that can be raised from this is where is the line drawn between government and the media? I can understand if government wants to put out a national alert or something of that nature, but to basically control/influence when and probably how people communicate with each other is going too far; it is an invasion of personal rights in my opinion. I don't know what is meant by the request being voluntary, does that meant Twitter had the right to refuse? What this has in common with censorship was that although the U.S. Government did not restrict anyone's speech, but they did control when those people were to communicate with each other. the U.S. basically manipulated the situation to help grow the feelings of unrest that could potentially lead to a major shake up in the nation of Iran. the U.S. used those people, period. I do not agree with Twitter deciding to delay the upgrade. I don't believe in manipulating people with or without their consent. Twitter should have followed their original plan. Just because the government wants something done, that does not mean that it is right.
My response
Asia-
Interesting you should bring up the topic of drawing the line between personal rights and the freedom of expression and the government trying to “set rules on social networking because of foreign policy.” I’m merely being sarcastic when I saw “foreign policy,” but what I mean is, and what I think you are saying is, that just because perhaps Iran’s government was going through a major shift, and the question that Professor Smith mentioned about “journalists getting into bed with uncle sam,” doesn’t advocate the necessity to quiet anyone from talking about what is happening in the world. Does that make sense? I think Twitter did have the option to refuse, but what good would have come of them refusing and therefore blocking all Iranian’s from tweeting about this issue? I think Twitter was in a catch 22 with that; they really had no choice, but I feel they did the right thing. I agree with you on taking the lines of communication between one another by the government is too far. It’s the whole “separation of church and state’ saying. I really wish the government, in ALL countries would just stick to government and “foreign policy,” and stay out of Twitter and all other social network sites. I hope this all made sense, and you did see that I was agreeing with you on some of your points! Really great insight Asia!

I forgot about video games, so that is really smart of you to bring that up. You are right, coming from games like Mrs. Packman and Mario Kart to Grand Theft Auto is a huge leap in adult content and flat inappropriate visuals for kids. So yes, for a child with a parent that isn’t involved and constantly talking t their kids, these new video games can possibly lead to those kids making bad decisions learned from these games. It’s an age old, forever fighting argument though Michael; bottom line is we are a product of our raising. In older games like Duck Hunt- which I believe is from the 80’s you could say it was violent. It was teaching kids to use a gun; shoot innocent ducks? I know that’s ridiculous, but for arguments sake, that was violent for that time. Did you go out and play with guns inappropriately, or shoot helpless animals? I’m sure there were plenty of kids that liked to “play duck hunt in real life.” So my point is, why were there some kids playing those games back then just on their consoles? They were taught to know that it is just a game. You are right influence is all around us, not just coming from media, but people. In your opinion, is a persons’ reasoning for making wise and smart decisions because they were raised right or because we are all genetically pre-disposed to just know better—to have common sense?

WK 5 DQ 1
In a 1984 article in The Progressive, First Amendment activist Nat Hentoff made the following remarkable assertion: "Consider what would happen if—during the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights—the First Amendment were placed on the ballot in every town, city and state. The choices: affirm, reject, or amend. I would bet there is no place in the United States where the First Amendment would survive intact."

No one has ever tested Hentoff’s hypothesis, but do you agree with him? Why or why not? Review the Political Expression section in Chapter 16 of the text. Are there any topics, actions, or ideas that are so offensive that they should not be permissible under the First Amendment? If so, name them and provide your rationale. Also, what legitimate limitations does our legal system now place on First Amendment expressions? Name a few and indicate whether you agree with those abridgements.

I think that the survival of the First Amendment would be subject to the towns, cities and states that were voting on it. Today we have so many different viewpoints that range from city to city within the same states. I think that voters that don’t have open minds or live in places where they are old fashioned would vote to reject it and vice versa in places where people have more open minds. Therefore, I feel that I both agree and disagree with Hentoff. There are so many people that take that right way too far where it defeats the purpose of its existence. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to state it, but you have to remember slander and defamation of character and so on. I don’t know that are certain topics that are too offensive to be permitted, but perhaps fixing it to where you can say how you feel but you shouldn’t be able to hurt others while doing so. I know, perhaps cheesy, but I don’t find it difficult to state my opinions and agree or disagree others without offensive comments and hurting them. A lot of people actively and quite loudly speak out against same sex marriage. While they are entitled to their opinion and have that right to speak for or against it, I think the amendment should touch on the fact that in your approach to voice that opinion, you don’t however, have the right to attack that person on any level as if they’ve don’t something personal to you. It seems that anti-anything people these days feel that they are personally being attacked therefore reciprocating that fake hate back.

Great post Erik! I posted the same about the first amendment basically allowing hate speech that which in turn results in the riots, and rallies and violence; but because of that rights existence people do take it to the extreme and yes, pretty much believe that anything goes. The freedom of speech as I see it is to let others know "this is what I think- where I stand and what I have experienced." Not "because you chose to believe or live one way, my freedom of speech or to state my opinion and possibly utilize violence or turn to hate to let you know I disagree with this." Censorship was a good topic to state that it is a good limitation. But I wonder if what you said is stating back to last week’s discussion board question about parents being more involved in what their kids watch. I think that absolutely any kind of pornography or intimate scenes in movies or music video or sexual lyrics are inappropriate for kids and your initiative to block all that is great and shows the different types of parenting styles. With that said, and I’m not sure if you will agree, but I’m saying it, that I would never judge another parent or guardian that chooses to let their kids watch those things. It’s THEIR right, as it is mine to say I think that type of subject matter is for adults. That is where this discussion post comes back in; that some people add judgment with disagreement and it’s not necessary, but that is everyone’s right.