CMJR 494 Blog Post #2

CMJR 494 Blog Post #2

A quick background on Ali Al-Timimi:

Ali Al-Timimi, a former Islamic lecturer born in Washington, DC, was alleged in a federal indictment to be the spiritual leader of the Virginia Paintball Jihad Network, a group of eleven men indicted of crimes related to terrorism. Al-Timimi was indicted in 2004 and was convicted in 2005 of soliciting and engaging others to levy war against the United States and attempting to contribute services to the Taliban. Members of the Virginia Paintball Jihad cell testified at Al-Timimi's trial that shortly after September 11, 2001 he convinced several of them to travel to Pakistan to obtain training for jihad from the U.S. designated Foreign Terrorist Organization Lashkar e Taibah.[1]He was sentenced to life in prison plus 70 years without parole. -http://www.investigativeproject.org/profile/104

As a Supreme Court Justice, I believe that there are certain elements that must be considered in the case of Ali Al-Timimi and the most important of those is whether or not Al-Timimi's "questionable" speeches were in fact protected by the First Amendment. One writer, Kenneth Anderson, cleverly points out an important observation about the prosecution in this case saying, "If they wanted to establish a strong precedent that you can’t preach violence against the US, they did so – but that is the wrong precedent, historically and legally, under the First Amendment."

Ideally, time of war in itself should be an irrelevant platform for the prosecution against any individual. Standards should not change from one time to another. Therefore, as a rule applicable in almost any similar case, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Al-Timimi's words advocated "inciting or producing imminent lawless action and [are] likely to incite or produce such action", as was decided in Bradenburg vs. Ohio in 1969. Two judges from that case went further to say that even "the clear-and-present-danger test has 'no place in the interpretation of the First Amendment'" (Tedford, 66). From the evidence provided, there is not enough evidence to conclude this stipulation beyond a reasonable doubt.

"In Al-Timimi’s case, however, the important requirement of imminence was not met. The men to whom Al-Timimi spoke did not arrive at terrorist training camps until weeks later, demonstrating that Al-Timimi’s speech was not immediate enough to pass the Brandenburg standard. Al-Timimi’s case is therefore troubling as precedent, because it indicates that the government may circumvent the imminence requirement of Brandenburg in the context of domestic terrorism prosecutions," -Elisa F. Kantor

There are many philosophers who would back the position of protecting Ali Al-Timimi's speeches, two of the more obvious being Alexander Meiklejohn and Thomas Emerson.

Meiklejohn identifies an absolute privilege for congressional debate and then argues for its extension to political debate in general. He believes that the First Amendment holds priority over the Fifth and is "absolutely privileged and may not be abridged-- not even by the clear-and-present-danger rule."

"The latter [form of speech] correlating the freedom of speech in which it is interested with the freedom of religion, of press, of assembly, of petition for redress of grievances, places all these alike beyond the reach of legislation limitation, beyond even the due process of law. With regard to them, Congress has no negative powers whatever." -Alexander Meiklejohn

Thomas Emerson agrees with Meiklejohn in that he believes the "various tests used by the Court- such as bad tendency, clear and present danger, incitement, and balancing- not only are vague... but vary so much from case to case that they 'can hardly be described as a rule of law at all'" (Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression, 1970). He goes on to explain his expression-action theory:

"The central idea of a system of freedom of expression is that a fundamental distinction must be drawn between conduct which consists of 'expression', and conduct which consists of 'action.' 'Expression' must be freely allowed and encouraged. 'Action' can be controlled, subject to other constitutional requirements, but not by controlling expression..." (Emerson, System).

This would mean that Mr. Al-Timimi's speeches were all forms of expression, protected by the First Amendment. There were religious calls to actions, as Meiklejohn stresses should always be protected, and there was only expression- no direct action whatsoever on the part of Mr. Al-Timimi- which Emerson fully supports.

Therefore, Mr. Al-Timimi's words and expressions should be protected, and his sentence should be revised.

CMJR 494- Blog Post #4

Since the advent of digital cams and web cams, there has been an explosion of grassroots sexually-related materials on the Internet, some posted at websites and much conducted one-to-one (or more) via web cams on instant message services (Yahoo, MSN Live, Skype). Address the three questions at the top of this discussion with reference to the topic of sexually-oriented adult web camming and the voluntary self-postings of homemade sex videos on various sites. To what extent would you support a federal law that regulated such sexual materials by banning them and/or punishing Internet Service Providers who allow such transmissions or postings? Would you punish the material as “indecent” under FCC v. Pacifica, overruling the Supreme Court decision in Reno v. ACLU?

(1) Should words, images and sounds that stimulate erotic or sexual thoughts be granted the same protection as political speech?

I do not think that words, images, and sounds that stimulate erotic or sexual thoughts should be granted the SAME protection as political speech, but I do believe they should be granted protection. In reference to homemade sex videos, I believe this is a branch of content that needs to be regulated. There are so many ways that innocent or uninterested audiences can stumble across those videos that there should be a way for people to avoid them (particularly online).

(2) Should adults have the same rights to create such speech for private use, distribute such speech for public consumption and receive such speech – or should varying levels of protection be applied?

I believe that adults should be able to create such speech for private use freely because the government should not be interfering in individual private expression that is not for commercial sale. Therefore, if consenting individuals choose to use a webcam to communicate, I do not think the government has a duty to interfere in the communication.

Adults should be able to receive such speech with certain restrictions- there should be a way that the adults can access this type of speech but at the same time allow those who do not want to see it to not have to.

And the distribution should be more restricted than the receiving. Those who are in the business of producing should have more restrictions when selling or sending because they need to limit the content to certain audiences, and also make sure the content doesn't cross unethical boundaries. Here is an example of someone I believe crossed the boundaries and was rightly sentenced:

http://boingboing.net/2008/10/07/adult-film-director.html

Although the accused, himself, points out what seems to be the tense argument underlying this theme, by saying,

"So, to recap, in the Land of the Free: if you're an adult who produces a film using other consenting adults, for the entertainment of still other consenting adults, which merely depicts fictional acts of humiliation and degradation, the DOJ will prosecute you and send you to prison for years. The claim that no real pain was inflicted will be rejected; mere humiliation is enough to make you a criminal. But if government officials actually subject helpless detainees in their custody to extreme mental abuse, degradation, humiliation and even mock executions long considered "torture" in the entire civilized world, the DOJ will argue that they have acted with perfect legality and, just to be sure, Congress will hand them retroactive immunity for their conduct. That's how we prioritize criminality and arrange our value system."

I do believe there should be varying levels of protection depending on potential audiences, clients, etc.

(3) Should the same levels of protection apply to ALL media – print, broadcast, movies, cable, online sites, webcams/chat – or should the levels of protection vary according to medium?

The same level of protection should apply to ALL media, with certain guidelines for each. (Once again it depends on the audience, the community, the clients, and the content).

(4) To what extent would you support a federal law that regulated such sexual materials by banning them and/or punishing Internet Service Providers who allow such transmissions or postings? Would you punish the material as “indecent” under FCC v. Pacifica, overruling the Supreme Court decision in Reno v. ACLU?

I would not support a federal law that banned sexual materials or punished Internet Service Providers who allow such transmissions or postings. I definitely think that they can regulate this and give options to Internet users who do not want to access such material. However, it would be unconstitutional to ban sexual materials, because as an expression, they are still protected under the First Amendment.

I do not believe that web cam material falls under the same category that the monologue FCC v. Pacifica does. First, they are two entirely different mediums, and second, it is entirely different content. I do agree with the final conclusion about "indecent" material in Pacifica, but do not think it applies to this type of media. A critical part of Pacifica was regulating the hours on which broadcasters could play certain material. I think the same restriction could be applied to internet, but I think it already is- there are filters you can enable, you can block pop-ups, and on many sites that provide adult material, you have to willingly enter the site.

CMJR 350 Blog Post #2

CMJR 350 Response to Jasmine's second question:

I was interested in what Woodward and Denton termed a reluctant source and their explanation of it because the idea of a source taking a position that goes against their own interests seems perfectly in place in the legal world, but in the persuasive communication world it seems like a bit of an outsider. As an audience we are expected to identify sources that are not “too willing” or too interested in one worldview that they fail to see merit and reason in an opposing point of view. However, I am not sure how or if reluctant testimony would benefit, say, a business or corporation. It seems tantamount to admitting that your competition actually has it better. My question would be is reluctant testimony beneficial or damaging? What if the linked commercial were a PC commercial instead of an Apple commercial, would it make audiences say “Microsoft is a trustworthy company for admitting the flaws of their software”? In other words, when would reluctant testimony work?

This is a really great question and the first examples that came to mind that I do believe reluctant sources are beneficial for are election campaigns. The worst thing (well, I'm sure there are probably worse things) that a candidate can do when campaigning is to maintain one-sided views and opinions in all of their materials. If they refuse to acknowledge opposing points, ideas, and truths, then people tend to be less inclined to believe the facts that they are attempting to promote. It is much more persuasive for a candidate to call out the flaws (if they aren't detrimental) of their party, themselves, or whatever can be easily attacked by the opposing side. By doing this they can easily prevent larger problems and attacks, and can stay on the offensive rather than the defensive. To take this a step further, with using reluctant sources, they can use them to their advantage. When you point out positive characteristics about the opposing candidate [and party] this adds a level of humanity and is a admirable trait in any one. If you can acknowledge the pro's of opposing views, but also contribute your own, people will be more likely to listen, to sympathize, and ultimately side with you. Another branch off of this would be admitting mistakes- I think that is the next part of the ideology behind reluctant sources. To admit a fault can also strengthen credibility, as shown in this article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/04/obama.daschle/index.html

Getting back to the main question about businesses or corporations benefitting from admitting the superiority of competitor's products, I searched around the internet all day trying to find a company that has ever done that I was unable to find anything. Jasmine is right in claiming that this tactic, when used in advertising, is probably more damaging and harmful than helpful. Marketing and advertising are all about showing consumers the strengths of your business or product, not about pointing out the best qualities of a competitor. However, the advantage comes in when they can honestly claim that their product is the best. Using reluctant sources as a tactic is advantageous in the sense that if you have the best merchandise, you can advertise it as such. There would be nothing to hide, and nothing to admit in that instance. This would build credibility by strengthening and playing off of the knowledge the common market already has.

So, as the book points out, if the goal is to only accredit merit by the audience, they using a reluctant source is a great tactic- the "unexpected declarations" of praising a competitor would show people that there is merit to the claims. However, if the goal is only to sale, and unethically do so (by false advertising), then obviously the company will not take part in using reluctant sources.

And finally in response to the PC versus Apple commercial, I believe Microsoft DID participate in a form of reluctant sourcing, with its response commercial to the classic Apple ads. Instead of denying any of the Apple claims, they used an ad that had all different types of people [nerds, people with glasses, basketball players, etc], from all over say "I'm a PC." That had many different implications, one of them being that not everyone is perfect. This probably wasn't their main message, but it is a critical one- by using different levels of attractive people, people of different weights and ages, it shows that it is not as "perfect, hip and fun" as the Apple, but still unique. Therefore, they played off of the Apple ad with their own twist, in a form of using reluctant sources...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi1se9rH7S8

CMJR 350 Blog Post #1

CMJR 350 Blog Answer #1

(Response to Arianne Judy's Question #2)

On page 390 the authors discuss setting realistic goals for advertising and campaigning to be successful. They believe that in order for something to achieve its overall goal it should be “duplicated many times.” The idea that only once isn’t affective makes me think about television adds during the super bowl. The companies that pay millions of dollars for that airtime rely on the success of that one commercial to reach millions of people sometimes only once and for 30 seconds. In your opinion do you feel that companies are able to successfully send a message that sticks into consumers heads after only one viewing? Is there a particular ad you can remember and identify as sending a clear message to you while viewing the commercials during the Super Bowl?

I definitely agree with your observation of the "one-time" Super Bowl ads and their long-term effectiveness. This is probably one of the only exceptions I can think of to the statement of "duplicating [messages] many times" for a longer lasting affect. The Super Bowl has become a setting for advertising and is known for that now. People know that companies spend millions on 30 second commercials and are willing to watch them for that reason alone. It has become traditional to tune in to the game even if you are not a football fan, merely to watch the commercials. With this in mind, it is absolutely true that those commercials and messages can be extremely successful in the long run. There is an extra factor in this type of messaging, however- viewer participation. The viewers are proactive in watching the commercials during the Super Bowl in most cases, which brings an added level of effectiveness.

Personally, I think of many different ads that have caught my attention only from seeing them once during the Super Bowl. Surprisingly enough, it isn't always the polished commercials that stick with you either; the cheesier or funnier the better. I can remember almost every Pepsi Super Bowl commercial within the last 8 years due to their celebrity affiliations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt8uNG02ixA

but I can also clearly remember the recent ETrade commercials:

http://www.youtube.com/user/etrade#play/user/BFA9B4DA756BD26E

Typically I would have agreed with the fact that repetition allows for better recognition, but the Super Bowl provides a special case. I definitely believe that Super Bowl advertising has its advantages for the companies that take the opportunity- and to add to those advantages, today's networking capabilities allow for people to find the commercials that they most enjoyed seeing (even if they were only on TV once).

Therefore, messages, commercials, images, that are played only once (depending on the venue) have the potential to garner the same or even more success that repetitive advertising does.

October 5, 2009 CMJR 494

Blog Post #1 (CMJR 494)

Due to the fact that I have been brought up in the United States, I've been taught a certain belief that becomes engrained inside of us saying each person has their own individual rights and of course, freedom of speech. That doesn’t mean much in itself; because it is repeated so often it seems to be an empty phrase. So from my strongly American-influenced education I would go with the position that laws governing communication should primarily (B.) protect an individual civil liberty even if asserted against the group. That doesn’t mean that I believe that is the right way to govern or implement laws, it means that I’ve learned from past precedents (that were explained in various circumstances) equality seems much more attainable when people are given rights individually instead of through group identities.

The first argument to support individual civil liberties is from the most obvious to me: the separation of church and state. Because not everyone is the same religion, it is easy to see that each person has their own beliefs, and within those different believes are individual interpretations. We believe that the government should not favor one religion over another, which leads to a separation between each person’s individual beliefs and their civil rights. Due to this split, it is only fair to give the same “protection” to every individual, regardless of his or her “situational group identity.”

This plays in to a second argument: individual rights are more protective than group rights. If laws governing communication primarily reinforced group identities, a wide scale of questions and problems arise: Which groups get which rights? How many groups get those rights? What if someone doesn’t believe in the “whole” group identity- does that person lose his or her rights? Who defines which rights each group gets? Etc… The most basic form of freedom is not through associating with a group identity, but by attaining protection from mass identities. Group identities lead to mass movements and eventually force, which relates to the third reason I believe individuals should be protected.

Historically, when people have been privileged by group identification, force and violence results; the Inquisition in Spain is an example (religious) and Nazi Germany is another example. When this forced conversion, either religious, political, or cultural, takes place, an individual’s fundamental rights are completely abolished.
Therefore, I think the surest means of protecting any single person’s rights is by allowing for individual expression even if that expression goes against group identities and mentalities.

Even though I would favor individual liberties over group rights, it is not easy to say that those who speak out to intentionally desecrate or shock others are in the right. I believe that people should practice respect and restraint when voicing opposing opinions, however, at the root of the issue, they do have the right to say what they believe. This means I would not punish the speakers that produced satirical religious art, even though I find what they did slightly offensive. They have the right to speak their mind but I don’t have to agree with what they say or the way they go about it.
As for the filmmaker rights, this all goes back to my opening statement. Just because I believe that communication laws should operate in certain ways it doesn’t mean that I am correct in my assessment. Other cultures have different ways of life and completely different beliefs. Part of national sovereignty is to respect other countries’ rules and decisions. Because of this, I do not believe that Dubai should have to allow the same types of tactics that Hollywood allows.