1) Give a quick explanation of the topic and propose a debate resolution of the topic. (a couple of sentences)
My section talks about how the aftermath effects on American citizens brought forth an extremely sensitive situation involving free speech. A good resolution would be that it was not right for the media to censor pundits and opinions that rebelled against the President or provide a second opinion on the happenings of 9/11
2) Explain why it is an important topic. You choose what to write about, but here are some suggestions if you are stuck: How does it impact your constitutional rights? Can it impact your daily life? Does it empower or disempowered you as an individual? Does it promote or inhibit public discussion? Does it help or hurt people getting along with one another? (short paragraph)
The censorship that the media and hollywood placed on people who had minority opinions was wrong because it envoked our constitutional right for free speech, but at the same time you have to use your brain before you speek. You understand that the nation is in a very sensitve greeving point and you should accept that when making a statement that could be strewed as offensive or hurtful. Now that doesn't mean you can't say it but it means that you should think before you speak.
3) Write one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the con side and one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the pro side (2-4 sentences total).
I think the best point was brought up by the conclusion of the con argument. "The Hollywood celebrities on the left think they can do or say whatever they please and face no criticism or consequences. It's time for them to wake up and join the real world. Until then, our First Amendment rights continue to be strong. Just as strong are the consequencese for using those First Amendment rights without first using our brain." I used this quote because I thought that it really summed up their points well.
4.24.2007
Freedom of Speech in Times of Crises
Assume that our next debate will have the resolution, "The press should be censored in times of crisis."
1) Indicate whether your reading selection is pro or con for the above resolution and write three things that support the pro or con position on this issue.
I read the first section which was about the pro side of the resolution. Carlos A. Kelly is trying to say that sometimes the media should not disclose all military information. During times of crisis, such as a war, successful military operations are more important than letting sensitive information out to the public and risking defeat. Often, secrecy and silence is important to winning a war quickly and well. Media decision makers should use their judgment and common sense when covering military matters. Just because you can publish something, doesn’t mean that it is right to do so. Kelly says that freedom of speech is tempered by “the circumstances in which it is done”.
2) Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
I don’t necessarily think that the media should be censored during times of crisis, but I do think that they should use their judgment and not publish something that might make the situation worse. I said before that the media should not be censored and they should report the straight up, unbiased facts, unfortunatly I doubt that that is possible. I also think that what I don’t know won’t hurt me. I would rather win a war smoothly than know every detail about the war. In addition, I think that negative media coverage gets very tiring after a while and I don’t know how this could help during a time of crisis. I believe in freedom of speech and the press, and I understand that it is an essential part of democracy; however I think that limited and temporary restrictions on media coverage are necessary.
1) Indicate whether your reading selection is pro or con for the above resolution and write three things that support the pro or con position on this issue.
I read the first section which was about the pro side of the resolution. Carlos A. Kelly is trying to say that sometimes the media should not disclose all military information. During times of crisis, such as a war, successful military operations are more important than letting sensitive information out to the public and risking defeat. Often, secrecy and silence is important to winning a war quickly and well. Media decision makers should use their judgment and common sense when covering military matters. Just because you can publish something, doesn’t mean that it is right to do so. Kelly says that freedom of speech is tempered by “the circumstances in which it is done”.
2) Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
I don’t necessarily think that the media should be censored during times of crisis, but I do think that they should use their judgment and not publish something that might make the situation worse. I said before that the media should not be censored and they should report the straight up, unbiased facts, unfortunatly I doubt that that is possible. I also think that what I don’t know won’t hurt me. I would rather win a war smoothly than know every detail about the war. In addition, I think that negative media coverage gets very tiring after a while and I don’t know how this could help during a time of crisis. I believe in freedom of speech and the press, and I understand that it is an essential part of democracy; however I think that limited and temporary restrictions on media coverage are necessary.
Viewpoint 4/23
Assume that our next debate will have the resolution, "There should be limits to free speech."
1) Write three things based on the reading that supports the above resolution. This is the "pro" argument.
In my opinion a sprinkling of censorship isn't a bad thing. Jonah Goldberg says that people, but particularly the media, has been brain washed to think that censorship is always a major threat to our freedom. Many people everywhere think that obscenity such as poop covered paintings are beautiful examples of free expression while democratic debate is censored. Jonah Goldberg says: If you believe that all free speech should be allowed, do you think that TV channels should be able to run pornography?
2) Write three things based on the reading that goes against the above resolution. This is the "con" argument.
The ACLU says that without freedom of speech, democracy is impossible. People’s opinions, even if it is unpopular or hateful, should be protected in order to protect the freedom that the First Amendment gives to all Americans. The ACLU says that if only popular ideas were protected we wouldn’t need the First Amendment. If you learn about hateful ideas and speech, that is the best protection that we have against it. JS Mills says that freedom of speech is vital to the advancement of knowledge and truth.
3) Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
I find myself as a strong supporter of the First Amendment and freedom of speech but I also think that some little things should be censored. For example, I do not think it would be alright for cartoon network to run pornography on Saturday morning. I definitely think that everyone should be able to express what they think and have opinions. I don’t think that people should say things that are stupid and hurtful to other people. I also believe in the free market of ideas and I think that expressing your own thoughts and communicating freely furthers society and your life.
1) Write three things based on the reading that supports the above resolution. This is the "pro" argument.
In my opinion a sprinkling of censorship isn't a bad thing. Jonah Goldberg says that people, but particularly the media, has been brain washed to think that censorship is always a major threat to our freedom. Many people everywhere think that obscenity such as poop covered paintings are beautiful examples of free expression while democratic debate is censored. Jonah Goldberg says: If you believe that all free speech should be allowed, do you think that TV channels should be able to run pornography?
2) Write three things based on the reading that goes against the above resolution. This is the "con" argument.
The ACLU says that without freedom of speech, democracy is impossible. People’s opinions, even if it is unpopular or hateful, should be protected in order to protect the freedom that the First Amendment gives to all Americans. The ACLU says that if only popular ideas were protected we wouldn’t need the First Amendment. If you learn about hateful ideas and speech, that is the best protection that we have against it. JS Mills says that freedom of speech is vital to the advancement of knowledge and truth.
3) Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
I find myself as a strong supporter of the First Amendment and freedom of speech but I also think that some little things should be censored. For example, I do not think it would be alright for cartoon network to run pornography on Saturday morning. I definitely think that everyone should be able to express what they think and have opinions. I don’t think that people should say things that are stupid and hurtful to other people. I also believe in the free market of ideas and I think that expressing your own thoughts and communicating freely furthers society and your life.
4.18.2007
Don Imus Assignment 4/19
Short Answer: a few sentences for each question:
1. According to the NAACP, why should Imus be silenced?
The NAACP is worried that Imus' statements will enforce bigotry and homophobia in society. They also say that it could cheapen people's views on minorities and women and further promote negative veiws on those people by making racist and sexist comments.
2. According to Frank Rich, why should Imus not be silenced?
Long Answer: Write a short essay, w/ intro, body and conclusion, about 4-5 paragraphs with at least 4 sentences each.
3. Do you think Imus should be silenced? Why?
The Don Imus statement was a very serious one. But before judgment can be dished out, you must first look at the situation on both sides before making an opinion on the matter. In the following paragraphs I will tell you my opionion on the controversy after I had reviewed both sides of the battlefield.
Don Imus may not have made the smartest decision to open his mouth that day and utter what might be his downfall, but he shouldn't be condemned for it. As a matter of fact it is his civil right to say whatever he wants to say about anything. The first amendment in the constitution is the right to free speech and this is exactly what he was exersizing. Imus' comment probably wasn't the smartest decision but it was his decision and everybody else needs to deal with it.
Another great thing about our country is our level of technology. We have the technology to broadcast radiowaves across the country so that one little voice can reach the ears of hundreds of millions. Now if these hundreds of millions happend to be angered or offended by the opinions of one person we also have this great little technological advancement of radio tuners which can be moved. If you don't like one radio jock's opinion, switch the channel!
Honestly I think that it was a shame that Imus was put out of a job and will probably screwed over for the rest of his life as he will be branded a racist and sexist and will have a very hard time keeping or reciving a job. I hope that he is able to find a home on XM or Sirrius radio so that people, who would like to hear his constitutionally provided opinions, can. Fortunatly I do not believe that he was fired strictly because of what he said. While the reason does have to do with it, it is probably more due to the loss of advertisement money and listener approval; and not because CBS and MSNBC were acting against our rights.
I happen to be a strong believer in the right to free speech and highly against censorship because the priviledge to be able to be exposed to uncensored opinions and thoughts is what make our citizens different. They are able to think for themselves and form their own thoughts on events and happenings. Who are the NAACP to come into the situation to tell people that they shouldn't be able to listen to somebody's opinion? where is the democracy in that? if I am talking to a friend about something the the NAACP doesn't like, are they going to come tell me that I can't continue to say that because it might offend my friend? of course not! this is America people, we have the freedom to think, feel, and decide without the help of Big Brother and that's what makes us great.
1. According to the NAACP, why should Imus be silenced?
The NAACP is worried that Imus' statements will enforce bigotry and homophobia in society. They also say that it could cheapen people's views on minorities and women and further promote negative veiws on those people by making racist and sexist comments.
2. According to Frank Rich, why should Imus not be silenced?
Frank Rich's main point is that freedom of speech makes it so that you have the freedom to say whatever you want no matter what affects that it has. Rich also points out that Imus isn't the only comedian or shock jock that could face reprocusions from the desicion to can him.
Long Answer: Write a short essay, w/ intro, body and conclusion, about 4-5 paragraphs with at least 4 sentences each.
3. Do you think Imus should be silenced? Why?
The Don Imus statement was a very serious one. But before judgment can be dished out, you must first look at the situation on both sides before making an opinion on the matter. In the following paragraphs I will tell you my opionion on the controversy after I had reviewed both sides of the battlefield.
Don Imus may not have made the smartest decision to open his mouth that day and utter what might be his downfall, but he shouldn't be condemned for it. As a matter of fact it is his civil right to say whatever he wants to say about anything. The first amendment in the constitution is the right to free speech and this is exactly what he was exersizing. Imus' comment probably wasn't the smartest decision but it was his decision and everybody else needs to deal with it.
Another great thing about our country is our level of technology. We have the technology to broadcast radiowaves across the country so that one little voice can reach the ears of hundreds of millions. Now if these hundreds of millions happend to be angered or offended by the opinions of one person we also have this great little technological advancement of radio tuners which can be moved. If you don't like one radio jock's opinion, switch the channel!
Honestly I think that it was a shame that Imus was put out of a job and will probably screwed over for the rest of his life as he will be branded a racist and sexist and will have a very hard time keeping or reciving a job. I hope that he is able to find a home on XM or Sirrius radio so that people, who would like to hear his constitutionally provided opinions, can. Fortunatly I do not believe that he was fired strictly because of what he said. While the reason does have to do with it, it is probably more due to the loss of advertisement money and listener approval; and not because CBS and MSNBC were acting against our rights.
I happen to be a strong believer in the right to free speech and highly against censorship because the priviledge to be able to be exposed to uncensored opinions and thoughts is what make our citizens different. They are able to think for themselves and form their own thoughts on events and happenings. Who are the NAACP to come into the situation to tell people that they shouldn't be able to listen to somebody's opinion? where is the democracy in that? if I am talking to a friend about something the the NAACP doesn't like, are they going to come tell me that I can't continue to say that because it might offend my friend? of course not! this is America people, we have the freedom to think, feel, and decide without the help of Big Brother and that's what makes us great.
Republic Assignment 4/18
1) What is your reaction to the ending of the section? What is good and/or bad about the type of society outlined by Socrates?
I think that Socrates ideas will be bad for society and would put them into a kind of state similar to what was protrayed in Fahrenheit 451. By censoring things in society you are taking away part of the human mind that allows everybody to make their own opinions and decisions on topics. By taking this right away, you are dumbing down society and numbing them.
I think that Socrates ideas will be bad for society and would put them into a kind of state similar to what was protrayed in Fahrenheit 451. By censoring things in society you are taking away part of the human mind that allows everybody to make their own opinions and decisions on topics. By taking this right away, you are dumbing down society and numbing them.
4.16.2007
Best Comment Award 4/17
I agree with Dulce and Paige that this is a great peice because of the fact you used descriptive writing. I also see that you used great vocabulary like climatic....i had no clue wat that ment until i read it in your writing. i also get mad when mr. commerson does not let us out on time.
I thought that this was the best comment because it illustrated how he felt about my piece. It also had his own opinion on the matter and something that he actually learned which I thought was cool. Thanks Lishane!
I thought that this was the best comment because it illustrated how he felt about my piece. It also had his own opinion on the matter and something that he actually learned which I thought was cool. Thanks Lishane!
3.27.2007
Republic Assignment 3/28
1. Short Paragraph – Personal Reflection: Before reading the selection from Plato write at least one full paragraph on this question: Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Homer?
I think that the only reason that Plato would want to censor Homer is because his stories of the past bring up lots of acts of violence and wrongdoings. The people might want this stuff censored because it could insite violence or make them feel worse about themselves and their own country and government.
2. Short Answers – Text based questions. Answer both questions, answers can be just a few sentences
a. According to Plato, what are some aspects of poetry that should be banned and why? In other words, how can poetry undermine the education of a Guardian?
Anything that would act as a disrespectful thing towards the king or government. Plus stuff that would cast a depressing or negative view on the afterlife.
b. What should poetry “teach” and why?
I think that poetry should teach values to young men and women that will help them grow up into a better civilian or somebody that will contribute to his or her fellow man. Somethings that this may include could be bravery, intellegence, hope, and leadership.
3. If you were talking to Plato what would you say to him? Do you agree with his ideas? Do you think poetry, or literature in general, should be put to the purposes that he says it should?
No, I would disagree with what Plato thinks is right. Censoring things only makes society less intellectual. People can only have a purpose if they are in their own, somebody different. The only way that can happen is by having them form their own ideas and opinions and ideas on different issues. By banning material that could potentially create different sides to an argument you are taking away the minds capacity for knowledge.
I think that the only reason that Plato would want to censor Homer is because his stories of the past bring up lots of acts of violence and wrongdoings. The people might want this stuff censored because it could insite violence or make them feel worse about themselves and their own country and government.
2. Short Answers – Text based questions. Answer both questions, answers can be just a few sentences
a. According to Plato, what are some aspects of poetry that should be banned and why? In other words, how can poetry undermine the education of a Guardian?
Anything that would act as a disrespectful thing towards the king or government. Plus stuff that would cast a depressing or negative view on the afterlife.
b. What should poetry “teach” and why?
I think that poetry should teach values to young men and women that will help them grow up into a better civilian or somebody that will contribute to his or her fellow man. Somethings that this may include could be bravery, intellegence, hope, and leadership.
3. If you were talking to Plato what would you say to him? Do you agree with his ideas? Do you think poetry, or literature in general, should be put to the purposes that he says it should?
No, I would disagree with what Plato thinks is right. Censoring things only makes society less intellectual. People can only have a purpose if they are in their own, somebody different. The only way that can happen is by having them form their own ideas and opinions and ideas on different issues. By banning material that could potentially create different sides to an argument you are taking away the minds capacity for knowledge.
3.26.2007
Republic Assignment 3/27
1) Short Paragraph – Personal Reflection: Before reading the selection from Plato write at least one full paragraph on this question: Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Hesiod? Remember that Hesiod was the poet who wrote about the fight between the gods and the titans.
I think that people wanted to censor Hesiod and Homer because they wrote about things that could in theory encourage mutinous thoughts in society. This in turn would incite violence against the government or anything that holds up the working society. So in turn Plato or others would want to censor this disrupting text.
2) a. What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?
misrepresenting the nature of the gods
b. What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?
God is the cause of everything good in the world and if they decided to punish it was for a good reason.
3) Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?
I think that I was close but still a little off on the details. I wrote that they censored to protect government and social structure, but they say the the censorship was for the protection of the gods reputations.
I think that people wanted to censor Hesiod and Homer because they wrote about things that could in theory encourage mutinous thoughts in society. This in turn would incite violence against the government or anything that holds up the working society. So in turn Plato or others would want to censor this disrupting text.
2) a. What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?
misrepresenting the nature of the gods
b. What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?
God is the cause of everything good in the world and if they decided to punish it was for a good reason.
3) Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?
I think that I was close but still a little off on the details. I wrote that they censored to protect government and social structure, but they say the the censorship was for the protection of the gods reputations.
3.21.2007
Seminar Assignment 3/22
1) What do you think is the best definition of justice? It can be one of the views expressed in The Republic, a modification of one or more of them, or something completely different
In my mind the best definition of justice to one is something that one feels is morally correct. Unfortunatly this does may not work for everbody, for instance if one person thinks that expressing yourself through violence is just, and another person thinks the opposite the morals collide and we have a situation that doesn't fit together. In the end, the only kind of justice that can work in a society is through some sort of compromisation.
The best definition for justice in a society is a moral system that works to benifit everybody. This way everybody is happy and unharmed. Unfortunatly this is an example of a utopia that is not possible with our human society. People do not all share the same moral system and cannot function as a perfect whole without there being someone to screw it all up.
In my mind the best definition of justice to one is something that one feels is morally correct. Unfortunatly this does may not work for everbody, for instance if one person thinks that expressing yourself through violence is just, and another person thinks the opposite the morals collide and we have a situation that doesn't fit together. In the end, the only kind of justice that can work in a society is through some sort of compromisation.
The best definition for justice in a society is a moral system that works to benifit everybody. This way everybody is happy and unharmed. Unfortunatly this is an example of a utopia that is not possible with our human society. People do not all share the same moral system and cannot function as a perfect whole without there being someone to screw it all up.
3.20.2007
Republic Assignment 3/21
In your opinion, how can acting “right” (i.e. justly) help or harm the achievement of happiness?
In my opinion, acting justly means obeying the current set of laws that are set in place by government to better the condition of society. For instance: do not murder people. I think that this is a pretty just law because killing other people just isn't very nice when you get down to it. Now that, that has been established let me share my opinion of happyness. To me, happyness is a state of the mind in which you are in a worry and guilt free situation and when you have something to look forward to. So by acting in the confines of set justice (for instance not murdering people) you will not have the pressure of your conscience guilt on your shoulders.
Then again for people who have a lack of conscience they have it good because they are always happy yay!
In my opinion, acting justly means obeying the current set of laws that are set in place by government to better the condition of society. For instance: do not murder people. I think that this is a pretty just law because killing other people just isn't very nice when you get down to it. Now that, that has been established let me share my opinion of happyness. To me, happyness is a state of the mind in which you are in a worry and guilt free situation and when you have something to look forward to. So by acting in the confines of set justice (for instance not murdering people) you will not have the pressure of your conscience guilt on your shoulders.
Then again for people who have a lack of conscience they have it good because they are always happy yay!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
