Satire and Free Speech: How Far is Too Far?

On January 7th 2015, French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo was attacked by two gunmen, subsequently killing eight journalists and sparking a massive free speech debate around the world. The newspaper was often under criticism for its controversial depictions of religious figures, primarily of the prophet Muhammad, which seems to be the cause for the terrorist attack. However, the newspaper claimed satire as its main defense, which begs two questions: what is the purpose of satire, and how far is "too far?" 
According to this definition, which can be found in more depth here, the purpose of satire is to "provide constructive criticism of certain individuals and entities. It may also help expose certain characteristics of an entity or individual to help establish awareness of these characteristics throughout society. Ideally, satire will help society communicate about social issues. Comic relief is normally a secondary purpose of satire" We talked at length in our class discussion about the purpose of satire, what the ultimate goal of this form of speech/comedy is, and I think that a lot of us would agree that the aforementioned definition is the same conclusion that we came to. One of our classmates mentioned that the idea of satire is to "punch up," essentially: those in a position of power use satire to make a comical criticism of those in power above them, not below them. The purpose, in my opinion, is not to "punch down" so to speak, because then you are using your privilege to attack somebody else (or often a group of people) who may not have the same power to fight back. It causes an unequal power balance and takes away the purpose of satire in the first place. What was the purpose of Charlie Hebdo depicting religious figures crudely, some may ask? Personally, I'm unsure. I would assume that it was to critique organized religion, which isn't (going by the previous definition) satire, that's just taking a low blow at the sake of others. 
After the attack on Charlie Hebdo, carried out by Islamic extremists, France saw a rise in hate speech against its muslim citizens. In this article about the hate speech issue, the author writes "But for France's nearly 6 million Muslims, Charlie Hebdo being allowed to insult Islam while others are jailed for racist remarks seems hypocritical." She then quotes "Myriam Doudech, 36, says she condemns the attack on the journalists who drew caricatures of the prophet Mohammed. But as a Muslim, she sees a double standard when it comes to free speech. 'You know, in France you cannot attack some religions, but they laugh about Islam,' she says. 'We all need respect. But the rules have to be the same for everybody.'"

Obviously, no matter what the Charlie Hebdo was publishing, the terrorist attack should never have happened. It was a senseless tragedy that affected innumerable amounts of people. But my questions to you all are this: where do we draw the line in terms of satire? Where and when do we say "that was too far?" Should satire be regulated at all? 

How has technology given us a voice beyond just speaking??

As we ended up discussing on 2/18, in Fahrenheit 451, Technology is a blessing and a curse.

Technological innovation represents the central source of society’s problems in Fahrenheit 451. Throughout the book, Bradbury treats technology as inherently anesthetizing and destructive. In the prehistory of the novel, technology played an important role in the social decline of reading. As technology improved, it gave rise to new forms of media, like television and in-ear radios. But how does the digital age alter the laws we already have set in place??

https://www.govtech.com/data/Can-the-First-Amendment-Survive-the-Digital-Age.html

Technology has expanded the number of tools in the contemporary activist’s toolbelt. Fundraisers are created, and petitions are distributed online, giving new speed and power to advocates. Thanks to Facebook, you can now donate on your birthday for a cause and raise money in order to advocate for it. Change.org has brought petitioning to a whole new level by bringing your cause to every newsfeed in your network. As the reach of what you share grows, the cause begins attracting attention from larger organizations and media outlets.

If a message is displayed to the world just right, it might even “go viral” and be the catalyst for an ideological shift in an entire community. Now armed with both tools to spread awareness and garner support online and off, activists are utilizing both means to maximize their ideological imprint in the world.

However, elements of social media can also contribute to hostility towards certain ideas that some may disagree with. Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter facilitate the unfortunate convenience of filtering the messages we want to hear. If you do not like something, you can simply remove it from your newsfeed or report it. We now have the ability to control not only who we connect with online but also opt to only hear the ideas we care to. Ultimately, this leads to a moment of decision, a call to action in which we decide whether we want to live in virtual echo chambers or engage in healthy discourse with those who can challenge and expand our ideas.

YAL ( Young Americans for Liberty)  has steadfastly elected to engage in conversations instead of violence, constructive discourse instead of hasty Facebook arguments. Our National Fight for Free Speech has overturned 28 unconstitutional speech codes and restored rights to 590,202 students. Those achievements would not have been possible without the dedication of our activists or the network of mutual support and activity easily seen online.

We have every resource at our disposal to advance our ideas, and we should take advantage of them by engaging in respectful conversations and working to advance our ideas. What does you think we can do together with the resources we have??

What does it mean when someone bans a book?

In section one of Fahrenheit,  Montague wrestles with the secret of keeping a stash books that he is most definitely not supposed to have. The gray and grim world that Ray Bradbury has created paints a very black and charred abstract painting of a thought-process as to what happens when books are not allowed to be read. Bradbury puts it best: "You don't have to burn books to destroy society. Just get people to stop reading them."

I think this book does a pretty decent job of showing people what happens when you get your population to stop reading books. However, we have a banned book problem in this country. An earlier post on this blog spoke about banning books in schools and the negative effects of doing such a feat. However, my question for you all today is what happens when a prison of all places bans a book?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/us/new-jim-crow-book-ban-prison.htmlA

The New Jim Crowe is a book about the systemic racism in the American Prison system. Many prisons ban this book, but will allow classic literature from authors like Mark Twain and Harper Lee which all have very grim and racist depictions of people of color. What does it say about prisons who ban these types of books? What does it say about prisons who allow certain books? Should we let prisoners read any books? 

Freedom of Speech in the Digital Age

America's public sphere has become much more accessible since the writing of the First Amendment.  In 1791, forbidding abridging the freedom of speech of our nation seemed plausible when our nation was no larger than 14 states.  The prominent voices (meaning the voices that were allowed to be heard) of the public sphere in this time were made up of a large number of like-minded people.  The prospect of not being able to silence those who had differing viewpoints may have seemed like common sense.

Today, our country is much larger and much more connected.  With the rise of the internet and social media, an increasing amount of diverse voices are being heard.  Common people can be heard just as much as those in power.  While we still struggle with xenophobia and intolerance in America, social media is a way marginalized voices get heard.  The immediacy of online connection lends itself to the discussion of current events and government notifications.  Whether we like it or not, social media, especially Twitter, has become a political sphere.
Donald Tr*mp's Twitter is a prime example of how social media has changed political rhetoric.  The president's controversial Tweets have become the primary source of communication between him and the public.  His Tweets, while often riddled with typos and falsities, spark political debate.  Tr*mp is not the only politician to use Twitter in this way, but he has definitely served as a catalyst for the rise of intense, political discussion on Twitter, making Twitter a sort of public forum  If we use this language to describe the social media cite, the First Amendment plays an interesting role in the digital age. 

"The Supreme Court has long held that, when the government establishes or operates a public forum like a town hall, the First Amendment bars the government from excluding disfavored voices or silencing disfavored views. "  

When we apply this concept to the political discourse on Twitter, we realize that each Tweet represents its own forum of people expressing their viewpoints.  So, if we were to say, silence others for not agreeing with us, it conflicts with our first amendment rights.  Therefore, when we think of the president's behavior on Twitter, we cannot be sure that he is not violating the First Amendment.  If an account is sharing information Tr*mp deems to be disrespectful to his image, he blocks them.  He has blocked numerous authors, corporations, journalists, and other members of liberal media.  

In one instance, journalist Andy Signore Tweeted, "I am so damn sick of bully @realDonaldTrump taking words out of context to act out his agenda of fear, corruption & bigotry. #NotMyPresident" Within an hour, the President had blocked Andy's account.  Would Andy's Tweet qualify as a redress of grievances?  More simply, when Tr*mp blocks people on Twitter, is he violating the First Amendment?

According to a 2019 ruling that stated "Because President Trump uses Twitter to conduct government business, he cannot exclude some Americans from reading his posts," his actions do violate Freedom of Speech laws, and he is not allowed to choose who gets to receive information from the White House.  The president has appealed this ruling.  

While I agree with the court's ruling, I am left questioning;

How can we apply the First Amendment of 1791 to Twitter in 2020?  How do we apply a doctrine written before this time of mass, instant communication?  What is Freedom of Speech in the digital age?  

Terminating Faculty Employment for Problematic Online Behavior—a First Amendment Issue?

The Story

In late 2019, tenured Indiana University faculty member, Eric Rasmusen (link to his twitter), put himself and IU as an institution under national speculation when several of his sexist tweets began being circulated online. The tweet which sparked the uproar was a retweet of an article from unz.com titled “Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably.” But this was just the beginning of the bigotry; without much difficulty, it was soon discovered that the professor had a history of transphobia, homophobia, and racism, as shown through likes, retweets, and original tweets displayed on his personal account. 

Many Twitter users assumed he would be fired for such intolerance; IU students called for his immediate termination. One woman tweeted that she had completed research with him the previous semester and was perplexed and offended by his stance. Another started a petition on Change.org demanding his immediate removal. The general consensus, at least online, was that he was unfit to teach at IU.

However, to the dismay of many, IU provost Lauren Robel made a public statement which announced he would remain a professor at IU; she condemned his words but affirmed his right to express whatever opinions he wished when outside of the classroom. She judged his opinions to be “Stupid,” but explained that it was his right under the first amendment to say whatever he likes, as long as he does not act upon such biases in the classroom. To ensure this could not happen, she announced that all assignments turned into him would be blindly graded—to remove possibility for biased grading—and that his courses would be evaluated for signs of bias. 

Did IU make the right decision?

I disagree with his not being fired. I fully believe IU administration should have terminated his contract; tolerating such obvious intolerance is not something which should be allowed within the university. Further, I do not think the “But the First Amendment!” argument was valid in this case, and I think Stanley Fish would agree with me.

As we read in Free Speech Follies written by Fish, the Daily Illini—a collegiate newspaper—used a similar argument when they received criticism for an anti-Semitic letter they published. Just like Provost Robel, they cited the first amendment to defend their decision to allow the bigotry to have a platform. Fish wrote in response: “this incident has nothing to do with either hate speech or free speech and everything to do with whether the editors are discharging or defaulting on their obligations when they foist them off on an inapplicable doctrine, saying in effect, ‘The First Amendment made us do it.’” In other words, just because you have power to give others a voice, does not mean you are violating the first amendment by refusing to provide a platform for harmful ideologies. He makes an important distinction between violating freedom of speech and using judgment when providing a platform to others; he writes that “judgment… is quite a different thing from silencing.” I think that in the case of IU and Eric Rasmusen, poor judgment was exercised by relying on the first amendment to excuse their cowardice in refusing to fire such a potentially harmful figure.

What does this Mean?

This is not the only instance of bigoted faculty members, but it is one of the few that comes to mind in which the professor was not fired for their online actions. Some may hail this as a win for “campus free speech,” but I think it is instead a sign of universities continuing to be complicit in societal inequality. As discussed in class, universities have a history marked by sexism, racism, and classism; however, universities have since changed their philosophy—at least on surface level—now lauding diversity as being one of the pillars higher education is built upon. They even use statistics for how “diverse” their campuses are to convince outsiders to attend and fund their institutions.

I think that if administration officials want to continue to boast about diversity on their campuses, they need to actually support the people who make the student body a diverse group. They need to value the presence of women, people of color, and the LGBT+ community enough to take a stand against those who do not want such people to have a voice. This includes removing faculty members who speak on their bigoted views in their personal time.  Otherwise, their "comittment to diversity" is a lie.

What do you think? Was IU right to allow Dr. Rasmusen to continue teaching? 

If you would like to read more, I recommend this article; I pulled a lot of the information for this post from it.

It's Captain!...Underpants...?

A common topic on this blog is the act of censorship in classrooms, books, and the theater. I would like to use this blog to point out that censored books are added to the “banned” list for absolutely hilarious reasons. Books such as Dav Pilkey’s Captain Underpants, first written in 1997, as an illustrated child’s novel for young boys. The book is wildly popular for the controversy it has faced since 2012, when it became #1 on the chart of restricted books in America. An article I read surrounding the book and its reasons states that “offensive language,” partial nudity, violence, misbehavior, and blackmail (Engel). Now while the article goes into the details about why each excuse is given, I will not.

I actually found all of this out thanks to a current movement at DoSomething. The movement was originally created to bring attention to the issue of boys having all around lower scores than girls in reading. However, this movement is also bringing to light the fact that Captain Underpants is a banned child’s book in America. As stated on the website:

The Problem: Boys lag behind girls in reading proficiency in all 50 states -- in some states by as many as 10 percentage points.

The Solution: "Captain Underpants," proven to get boys hooked on reading, is the book most often banned in schools. Performing a dramatic reading of "Captain Underpants" in class will bring attention to the issue of book censorship.

            As a teacher, my goal is to ensure that all of my students are capable of the same level of skill, levels that are decided through state and capital offices. Reading and writing skills are measured throughout the schooling children in order to calculate what schools are better, what leads to better preferences, and it even decides teacher’s pay. If this book series is rated as the most popular way to encourage boys to read, then shouldn’t it be important to preserve this? Aren’t there other important books that schools are missing out on that could be used? I read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn when I was in middle school, a private Catholic middle school. And yet, other public schools don’t allow this book on the shelves? What?

Did you ever read Captain Underpants? Or any other book listed as "banned" from schools now? What is you opinion on the idea of banning books from schools that were once okay to be used?

Considering the Potential Consequences of Art Through "13 Reasons Why"

(There are some minor spoilers for Fahrenheit 451 in this post, but you won't find any spoilers for 13 Reasons Why here because I didn't want to watch it.)

In class we touched on the possibility of art being used to convey a principle rather than a narrative or image. While some works clearly announce their intent to persuade or inform their consumers, others may do so naturally through a compelling narrative or developed techniques. One relevant example of a piece that I believe subtly conveys its message through its narrative is Farenheit 451, which demonstrates the value of nontraditional thinkers by showing its readers a world where any eccentricity or doubt is treated as an indication of criminality. Still, despite what I believe to be the major theme of the book, other readers may hold opinions that place more emphasis on other aspects of the text, some of which would contradict Bradbury's intent. For example, a reader might induce that in their own lives it is permissible to possess contraband (such as illegal firearms and drugs) due to Guy Montag's harboring of an illegal object, a book. Although this example may seem extreme, it demonstrates the point that consumers may receive different messages from the same piece of media. Unfortunately, not all examples of a consumer finding an unintended meaning in a piece of art seem so far-fetched, as is the case with 13 Reasons Why.

I have not watched 13 Reasons Why, but I found its potential impact too interesting to forgo writing about it. I'm referring to the fact that its debut (at least according to a study which can be found at https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(19)30288-6/fulltext) correlates with a 28.9 percent increase in suicide among Americans aged ten to seventeen. While the relationship between the television program and American suicide rates is technically correlational, I believe it is worth considering how a show that tackles the subject matter of suicide could relate to the unprecedented increase in suicides the month after its release. For the sake of argument, let's say that 13 Reasons Why caused the increased suicide rate.

If we can believe that 13 Reasons Why increased the rate of suicide among Americans aged ten to seventeen, then it still seems improbable that the show's creators (or the author of the book it was based on) intended to promote or romanticize suicide. One would expect that its audience saw a glamorized perspective on suicide where there wasn't an intent to glorify the act. What does this conclusion, that art can carry different meanings for different consumers, suggest about the subjectivity involved when a consumer forms an opinion about a message? And specifically for our class, how can a measure of tolerable speech be created when people may insert or remove the messages of a piece of art?

Censorship In Theatre

Censorship In Theatre

In the spring of 2019, I started taking my second Playwriting class of my college career. Not only did we focus on developing our playwrighting skills, but we also took time to further our knowledge about playwrights and the controversies that arise in the field. During one class we even held a mock debate discussing topics like “Who has the final say when it comes to the production of a play?”. My class in that matter discussed the playwright vs. director but this kind of thing also goes into the matter of Theatre censorship.

Theatre censorship has been around for centuries, often in the case that theatre has challenged the status quo. Censored to the point that actors and directors have been arrested right of the stage. Just like in the case of a play called God of Vengeance. The play toured Europe and eventually came to America on Broadway in 1932, where they were consequently arrested and tried on the grounds of obscenity. A 2019 article written by Catherine Huber and Noelle McCabe talks about the scandal surrounding the God of Vengeance and how playwright Paula Vogel’s play Indecent “follows the trajectory of the play God of Vengeance”. In Indecent, Vogel address issues of censorship and leads the notion to fight to have confrontational art. Which brings us back to consider “Who has the right to limit what we watch or produce on the stage?” and “What role does the playwright play in this?”.

From that same playwriting class, we were introduced to the Samuel Beckett Estate and the many cases taken under some penalty from the author during his time alive. One case in particular involved director JoAnne Akalaitis and Beckett’s play Endgame. Beckett thought that the choice’s Akalaitis made to enhance Endgame, was a violation of Beckett’s original view for the play. It was not taken to court and was allowed to be performed but with a not in the program that Beckett did not approve. Although Beckett believed the choices disregarded the meaning of the story, Akalaitis was not in violation of the choices made. In fact, it actually enhance the play and it’s underlying messages for the audience. I believe the relationship between playwrights and directors/producers is a tricky one to take hold of and disagreements will be present. While I don’t agree with the views Beckett has on his plays I do think the works of a playwright should be respected. Works can be reinvented, but it should not override the given text, instead it should reveal something new to the audience with the provided text.

 Being a Theatre minor I’ve learned many definitions of “what theatre is and what it can do?”, but a common thread that I’ve come to know is that Theatre provokes the idea of change. It shouldn’t be censored in it’s content because of a hot button issue. Instead theatre should be encouraged as a resource for thought. Something that makes you question and consider what meaning they were trying to get you to think about.

Blitzchung Freedom of Speech

In October 2019, a Hong Kong native gamer who goes by Blitzchung decided to wear a gas mask and goggles for an interview after his match in the Hearthstone Grandmaster streaming event. At the end of the interview, he repeated a Hong Kong protest slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our time!” Because of this, Blitzchung was stripped of the $10,000 he would have won from the game and suspended from Blizzard games for one year. Blitzchung had been playing Hearthstone for four years before the suspension. 

“Today I lost Hearthstone, it’s only a matter of four years.

But if Hong Kong is lost, it is a matter of a lifetime”

-Blitzchung

What is Blizzard?

Blizzard is an American-based gaming company that creates games, such as Hearthstone. The company has a policy stating that players cannot get into anything that can cause public disrepute; the punishment for doing so is forfeiting prize money and being removed from the tournament. Blitzchung violated this policy in his actions during the interview. His two Taiwanese interviewers were also suspended from the company just for being in the interview with him. 

In an interview with the YouTube channel People Make Games, Blitzchung said he was motivated to make the statement by the people outside his window were protesting the new Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation Bill and Blitzchung wanted to show his support for the protestors. He goes on to say that Hong Kong is his home and he felt the need to express his opposition to the bill even if it was against Blizzard policy, saying it was “a must do thing.” 

What even is this bill?

The Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation Bill was a bill proposed in February 2019 that would allow the Chinese government to arrest fugitives and companies that they work with if they commit “political dissent.” This bill could cause political witch hunts. Additionally, Hong Kong is somewhat separate from China in a “One country. Two Systems” kind of deal which expires in 2042. The citizens of Hong Kong fear the Chinese government trying to enforce more control over Hong Kong citizens than they are accustomed to. Hong Kong citizens took to protesting the bill until the bill was withdrawn in October of 2019, not long after the Blitzchung controversy. 

Does this Hong Kong/China event really have anything to do with American Freedom of Speech? 

Yes, because Blizzard is based in America and were contradicting other statements they had made. While they do have a policy against players using their platform for their personal controversial political views and that policy was broken, their reaction to it was not the best. Blizzard is believed to have this policy in place to appease the Chinese who give lots of money to the company. It is a “Profits over Persons” issue. They choose to keep the companies who give them money happy over the people play their games. Additionally, Blizzard is reported to support Freedom of Speech, saying “Every Voice Matters”, and having a policy with such heavy consequences for a player voicing his support for protestors in his city is contradictory to their statements. 

Furthermore, Blizzard should have not suspended the interviewers who had absolutely nothing to do with Blitzchung’s statement. They did not ask any questions that could cause his statement nor did they voice any support or disapproval, but only moved to show they did not want to be a part of Blitzchung’s statement, yet they were punished. Blitzchung visited the the two interviewers in Taiwan because he felt bad for their suspension. Blizzard, on the other hand, didn’t even lift their suspensions.  

This entire incident is an example of how businesses will appease countries and investors who give large amounts of money to them over their customers. When a customer wants to use their business’s platform to make a statement, the business is too ready to try to silence them to keep their investors happy. Simply they choose their profits over persons. They choose money over the freedom of speech. 

Should the United States Take After Europe’s Restrictions Against Hate Speech?

When thinking about history as a whole and the place of our current events in relation to those of the past, something that I often grapple with is just how recently the events of World War II took place. Though I imagine our world will be discussing and learning about these events for decades to come, it is strange to think that, as young adults, we are only a couple generations removed from these times. Keeping this in mind, it makes sense that countries affected by WWII are still evolving from these events, as their citizens try to find the best ways to remind their people of the past and prevent such atrocities from happening in the future. 

We have briefly discussed in class the discrepancies between the United States and European countries like France and Germany and their free speech regulations - more specifically, how these countries approach free speech differently because of what they have experienced in the past century. 

In Germany, any references to the National Socialist Party or Adolf Hitler are banned or censored. Recently, in 2016, the German Bundesrat has banned the National Democratic Party of Germany due to its Nazi ideologies (Mudde). Even more recently, in 2017, Germany prosecuted two Chinese tourists for performing a Hitler salute in front of the Reichstag building in Berlin (B.R.). 

In the United States, however, the tolerance of this speech is handled much differently. In National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977), Neo-Nazis in the United States were allowed to march on the largely Jewish parts of the village of Skokie under the regulations of free speech (Oyez). Flags with Nazi symbols are allowed unless violating rules of private property, much unlike in Europe, where displaying the symbol could easily result in prosecution. 

There is no denying that there is a significant physical distance between the United States and Europe, and much of Europe and Germany were physically affected by the war more than the physical territory of the United States. However, should this be something significant enough to be considered? Should the United States follow Europe and Germany in their regulations against hate speech and Nazi ideologies?

Image: Flickr.com

B.R. “Two Chinese Tourists are Arrested for Making a Hitler Salute in Germany.” The Atlantic. August 7, 2017.  https://www.economist.com/gulliver/2017/08/07/two-chinese-tourists-are-arrested-for-making-a-hitler-salute-in-germany

Mudde, Cas “Germany Wants to Ban the Neo-Nazis of the NPD Again, but Why Now?” The Guardian. March 4, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2016/mar/04/germany-ban--neo-nazi-npd-refugees-far-right

"National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1976/76-1786. Accessed 3 Feb. 2020 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/76-1786