Week 5 Media Blog

TOPIC 1:

                After watching the TED Talk interviewing Edward Snowden about WikiLeaks, I think the actions taken can be very valuable. As he said, when there are secrets within organizations and government like that, it can have great potential to be helpful information. I believe that we deserve to know what our government is doing and not doing. I do not think the activities of Snowden so much reckless as they are enlightening. Even though there will be continued negative responses to WikiLeaks’ moves either from people who think it only sheds the worst light on mostly good groups, or ones who become terribly offended that the world has seen what they were “not supposed to,” information like that will help keep the public informed. I do not think that there would be so much of a continuous flow of information if people did not feel in some way that it was right to do so.

                In many regards, I am happy with the current state of free speech and freedom of expression. As an individual, I am lucky to live in a place where I can enjoy the religion I choose and act on my own beliefs. I get to say what I want to say, and do what I want to do for the most part. There are instances in which I feel many people have been upset by government interference, like the recent issues of whether or not customers receive gay or anti-gay messages that they want on their cake. In those situations, the rules seem to constantly change, and the public accommodations almost seem to contradict individual rights. If a business owner cannot exclude certain customers, as a consequence of the pursuit of “true equality,” is that not violating the owner’s rights?

TOPIC 2:
                The First Amendment (freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government) means a lot of things to me. Obviously, it protects advertising and the press in a huge variety of ways we are learning about in this class, but also allows the me to act on any belief if I want to, even permitting the burning of the American flag as protest. For me, the most important example of how I exercise my rights is in religion. I can talk about my belief in God in my speeches on campus, or pray in public places if I so desire. In other parts of the world, inhabitants are not so fortunate.

                There are instances all the time of people taking their rights to the extreme, like neo-Nazis proclaiming that they were going to parade down the streets of Holocaust survivors with swastikas. Or extremists brandishing signs with messages like “Thank God for dead soldiers” at memorial services for our troops.  Undeniably, this world is one that is enthusiastic to cause offense. Whether the threat, or extreme behavior, is pointed towards a minority or the majority, I don’t think that getting the government involved in limitation is necessarily the right thing to do. The government is no more perfect than we are, and they would be acting out of their own interests, just like we are. The people who advocate for limitation would most likely end up unhappy, as those in command would be just as, if not more, fickle. On all the large issues like religion rights, abortion rights, and gay rights, the government has supported each side of each argument on numerous occasions. Yes, there are threatening protests, campaigns and demonstrations, but I think the suggestion that government should control more of the things we say or act on could undoubtedly produce more of a grave situation. We need to be able to express our own ideas. After all, if there is no controversy, would it really be America?