Synthesis

Throughout the course of CMJR 494, I was exposed to many new things, from philosophers to films and to photographs. I recall a distinct warning being given to the class about graphic material to be viewed, but I did not think that they would be anything truly offensive or harmful. However, at many times throughout the quarter, I had to remind myself that these images and videos were being shown to the class because they were protected. For example, when it came to the Ecce Homo pictures and The Tin Drum film, I had almost forgotten about the aspect of them being protected, hence the fact that I was viewing them in class. This was because I was in fact startled, caught off-guard, and perhaps even offended by some of the material shown – I had to remind myself that these were legal viewings, because sometimes I would question to myself, “Is he allowed to show this to us…?” Learning about the values of each of the cases that we have read and studied have opened my eyes and allowed me to think about where I place my values. Looking back through my blog posts, I feel that I have wavered along the way because I did not know which philosopher I completely sided with, but usually, I was in favor of the one giving most protection to the individual.

At the beginning of the quarter, I was introduced to Ali Al-Timimi, an American-Muslim Islamic scholar with many credentials and a rich, educational background. He was convicted of inciting terrorism and sentenced to life imprisonment. Dr. Al-Timimi was said to have told a group of young Muslim men in northern Virginia to carry firearms and levy war against the United States. Upon reading his story, I was appalled at the fact that this doctor would even be questioned, just based upon his list of accomplishments. I recognized John Stuart Mill’s concept on freedom and his concern for intellectual truth and freedom at this point. I believed that using Mill’s strategy to test the truth in Al-Timimi would be appropriate, to determine whether he had actually given those instructions to levy war or not. I determined that strict scrutiny must be applied in this case and that a truly compelling reason must be valid in order to charge him; therefore, the government must prove the burden of proof. How could we charge him while not knowing the entire story? I concluded that the government must come up with substantial evidence and reasoning for convicting this man.

Similarly, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court decided that threatening speech should be protected unless the state can prove that it leads to such action. I determined that we should only punish those who present an immediate danger to the public and only if a threat seems imminent. Otherwise, speech should be freely expressed as long as there is no harming of the public. With that in mind, I would overturn Miller v. California and FCC v. Pacifica with their offense theory approaches when it comes to sexual speech and use Brandenburg v. Ohio to evaluate sexual speech. This is because my grounding in the harm theory is solid and rooted in Cohen v. California.

In my second blog post, I agreed with the line in the First Amendment which clearly states that, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the freedom of press.” I recognized the importance of this through the cases I studied in my post regarding Grant v. Torstar and NYT v. Sullivan. Again, I refer to Mill’s views from his essay, On Liberty that suggests any opinion is bound to have truth and falsity in it, so we must challenge the statement. Emerson’s expression-action theory as well as Mill’s notion of liberty helped me decide that opinions should be freely expressed and protected as long as they do not harm the individual through defamation.

I refer back to the harm theory in my post about the Tin Drum film and would adopt a SLAPS protection into the child porn law, which would be altering the decisions of Ferber and Osborne. These two cases do not include a SLAPS clause but in re-reading my blog post on the Tin Drum now, I want to emphasize that I would like to insert a SLAPS clause as well as an adolescent/child consent in regards to child pornography. I refer to C. Edwin Baker in this post because he protects the right of individuals to make their own judgments and choices about creating and/or consuming sexually simulating materials. His liberty theory is supported by self-fulfillment and participation in change, while protecting self-expressive and creative material that protects nonviolent practices. I agreed with this philosopher because he also believes that the First Amendment protects individuals to make their own choices about whether they make or watch sexual materials.

Finally, I refer once again to Baker in my post regarding animal cruelty. I recognize that his theory also supports speech unless it is violent or causes harm. In United States v. Stevens, Mr. Stevens was not directly involved in acts of violence, which made it easy for me to decide that his freedom of speech should be protected since he only participated in narrating the films of dogfighting. Though violence is depicted in the films, Stevens was not the one to immediately harm any one animal. Another factor in this case was that dogfighting is legal in Japan, though illegal in the States. The films, however, were filmed in Japan, which I believe would then make it acceptable to be made public. Even with the situation of the filmmakers in Dubai at the beginning of this course, along with Germany’s culture where sexual activity is prone in what we call “younger” children, it seems that I believe in variable human rights depending on local community standards. This is not something that I had realized before, but upon reading through my blog postings, I have come to realize that I am in favor of protecting the individual, and would have to look at cases individually especially when it comes to cross-cultural situations, such as the ones that we have encountered in this class.

In conclusion, this course on rights and law in the US has been a real eye-opener for me. It was the first time that I had encountered such a wide range of materials, from court cases to naked children and everything in between. I am finding myself question whether it is acceptable or should be acceptable to view certain things in theatres, and whether it is okay for “x” group to rally in front of “y” church (whether they are at a distance far enough or not, as Westboro made sure to do). I will always have the background of the cases and philosophies examined in this course to help me in the course of my own life, to put to use in everyday situations. Eventually, I will come up with my own solid groundings on what I believe to be right, and thanks to this course, that path has gotten a bit clearer.