Obama's Preacher...

Brave sacrifice by Americans ensure Wright’s free speech

(From TheTennessean)

To the Editor:

It is my belief all Americans owe a debt of gratitude to Barack Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Some of what he said was true. Some of what he said was false. Some of what he said was totally absurd. President Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs in order to save hundreds of thousands of American lives and to bring an end to World War II was the right thing to do.

The sacrifices made by Americans for their country and for millions around the world were without doubt one of the noblest acts in mankind’s history.

For Mr. Wright to say the horrific death of thousands on 9/11 is America’s “chickens coming home to roost” for Hiroshima and Nagasaki is so reprehensible that I don’t have sufficient vocabulary to describe it. So, you ask, why are we in debt to Mr. Wright?

It is very simple. Once federal government officials heard of his remarks, they took the appropriate action. They did absolutely nothing. Is this a great country or what?

The very government against which Mr. Wright launched his vicious verbal volley is the very same government that is dedicated to protecting his constitutional right to free speech. God bless America.

Stan Anderson, Smyrna 37167

I thought this letter to the editor from The Tennessean newspaper interesting in the wake of all the controversy surrounding Obama's Pastor Rev. Wright. I liked that the author brought up the issue of free speech. Personally, I don't think the views or opinions expressed by Obama's Pastor should reflect directly onto Obama. It is quite a stretch to say that since his Pastor said it, then it is what he thinks too. I mean, I go to church and I don't think that the opinions of my priest reflect directly onto me; we probably disagree on many things.

But the point of the article was to praise the government for doing nothing, which I think is important. I may not agree with what Rev. Wright was saying, but I think we are lucky to live in a country where we are allowed to express our opinions without fear of repercussions. Obama, on the other hand, better watch out who he hangs around with, because unfortunately with politics today something like this could have a very negative impact on his campaign.

Cal State system revises conduct code to settle free-speech suit

Students in San Francisco States college Republicans club sued the CSU system for a part of the handbook that they said violated their free speech. "The lawsuit challenged provisions in the conduct code that the College Republicans said could potentially punish students for speech protected by the First Amendment." (Article from Student Press Law Center) The conduct code states that students have to "be civil to one another." The school had been investigating the club for being in violation of the conduct code after an anti-terrorism rally where the students stomped on Islamic flags. After the lawsuit was filed the CSU board of trustees made the decision to change the code so that it was clear that students could not face disciplinary charges for not following the 'civil code' or for speech. '"I definitely think it's a positive step for free speech on campus and in the CSU system," said Leigh Wolf, former president of College Republicans and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit."' The plaintiffs of the lawsuit received $300 in damages and SF State will be paying their attorney fees. Well if you want to be really nit-picky about free speech...I think this was kind of a silly lawsuit, but I am glad the the students one in the end, and I can rest easy that free speech is being protected on CSU campuses!

Homophobia

After reading Chapter 9 in "Outspoken," I started thinking about what I had been taught in high school about the LGBT community, and I realized it was not much. I did go to a Catholic high school, and so the extent of our learning about homosexuality was that it was OK to be gay, as long as you did not act on your feelings.

When I was a senior, I went to an all girls school, some senior girls asked administration if they could go to the Homecoming dance as a group, with their other friends who did not have dates, since it would be their last Homecoming dance. The admin. quickly said no way, because they felt it condoned homosexual relationships. Well, it turned into a BIG to do. The girls argued that they just wanted to go to the dance to have fun, it had nothing to do with homosexuality. However, some girls were really offended, they thought the school was discriminating based on sexual orientation. After a series of meetings and petitions signed, the girls were allowed to go to the dance, as a group, as friends. But what I didn't realize at the time was how this was really homophobia. It was present in my school, and I didn't even know it.

Seminar today really got me thinking about how to combat homophobia, and not foster it in kids by being afraid to teach them about it. My seminar talked about when it was appropriate to teach about it, and how. But I think the issue is not when or how to teach about it, I think it just needs to be included, as a way to normalize it. Like starting at a young age, talking about different families, some have two Dads maybe, that way it would just be seen as a type of family. I think talking about it, not teaching about it, would be the best way to help kids to see that it is not bad or strange, it is in fact normal.

Porn as Free Speech?

But is it Free Speech?

So today in my gender communication class, there was a group presentation about the portrayal of gender in pornography. The group talked about some people who believe that porn is so disrespectful that is should go away. They mentioned that some think that porn should not be included as free speech. So since they were talking about free speech, I looked up the section in our text book and found some interesting quotes.
Author and Law Professor Mari Matsuda, "We need to get away from male-centered notions of free speech. We should say that pornography, sexual harassment, racist speech, gay-bashing, anti-Semitic speech-speech that assults and excludes-is not the same as forms of speech deserving protection. Why is it that pornography, which undermines women's equality, is singled out for absolute protection?"
I think this is an interesting position, something that I have not really considered. Should porn be included as free speech? And is that saying that porn is just as bad as racist speech and gay-bashing? Wow.
Gloria Steinem, "Why can feminists speak against everything from wars and presidents to tobacco companies, yet if we use our free speech against pornography, we are accused, in Orwellian fashion, of being against free speech?"
So like I said, I never really considered porn as an expression of free speech. I guess I have always thought that if women are willing to do it, then that is their choice. But now I think I see porn in a new light, and maybe Matsuda is right, and it is just as bad as hate speech, and should not be protected.

Bill Cunningham thrown under the bus

Introducing John McCain in a recent rally, radio talk show host Bill Cunningham made some jokes about McCain's opponents Clinton and Obama...naturally, but McCain was not happy. After the rally he apologized for the remarks that were made, namely the repetition of Obama's middle name. Now Cunningham is pissed and feels like he was thrown under the bus. Well, this article about the incident caught my attention because it mentions free speech! Yay! McCain says,
"I don't intend in any way to tell talk-show hosts or anyone else in America what they should say or not say. This is a country that people believe in free speech," McCain said. "The reason why I had to repudiate that was because it was a campaign event associated with my campaign." (CNN article)
Not really the most controversial free speech issue, but I think a big issue is the use of Obama's middle name as a means to somehow associate him with a terrorist. What? Since when did someone's middle name make them a terrorist?