Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts

Friday, February 4, 2011

The Case for Al Jazeera in the U.S.A.



As I post this, they are doing virtually 24/7 coverage about the revolution in Egypt. It is simply amazing!

For the past week, I've gotten my first actual look at Al Jazeera. In America, the network is often portrayed as al-Queda's voice, a way for their message to get out and radicalize Arabs. The reality, after what I've seen, is the complete obvious. It is smart, they ask tough and incredibly hard questions, and they don't take the government line at any time.

While CNN and MSNBC will simply cow-toe to their guests, rarely doing their job of fishing out the truth in a sea of lies, Al Jazeera actually does non-stop. I haven't seen any pointless stories about a squirrel on water-skis, nothing about some pointless sports game... just NEWS. Non-stop news!

The sad thing is that virtually no one in the United States carries it. In fact, except for a few places, including Washington D.C., there is a virtual black-out of it. Like I said before, its been portrayed as a terrorist network. This, despite the fact that multiple U.S. politicians have appeared on this network in the past week alone!

Look, it's basically just good TV. It's smart, its interesting, and the graphics are neat, too. The case for Al Jazeera in the USA is actually very simple; They're covering the things no one else does, and what many networks  are afraid to cover. They're fair, they're honest, and to a large degree entirely balanced. If they are the anti-Fox News, its only because of their nearly tireless pursuit of the truth!

If you agree, PLEASE come out to a meetup dedicated to getting it in the USA! February 10th!

Thursday, February 3, 2011

"First Amendment Remedies" is Catching On!

Remember when I posted we needed more "First Amendment Remedies"? Looks like the phrase is catching on:



Kick. Ass.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Darrell Clarke STILL Hates Your Civil Rights!

Saw this in the Metro Blog today, Thanks! More on it tomorrow!

It's been, in no short terms, a weird day. I woke up to protest against Darrell Clarke's bill. The idea for the protest was very simple: Clarke wants to ban being able to display nooses, burning crosses, and swastikas in public. Being a fan of the First Amendment, as well as belonging to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, a First Amendment group, I oppose it with every American bone in my body. It doesn't mean I entirely agree with these symbols, but at the same time, let's consider that the Swastika alone has a VERY long history of non-violence before the freakin' Nazi's bastardized it.

Here is the proposed Bill No. 070914.

So to protest, the plan was to draw these three symbols. Not just "draw" them, but make them interesting and put them into some cool contexts. I won't lie, it wasn't a well thought-out plan since I had no clue what to draw and no signs to tell people why I was out there. Plus, I didn't know the Christmas Tree lighting ceremony was tonight, so they were getting that done while I was out there as well.

The best part? On the subway ride to City Hall I came up with an idea based on the Anthrax song "Startin' Up A Posse". In it, Scott Ian sings about how Censorship is a cancer, and goes against what America stands for. The entire song is just a cartoony rip and tear of Tipper Gore, and I decided that that was the best way to go with this protest.

Now, my plan was to not only show the picture, but also make flyers to hand out at City Hall WITH the drawing on it, and explain why it was done and what you could do if you felt the same way about censorship as me.

Now, I learned that two other measures he wants (Both which would create electronic tracking of beer, alcohol, spray paint containers, indelible markers and etching acid) are on the docket FOR THE SAME MEETING!

Bill No.: 070875 - The bill that would track cigarettes and beer:
http://www.hallwatch.org/councilnotices/bills/1192803462538

Bill No.: 070876 - The bill that would track spray paint:
http://www.hallwatch.org/councilnotices/bills/1192803462937

The meeting is scheduled for Dec 5, 2007 10:00 am at Room 400, City Hall from the Licenses and Inspections Committee.

Now, I'm sure that a LOT more people agree that all of these measures are, well... INSANE! Czar Clarke, this isn't Oceania and we are not the Proles from Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four! This is the USA in 2008, Councilman, and before you decide to take more rights away from us and start tracking up like cattle, realize a few things!

1. WE ALREADY HAVE HATE CRIME LAWS! Your entire proposal to "ban" these images violates the First Amendment! Not only that, but anyone with some basic legal knowledge knows that it is incredibly difficult to prove intent, and in a case like this, where you can not always tell the intent of an artist who uses any of these symbols, your are going to cost the city millions in lawsuits!

Councilman, why create a new law that can hurt the city to create this awareness that this is already a crime to do in order to commit hate? There is hate crime legislation already that covers this!

2. WE ALREADY CHECK IDS! Clarke's legislation to "electronically scan ID's" come down to tracking these legal purchases. There are already laws in effect to make sure that this doesn't happen, so why the extra move? Why track law-abiding citizens?

In essence, everything Czar Clarke wants is MORE government in your life! Is that what you and I need?

What we NEED, Councilman, is more ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS! We need to make sure that the citizens of Philadelphia are aware that we do have these laws. Your selective laws and enforcement (I can only suspect your behind the recent run of shut downs of First Friday) have hurt Philadelphia and continue to do so!

If YOU oppose these ideas just as much as me, feel free to contact him:

5th DARRELL L. CLARKE
Clarke-5th-district@phila.gov

Monday, November 26, 2007

Philadelphia City Council Member Darrell Clarke hates the First Ammendment

Did you ever get so angry you can't think straight? That's the case for me...

Whatever happened to the saying, "I may not agree with what you say,but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."? Day after day, I'm left asking this question as I see more and more people deny the right of letting others express themselves. Today, I learned that Czar, pardon, City Council Member Darrel Clarke is trying to ban the image of burning crosses, swastikas, and hanging nooses.

http://willdo.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/2007/11/city_council_to_1.html

While many of us will agree that those symbols are linked to years and years of racism and oppression, so are the following:

The Southern Flag
The Cross
Black Face
Pentacles and Pentagrams
Satan
Mohamed
Jesus
Whips
Chains
Swords
Guns
The Bible
The Koran

Ask yourself if you can say for a second that anything in that list hasn't meant someone didn't felt excluded. Ask yourself if anything on there, when you saw it in real life, didn't make you recoil a bit because you had to look at it, hear about, was told about it, or knew about it.

Myself? I'm offended more by people who don't give me room to breath on the train or bus than anything else. That, and people who click their gum. I think there should be a law banning both. Why not? Their offensive to me! Doesn't that stuff annoy you, too?

I went to Councilman Clark's office earlier today and spoke to his legislative aid. We went into a discussion about this and it came down to this conversation:

Staffer: "This is about public places. What if you had to go to work everyday and someone kept putting a noose around you?"
Me: "Well, it would be funny the first time, but it would get old fast."
Staffer: "Exactly!"
Me: "You know, back in high school, I had this guy who constantly tried to set me on fire every single day. He would take out his lighter and go, 'I'm going to set you on fire!' It was funny the first time, but it got old fast!"
Staffer: "That really happened?"
Me: "Yep. It was annoying as sin! And there's a law against that, too, right?"
Staffer: "Yeah."
Me: "So why are we creating a new law to do the same thing an existing law does?"


Yes, a classmate of mine DID try to set me on fire daily in high school. He didn't really intend to hurt me, just light my sweater on fire (It wouldn't burn, so it was annoying when he tried), and I honestly didn't care. He was more like a fly than someone out to kill me.

My point is this: There are laws on the book that ban a lot of this stuff already. The text of what Clarke wants to amend is this:

"No person shall display, with the intent to intimidate another person or incite violence, a symbol of racial or ethnic animus, such as a noose, burning cross or swastika, in a place of employment, in a public accommodation, in a public facility, on public property or in the public right-of-way."

So, in a sense, anywhere but your house. It's a bit silly, really. Let me give you another example: I have a t-shirt with a swastika crossed out on the back. Here it is on the right. It's obvious my intent is to piss off Neo-Nazi's. So, under Clarke's bill, this shirt is now banned.

If you own a Bad Religion shirt with the cross crossed-out (The "No Cross" shirt), it would be banned, wouldn't it? Your intent is to say you don't like the cross as a symbol, but someone else could simply say your intent is to piss off people. Maybe it is. Doesn't matter, IT'S BANNED!

I can also only assume that Marilyn Manson's "Last Tour on Earth" album cover would be banned, too. A flaming cross of TV's. It's a burning cross all right! Would a performance including this act be banned, too? It's done in a public space with the intent of inciting violence, although for the purpose of entertainment.

What about simple classes and lectures on this topic? Are kids now banned from learning about Nazi Germany and the Civil Rights movement because they contain these symbols? What about college courses where the teacher can use these subjects with the intent of inciting a form of violence, of making students angry about the events of the past and use it to make their communities better by eliminating hatred and racism?

The entire point of this boils down to this: You don't have a right to not be offended. In fact, you have a right TO be offended.

That's why I love democracy! It gives you a chance to be challenged, to make you ask questions, and to re-kindle why you are who you are. If I was walking down the street and someone had on a "Stop Snichin'" t-shirt on, I would be a offended by that more than someone wearing a shirt with a burning cross or a noose.

Honestly, why did the noose become racist? It's been used to kill people for centuries! Not just blacks, but everyone! What, just because a bunch of idiots in the South decide to make it racist, BAM, it's racist? One year I wanted to have skeletons hanging from nooses for Halloween, and that was when I was 10. I thought it would be scary, but I took it down because I couldn't do it right. I know I saw it at a haunted house or something.

The noose has a been a symbol for centuries, one that reminds people of execution, death, and even the lost of rights. It has a long history of making people think.

Am I trying to say all of these things are right? Not really. In this country, groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazi's, the Nation of Islam, and countless other racists are allowed to march in freedom. You may not like what they have to say, but it's safe to say we all agree that they have a basic right to say it.

We also have a right to call them idiots for it, too.

If you don't like something, you can either ignore it or call it names back. That options always open, too. I know I do! Someone doesn't like the way I dress, I just flip them off and go on my way. Its life, isn't it? Someone is always bound to disagree with you or do something to annoy you, and you either ignore them or do something.