Greek Life: Imposition on Expression?

Whether they notice it or not, being a part of any societal group can have its implications on one’s personal rights of expression, and failure to conform to a community’s particular standards could lead to expulsion from the group. But to what degree are these implications acceptable, and at what point should a person say no to these limitations? Some of these hindrances are obvious and understandable, such as one’s physical appearance at their workplace or monitoring of a student’s language in a classroom setting. Others, however, are slightly less acceptable. One particular example of imposition on one’s free expression can be seen through Greek life communities at certain universities.

 An article in the HuffingtonPost specifically examined the impact of fraternity membership on one’s freedom of expression, and pointed out one particularly crude example of this. At Yale University in 2010, the Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) forced their pledge members to walk around the campus while chanting the words “My name is Jack, I'm a necrophiliac, I fuck dead women" and "No means yes, yes means anal.”

While it is obvious that pledges who were strongly opposed to participating in this activity could drop out of DKE, it is also acceptable to say that this group went too far in exercising their power over the pledges and requiring them to express something that (presumably) most of the men did not agree with. The university did become angered by this action and DKE later apologized for their crude language, but the overall point of the situation should not go overlooked: Greek life is one societal group that can have an influence over its members’ freedoms of expression. 

To avoid the generalization of all Greek life communities, it is important to note that this instance is not a reflection on all sororities or fraternities and that some Greek life societies are much more extreme than others. However, those that do impose upon their members’ personal expressions should not go overlooked. The mere action of a sorority prohibiting certain behaviors that could look badly upon the group, or of a fraternity forcing members to act in a certain way and say certain things, is an imposition upon those people and their freedoms and it expresses a manipulated hierarchy of power. It is peer pressure that, yes, these people could avoid by extracting themselves from that certain organization, but it is also a pressure that should not be exerted in the first place.

Free Expression Through Photographs

Rolling Stone is not a magazine to shy against controversy nor should they get the flack that they receive from the public. The publication is not meant to be the “national source of political and substantial news.” This is not meant in a derogatory way in any means. The magazine was produced as a tool to publish news of the counter culture in America quite some time ago. In contrast to by-the-book articles, Rolling Stone included unfiltered articles. One very strong example is Hunter S. Thompson. Mr. Thompson is the focus of movies such as Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and The Rum Diaries.

Hunter S. Thompson spoke whatever the hell he thought, and Rolling Stone is a publication that does the same. Featuring a cover story of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bomber, is not an unusual inclusion for the magazine nor should it be any more controversial than a number of other photographs that have graced the front-pages of American magazines, pictures of various villainous figures mean-mugging the population for the world to see.

This specific instance of a travesty projected on a glossy piece of paper for the public to digest might have seemed too close to home, but then what isn’t for a person of major notoriety, whether positive or negative, to be plastered everywhere? By this I mean other images have been etched in the people’s minds forever that might seem more drastic than this man. There has been a violent dictator named as “Person of the Year,” another tyrant forever engrained on a publication and a man that was sought for crimes against humanity for over a decade. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8489016/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-bin-Laden-to-join-Hitler-Saddam-on-Time-cover.html   

Yet, this cover seems to draw the ire of many more people. Yes, there are people that have been devastated by the Boston Marathon catastrophe. Consider this: how many people were affected by these other “cover stars”? Rolling Stone has every right to produce this image on their cover. “Don’t like [it]…Don’t buy the magazine” (Policinski, Senior Vice President/Executive Director, First Amendment Center).

The other front-page images that I have included are from other, more politically based magazines like Time. I enjoy Rolling Stone, but I am more into the magazine for the music articles. I do read the political portions and take in the information, but I do not take it as the best source of world-changing material. Ultimately, these articles are editorials (the included “pH” scale of topics really is great).

If a company wants to ban a publication from its shelves, that is the company’s own prerogative. It might benefit the magazine and negatively affect the store. The point of the story is not to glorify Mr. Tsarnaev but to tell a story that informs those that are interested in reading something different than “mainstream” accounts of a subject. The same goes for the other men splashed all over the media before that are not meant to worship their ideals; these photographs were significant to the present time they were published.

Editing a picture to produce a certain result is the actual negative connotation. I don’t to berate Time, but the periodical drastically altered a photo of O.J. Simpson for a menacing effect. I don’t think anyone flinched at this alteration except other editors. http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19940627,00.html

The issue of Rolling Stone that came out in July should have just been as widely distributed and accepted as ones that have included worldwide terrorists, totalitarian rulers with no boundaries or serial killers that glorified their deaths more than any explanation of why.

Brown University's protest disregards the FA.

There are few places in America where individuals are encouraged to develop and exercise independent thought than in our country’s Universities. So on Brown University’s campus on Tuesday, administrators and event planners were stunned when students acted with such disregard towards the first amendment during the speaking of a guest on campus, New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly.

Kelly, who intended to speak to the students on the subject of the NYPD’s controversial “crime fighting efforts”, which involve the “stop and frisk” policy. Barely able to start his speech entitled “Proactive Policing in America’s Biggest City”, Kelly was relentlessly booed and interrupted by his audience. The interruptions were so disruptive that the event was eventually canceled.

What interested me in this event was that there were two opportunities for the infringement of ones freedom of speech. The students could have been forcibly removed from the lecture, as it was causing a disruption to the speaker and those who wished to hear him speak, but then the students could have claimed that their rights were infringed upon. Alternatively, Kelly could claim that his rights for free speech were infringed because the overthrowing of the students silenced him and canceled his promotional event.

According to the New York Daily News, one student shouted during the event, “It’s not a dialogue, it’s not a discussion,” one heckler yelled. “He doesn’t get to say s—“ (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/brown-students-shout-commish-kelly-talk-article-1.1500618). One student replied in Kelly’s defense, “The way to reach progress is not by fighting, not being angry, but . . . . ” Unfortunately, one voice of reason wasn’t able to finish his thought before being interrupted by a heckler who yelled: “Go write an essay or something!” I don’t necessarily believe that the students should have been dragged out to preserve the speakers ability to speak, but I do believe that students who attend such a reputable institution would have chosen to act in an alternative way to get their message across.

            A statement made by the university president eloquently expressed this sentiment.

“The actions that led to the closing of this afternoon’s lecture prevented any exchange of ideas and deprived the campus and the Providence community of an opportunity to hear and discuss important social issues,” said Christina H. Paxson, Brown’s president, in the statement. “The conduct of disruptive members of the audience is indefensible and an affront both to civil democratic society and to the university’s core values of dialogue and the free exchange of views.” http://www.nationalreview.com/phi-beta-cons/362594/brown-u-students-cant-handle-free-speech-william-gonch 

            In a group’s quest to exercise their free speech, to voice their displeasure with the Commissioners implemented policy, it can be argued that they violated the right itself by silencing those they disagreed with. If I had the opportunity, I would ask the students if they really believed that this was the most effective way of disapproving of a states policy.

Twibel - A Love-Hate Relationship

While media in the form of radio, television, and newspaper can be controlled or instantly turned off by authorities that run them, social media provides us with a constant freedom to express our thoughts and ideas. Since Facebook was first launched in 2004, it has grown to about 750 million users worldwide, and Twitter, which was launched in 2006, has grown to about 175 million users worldwide (ediscovery). With influence to this many users, celebrities and public figures have the power to destroy companies, products, or themselves and other people with their tweets.

On Twitter, a new concept has been introduced called “Twibel,” which is libel on Twitter. We know from class that traditional libel involves the following: defamation in the form of written, broadcast, or published words that are seen by others, which make claim(s) that are implied as fact, creating a negative image of the defamed. The defamed can be a person, business, product, group, government, or nation. 

         One recent example of Twibel is the case Simorangkir vs. Love, which was settled in 2011 for $430,000 plus interest (digital media). Simorangkir, a fashion designer, sued Courtney Love in California State Court over the statements that were made on Love’s Twitter, MySpace, and etsy.com (an online marketplace for independent designers) accounts. According to Simorangkir, Love used her accounts to publish “not only delusional accusations and lies, but threats of harm” after a business dispute arose between the two. For example, Simorangkir said that Love falsely accused her of lying, stealing, dealing drugs, assault, prostitution, and losing custody of her child. Love filed a motion to strike, but the court denied this motion because the judge found that the subject of the Twitter post was not a matter of public concern as Love claimed it to be.

         Love claimed that the post was a public matter in the sense that Simorangkir often associated with celebrities and wrote about her celebrity friends on her website – she also posted pictures of Love wearing her clothes, which made their business relationship known to the public. Love thought that the constitution would protect her Tweets because she said that they served as a warning for customers to not use Simonrangkir’s services. The California Judge, though, did not believe that Twitter was a place where defamation could not occur simply because of the fact that it is a public service - her words were still considered to be defamatory instead of a public warning.

         If Love wanted to warn the public about Simonrangkir’s services, then she could have done so in a way that was not defamatory. The Internet provides many review websites and venues that professionally critique public services. Still, this case is a good example of the fact that anything that is posted on a public website, including Twitter, has the potential for embarrassing consequences. By making her relationship with Love known to the public, Simorangkir subjected herself to the potential consequences that could occur from a falling-out between the two. Her actions (posting pictures of Love in her clothes) still did not merit the defamatory statements that occurred on the public website, however, which is why she ultimately won the case.

References: http://ediscoveryinsight.com/2011/08/twitter-libel-“twibel”

                   http://www.dmlp.org/threats/simorangkir-v-love#description

Don't Talk About the Boss...

We’ve all had those rough days at work.  The ones that seem to drag on for hours, while your fellow employees shoot the breeze, and you get stuck with extra work from the boss.  Yet logging on to Facebook and Twitter to vent about a bad day at work or unbearable boss could get an employee fired.

Recently, a Minnesotan library worker was fired from her job after she complained on Facebook about the public library’s wages and her boss’ response to suggestions she raised.  Later on, the same employee was summoned into her boss’ office and asked to sign a contract stating she wouldn’t post anything else about the public library or the staff on social media websites.  She refused and was terminated.

Workers are protected under the National Labor Relations Act 1935, which originally protected union workers who were “engaging in a ‘concerted activity”.  This simply means that more than one person must be engaged in the conversation to make it ‘concerted’. The law allowed workers to advocate for the bargaining rights or mutual aid from the company. However, workers do not have to be members of a union to be protected under the law.  The law protects union and non-union workers alike.

The law protects employee speech concerning bargaining and such, but it also extends to any speech related to the work environment as well.  The National Labor Relations Boardstated that employees couldn’t be fired for discussing management, wages, or working conditions on social media sites, like Facebook and Twitter. Moreover, companies’ cannot restrict employees’ posts, tweets, photos, etc as not to include other employees, work places, and company identifiers.

Personally, I’ve never dealt with a hated boss, employees, or company. I’ve experienced my fair share of terrible workdays, but I’ve never vented my anger or frustration concerning my workplace to Facebook friends or Twitter followers.  Yet, I believe that the employees should be able to criticize their boss or workplace conditions. I understand the feelings of being a low-level employee with little power, and see how many folks would use social media to get their sentiments out to the public.  Yet, I still believe the proper procedure should allow the company employee to voice their critiques and speak up about problems in the workplace.  By allowing workers to criticize problems they see, the company can take steps to remedy the situation and create a better workplace.

Democracy at War

On September 11, 2001, Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four United States civilian passenger airliners crashing two airplanes into the World Trade Center in New York, one airplane into the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and the fourth, initially aiming for the United States Capitol, crashed in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, leading to the death of nearly three thousand innocent victims. This horrific incident would change America forever. In a desperate attempt to regain stability and order, America had to choose between two of its most revered values: freedom and safety. The following will examine America’s initial response and course of action in retaliation to September 11^th and the consequences that these decisions have on the nation today.

Initially, the tragedy revitalized a strong sense of patriotism that was nourished by a shared pain and sense of solidarity. In addition, this devastating and unforeseen attack shook American’s sense of safety and stability and induced a nation wide feeling of fear.  As a result of this underlying uneasiness and insecurity, Americans resorted to a protective mindset and eagerly endorsed any measures aimed at ensuring national security, even at the expensive of sacrificing other rights. Americans felt they were faced with two options: surrender a few rights now in order to triumph over terrorism and preserve the future establishment of this free country or insist upon maintaining one’s privileges now and risk succumbing to the enemy and ending liberty all together. Thus, the majority of citizens supported the U.S. government’s mass surveillance operation as its principal tactic for harboring national security. In order to target terrorist threats, the government insisted on wire-tapping different communication forums in order to listen into conversations and follow its targets. In http://tjcenter.org/bush-democrats-spar-over-telecom-immunity-provisions-in-surveillance-bill/ President George W. Bush emphasized the importance of government surveillance. Bush urged, "To put it bluntly, if the enemy is calling into America, we really need to know what they’re saying, and we need to know what they’re thinking, and we need to know who they’re talking to". The government administered the power to wiretap phone conversation in order to track and impede terrorist efforts. Fearing that their lives were at stake, Americans compromised their privacy and personal freedoms for the greater good of the nation. Thus, in an effort to prevent further radical fanatic assailments, the government implemented a national surveillance system to watch over the civilians and anticipate acts of violence, enabling police or militia forces to forestall the attack.

Over the past decade, the government has progressively exceeded its boundaries in executing its investigative authority by invading the privacy of innocent citizens, publishing clandestinely attained personal content, and blatantly overlooking the checks and balance system. Originally the surveillance aimed specifically at a concentration of suspected terrorists, however it continually augmented its focus to include an inordinate amount of persons of interest. Many of those enlisted on the government’s watch list results from an incidental association to another suspect (https://www.aclu.org/mapping-fbi-uncovering-abusive-surveillance-and-racial-profiling).  Through this unfounded and groundless enlisting method, many innocent citizens’ private lives are unnecessarily invaded and impeded. In addition, with the surmountable collection of sensitive data, the government can assemble colossal reports about innocent people. Furthermore, according to https://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-privacy, the personal archives that are recorded unbeknownst to the suspect are not imperviously stored, but are published into a database accessible to numerous enterprises. “The data sits indefinitely in government databases, and the names of many innocent Americans end up on bloated and inaccurate watch lists that affect whether we can fly on commercial airlines, whether we can renew our passports…and even whether we can open bank accounts”. These surreptitiously documented personal records are not kept confidential. Rather this often-erroneous information is ineradicably released to various establishments and is encumbering to the victims they subjugate.  While the government readily discloses information gathered regarding civilians’ private interactions, it’s own proceedings are sanctioned as classified.  The Patriot Act vastly expanded the government’s warrant to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court (https://www.aclu.org/time-rein-surveillance-state-0). The Patriot Act has sanctioned espionage to occur covertly, with slight disclosure or regulation of the undercover operation by the courts, congress, or by the public.

After September 11^th, Americans feared for their lives, and as a result they acted hastily forgoing their rights and liberties and passing off responsibility and control to the government. It is easy in retrospect to critique the citizens for so readily abandoning their freedoms, however, the truth of the matter is that while private rights are essential for democracy, they can often be detrimental to war efforts. While war is characterized by the physical enforcement that often demands for national coercion, hasty decisions, and the sacrifice of private needs for the benefit of the nation’s mission, democracy features oral debate, thought out reasoning, free speech and the protection of opposing perspectives.  Thus a nation at war is by nature adverse to free democracy. Therefore the struggle between restricting or allowing liberties during times of war seems to be inherent and insolvable for a democratic nation pursuing combat. Rather than criticizing and condemning the choices made in the aftermath of the September 11^th, a more profitable approach might entail reflecting on the reason for America’s prompt decisions.  Feeling threatened and endangered caused Americans to act rashly in an effort to quickly appease their uneasiness. It is essential for Americans to understand this, so that in future situations where America has the ability to use intimidation as a persuading force, we will remember the undesirable long-term effects of such actions.

When is Free Speech Punishable?

Since the introduction of social media, expressing ones opinions has taken on a new level. With web sites such as Twitter and Facebook, the every day American can voice their opinion for the world to see. While some posts are informative, others are used to vent their frustration. Take for example David W. Guth, he is a professor of journalism at the University of Kansas. Shortly after the navy yards shooting he tweeted “blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters.” Because of the nature of this tweet, and the position that Guth is in, “Kansas legislators are calling for him to lose his job.” (firstamendmentcenter) According to the First Amendment, Guth has every right to tweet whatever he wants.

            If this had been any other individual who was not in a position such as Guth, the message may have went by with little to no media attention. However since Guth is a professor at a University, his position is looked at differently. This tweet has resulted in the University to take damage control actions and distancing themselves from Guth. “While the First Amendment allows anyone to express an opinion, that privilege is not absolute and must be balanced with the rights of others. That’s vital to civil discourse” (NBC News) I do not agree with this statement. Just because Guth’s tweet offended people, does not make it worthy of punishment.

            I believe what makes this tweet so controversial is not necessarily his standpoint on the Second Amendment, but when he writes to let the next attack be on the NRA’s sons and daughters. Although not a direct threat to the NRA, it was written in poor taste from someone in his position. I am by no means defending his tweet, as I believe it was not the wisest thing to put. However there was no criminal intent in his tweet. I believe that this issue is a good learning lesson for America. The lesson is even though speech like this, which can be viewed as hateful speech; happens, we must as a country stand behind our principles and not let emotions cloud our judgment.

Should there be an exception to the First Amendment for hateful speech?

Rebecca Ann Sedwick, a 12-year old Florida girl had been bullied for more than a year facing ruthless mean comments, physical acts of violence against her, and taunts in person and over social media posts by a few girls that attended her school.

On September 9, 2013, she finally took her own life after constant posts by a certain girl in particular saying things like “she should drink bleach and die.” As if this was not enough, after Rebecca killed herself, the girl posted the most disturbing comment:

“Yes, ik [I know].  I bullied Rebecca and she killed herself. But IDGAF [I don’t give a f***].”

Polk County Sheriff Grady arrested the girl that posted the comment and another girl who had allegedly taken part in the bullying; charging them with felony aggravated stalking.

This raises a few unanswered questions. For one, the reasons behind the arrests are not clear. Were the girls arrested and charged for their physical acts of bullying, or for the social media posts? Or was it for her post after Rebecca’s death in which she showed no remorse? If it was for the post-death post, would that mean that her First Amendment Rights were violated?

This unfortunate incident brings up the question if hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. The author of this article, Amy Feldman, makes some good points. She mentions that a terroristic threat, or speech in which a person threatens to commit a crime that would reasonably result in death, terror, serious injury, or serious physical property damage, is not protected by the First Amendment.

She also says that a type of speech involving a repeated course of communication either in person, by mail, telephone, social media, or other forms of electronic communication that is designed to put a person in reasonable fear for his or her safety or is designed to cause severe emotional distress is also not protected by the First Amendment.

However, hate speech, or speech that is hateful is protected by the First Amendment.  So the argument that Feldman makes is it was, indeed, her constitutional right to say that she did not care that Rebecca killed herself because of her. If the arrest was based on that particular post rather than on the history of the alleged stalking up to the date of the suicide, it would violate the poster’s First Amendment right to free speech.

In this case, I would have to say that I believe that it should depend on the situation. Hate crime should not be protected by the First Amendment in cases like this, because the girl that posted the hate speech basically posted hate speech before leading up to Rebecca’s death, and it was this hate speech in particular that was the very cause of her death. By continually taunting Rebecca and telling her to kill herself, she is openly and mentally coercing her to do it without physically having to do it herself. By posting the IDGAF comment after Rebecca’s death, the girl was basically confirming this. She might as well be saying, “About time she died, all my hard work finally paid off.” Therefore, I believe that the girl that posted the hate speech should be guilty for the pre-death hate speech, the physical harm done to Rebecca, as well as the post-death hate speech.

This Article

When does a Twitter post cross the line of the first amendment?

On Friday, Oct. 25, 2013, a man in the St. Louis area was arrested for his postings on twitter. A SLU grad with experience in the PR field, specifically working with social media, Robert Metzinger, 31, was taken into custody after there had been reports of threatening posts created by him online. These menacing tweets were in reference to the World Series, connecting the recent baseball games to the Boston Marathon bombings, and making supposed connections between the April Boston attacks and Busch Stadium.

Although Metzinger has deleted his twitter account since the arrest, the tweets read as the following, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

“@bobbymetzinger: Putting my loft up for a ridiculous “Boston-only” rate for the #WorldSeries. Pressure cooker sold separately.”

“@bobbymetzinger: The #WorldSeries will be another finish line not crossed by #Boston.”

The connection he is drawing to the Boston Marathon attacks is undeniable. With such facts, like the bomb used in Boston was made with a pressure cookers, known by the general American public, the connection cannot be mistaken.

It’s no shock that these words stunned some of Metzinger’s twitter followers, who then reported the tweets to officials.

The Post-Dispatch reported that Police Chief Sam Dotson said his tweets were being considered terrorist threats, and the city of St. Louis was not going to take any chances with Metzinger. Dotson said it was not worth risking the safety of baseball fans.

However, Dotson does not believe Metzinger had taken any further steps to carry out his allegations; nor does Metzinger, according to police, have any major kind of criminal record. My question, then, is whether or not this speech will be protected by the first amendment.

As we discussed in class, Brandenburg is the current standard for determining seditious speech, making it the precedent that any speech must include “imminent lawless action” and “the advocacy is also likely to incite or produce such action” to be charged as seditious (Cornell University Law School). Although I agree with the putting the safety of the baseball fans first, I am not convinced that Metzinger will be found guilty.

The police chief blankly stated that he did not believe that Metzinger had taken any further action in following through with his threats. There was no substance to the tweets Metzinger sent that would lead anyone to believe he actually had a plan in moving forward with a bombing. Was this actually lawless action, or was Metzinger simply trying (unsuccessfully) to make a joke via social media, knowing a Boston team would be present at Busch Stadium? It was the prior action that occurred in Boston that incited the fear within readers.

I do not believe, by the Brandenburg standard, that Metzinger did anything wrong enough to be charged against the first amendment. His words led to no further imminent or lawless action. I can completely understand as to why people would be scared, and as to why law enforcement did what they did in order to put the safety of baseball fans first. However, by the definition of freedom of speech in America, with the standard set over the course of our country’s history, Metzinger did not violate any of his rights, and I believe his speech should be protected by the first amendment.

References:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-man-charged-after-tweeting-threats-referencing-busch-stadium/article_7113e1e0-1bf8-503f-a362-57f6678c48cd.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test