Donna ([info]radiotik) wrote,
@ 2007-10-21 10:35:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Will I start writing in the live journal again?
I'm not sure. I am not sure why I stopped actually. I just felt strange after Ecuador like I had nothing else to say about anything. Perhaps I will come back in a friends only format. Perhaps it will fade away again and I will delete it all: delete 6+ years of life. I've had this thing a long time.

I am currently trying to decide if I should join Amnesty International. You see, I now work at Cambridge's Amnesty International bookstore and I thought perhaps I should put my money where my mouth is. Besides for 7 pounds I get a tshirt and a "save the human" pin. How can I go wrong? But I wondered, do I really support everything Amnesty supports? I know I support most of it (or heck I wouldn't be in the book store) but is it a club that would have me as a member? I have to admit now that I am stuck on their policy of freedom of speech vs. hate speech. They think hate speech should be outlawed, holocaust deniers may go to jail etc. This bothers me. I think people have the right to make themselves look stupid in public. I don't think anyone has the right to govern what people think or say. People argue that it is a slippery slope down to actual physical abuse from the hate, but I really see it as a slippery slope to restriction of anything and everything. I regularly have fights with German friends about this. Restriction of hate just makes it sexy. Plus governments should not have the right to govern what people think even if their thinking sucks.

So I don't know. To join or not to join? That is really just one issue that I am not down with...

(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]pseudoboy
2007-10-21 12:39 pm UTC (link)
This has always been probably my biggest issue with the "liberal" agenda. I think that's why I like the ACLU so much, they're really considered left wing on most issues, but then they defend NAMBLA and the Ku Klux Klan's right to demonstrate and express their ideas and get a lot of liberals panties in a bunch.

And you're right, ban anything and it'll immediately have a draw for someone trying to rebel, especially young people who have not yet developed their facilities of judgement fully and can be very impressionable.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]radiotik
2007-10-21 11:30 pm UTC (link)
Yeah I am thumbs up for the ACLU ever since they came to my school, yelled at some people, and informed them them that my friend could sue them if they didnt let him come back to school.

Join or not, I'll still volunteer at the book store like I do already.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]philentropist
2007-10-21 04:12 pm UTC (link)
You know I'm all about the free speech. I think the good amnesty international does outweighs the negative aspects of their speech policy. You could send a letter to the appropriate people about free speech, and as a menber, they'd take you more seriously. Who knows how many other people feel the same way. Maybe join the ACLU (or EFF!) as well.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]radiotik
2007-10-21 11:29 pm UTC (link)
Actually, I think they take me most seriously as a volunteer not a member. Members just fork over 7 pounds and get the tshirt. I am there 7 hours a week working. My letter would be meaningless either way.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dgh
2007-10-22 01:05 am UTC (link)
I thought they cared more about people doing stuff like writing letters than giving them money.

I agree about the hate speech thing. We already have some stupid speech-restricting laws in the name of defending against terrorism though:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7030096.stm

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]radiotik
2007-10-22 08:08 am UTC (link)
Let me clarify: me writing them a letter about how they are wrong on a policy that they are very public about despite various critics who are far more important than I would be meaningless. No one would even read it. They care about be writing letters to the president of Guatemala, etc.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ouwiyaru
2007-10-22 01:02 am UTC (link)
When I was interviewing for a job at the ACLU, someone mentioned that no one working there supported every official position it took. I would've been no exception--I'm all for their fundamentalist position on the First Amendment, but differ with them on national ID cards.

My guess is that Amnesty International is likely to be similar internally.

As for the hate speech, I'm generally against some legislation now being considered in the US to give some kind of shield to 'journalists' (defined as those with a significant income percentage from it). However, I've been wondering if a law I could get behind is attaching 'journalistic licenses'/shield laws to a responsibility to tell the truth (making them liable for false statements as in commercial speech).

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]radiotik
2007-10-22 08:05 am UTC (link)
That could be very interesting but also very difficult for several reasons. What if a journalist prints what they believe to be truth at the time but turns out not to be true? What if the journalist prints the wild untruths of someone else for whatever reason? What if they print something that IS true but the person the story is about denies it? Is truth with spin still truth?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ouwiyaru
2007-10-22 02:06 pm UTC (link)
agreed. all important issues, and even if all those were somehow handled, it would probably open journalists up to frivolous lawsuits, too.

But, to keep thinking about it: I would assume that not all journalists, or even journalists on-staff to a news organization would get such a license. Perhaps the shield law would not cover sources that provided false information? They could still be subpoenaed for other questions--just not on their sources. If the journalist printed 'wild untruths of someone else' then it should have been reported as a quote. Wrt, Is truth with spin still truth?, I think so, but considering how much spin seems to include bare-faced lies, I feel like it would still improve discourse.

As for frivolous lawsuits, I would also hope that journalists would get 'insurance' from their employer or form unions to support it.

Hmm, this is probably the wrong way to solve the problem--perhaps it should be simply about sources that fall into the category of whistle-blowers rather than a class of journalists? I still like the idea of news organizations/people having some real liability for falsehoods. In a sense, news is (very often) commercial speech.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…