K9 Friendly

The city of Seattle has made great accommodations for Seattleites and their dogs, and both pets and owners are very appreciative.
You would think that owning a dog in the city would be a complicated task considering that yards, and free time are rare for city dwellers. Dog owners seem to find time for their dogs and the city makes up for the yard scarcity.
In the Seattle city limits there are eleven off leash dog parks for dogs to run wild with other dogs and owners. There are also over 30 trails for owners to take their dogs on long walks.
If owners need help with their dogs’ behavior there is over 15 dog-training facilities. If they want to spoil their four legged friends for good behavior, then there is over 10 grooming companies in the Seattle area.
Adrian Blake a proud owner of a Maltese/Chi Wawa mix named Chewy and resident of the Seattle area says, “its nice having the needs of the your pet met, I find that when Chewy is happy so am I”. When asked what about having a pet makes him so happy Blake answered, “There is never a lonely moment, and for me there is no better feeling than coming home to someone who loves you unconditionally.”
Some of the dog parks in the city are more beautiful then public parks, for instance the Jose Rizal Park located at 1008 12th Ave S on Beacon Hill has a gorgeous view of the city, and land for miles. Jealousy would be the best description of emotions to describe how you will feel if you see this well constructed park.
Is the city of Seattle especially K9 friendly? Well according to dog owner Chad Kush who moved to Seattle from North Carolina with his five year old Stafford Terrier named Capone two years ago says. “Seattle is the most dog friendly city I have ever lived in”. When asked why he replied, “There are a lot of other dogs for him to play with, and also people are far more accepting of Capone, I can bring him in stores, to public areas, and beautiful dog parks for him to play.”
It is a fact that Seattleites love their dogs, and thanks to the city dog owners can return the joyful feeling their pets give to them each and every day.

Calm Down America

Like past illnesses, America is fully overreacting to the current Swine flu endemic. Why is it that whenever Americans hear a rumor of a food causing sickness, mayhem occurs? Since June 11, 2009 when the World Health Organization declared global pandemic of H1N1 (Swine Flu) many misconceptions about the sickness have spread.
In 2003 a similar sickness was spreading around the world that caused a comparable reaction to the current Swine Flu situation. H5N1 (Bird Flu) is an influenza type A that is highly contagious among birds. Although it is rare, the virus can cause lethal human infection if not medicated correctly.
The virus has reported to have infected over 400 cases since 2003. Since that time more than a dozen countries in Asia, Africa, the Pacific, Europe and the Near East have reported cases of Bird Flu. Both Indonesia and Vietnam have reported the highest number of Bird Flu cases to date.
The majority of Bird Flu infections in humans have been caused by direct or close contact with infected poultry or surfaces contaminated with secretions and excretions from infected birds.
Considering that the virus has never been detected in the United States to this day, it is baffling how terrified Americans were of the sickness. Whether it was the 60 percent fatality rate among those infected, or that it was spreading through one of America’s most popular meats is unknown. Whatever the cause, the overreaction of some people was embarrassing.
Some eliminated poultry from their diets completely while others just became nervous about consuming the meat. Even if infected birds did make it into the United States the virus could have been prevented from properly handling and cooking eggs and poultry. Hopefully Americans are already practicing safe preparation of food so as to prevent dangerous viruses like Salmonella, and other food poisonings.
Our current national hysteria has been caused by the spread of a new influenza: Swine Flu. Unlike the Bird Flu this virus is very contagious between humans and is not a food borne disease. There has been deaths caused by Swine Flu but that is only when the disease is caught by someone who is at high risk for seasonal flu related complications. This means that of the 70 percent of people who have been hospitalized or have died from the virus previously had a serious illness.
So unless you have a chronic medical condition that could get worse from seasonal flu then don’t be so scared of Swine Flu. Like the seasonal flu, Swine flu has symptoms like runny nose, low grade fever, mild headache, body aches, and mild stomach upset. Unless these symptoms become extreme then medical attention is not typically required.
Fear not Americans, just simply wash your hands and attempt to stay away from other infected humans. If you do catch the virus and do not have a chronic medical condition then at worst you will spend a couple days at home, in bed like any other flu.

Paper 2

History has proven that Freedom of Speech is one of our most useful tools to promote change in our society. From the construction of the Alien and Sedition Acts of World War I to the Protest of Vietnam, Freedom of Speech is responsible for such great changes in our country. The message of Westboro Baptist Church differs greatly from that of the protesters of the Vietnam War, or the leaders of the colonies. Although because the Westboro practitioner’s message is less popular than most, does not mean that it should be stopped or controlled. Civil Rights message was not popular at its introduction and neither was Gay Rights, but they proved as worthy points of view and created change in our society. Westboro Baptist Church should have the same opportunity as those who protest abortion or Gay marriage to promote their message. By attempting to silence such hate speech as the Westboro Baptist Church promotes, only gives strength to their sometimes disturbing messages. Only once their message is freely and fully expressed can it be fairly refuted and disputed by the public.
In Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty, he points out the important reasons for allowing such unorthodox messages such as the Westboro Baptist Church expresses. The first is that the censored idea may be true and the accepted opinion may be in error. Through out history many cases can be seen when the popular opinion was not the right opinion, and the expression of speech proved this, causing change. Change is not possible with out allowing different ideas to be expressed. If they were not the abolition of slavery, racial integration, and women’s rights would not have been promoted and accepted by the public, and our society would still live by these barbaric standards. Then Mills points out that even truth needs to be tested, “ How ever true it may be, if it is not fully , frequently and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth”(Tedford, Herbeck 432). This is very true; arguments are given strength by discussion and debate, and if they are never put through such scrutiny then their truth in unproven. Mills last point is that there is likely some truth in all opinions. This reveals the importance of closely analyzing all messages on the same scale. Our goal in analyzing these messages should not be to simply prove them wrong and suppress them either, it should be about better understanding the message and its creators. By attempting to find the truth in all messages each is given a fair assessment by the public to understand that point of view.
There is an important difference between expression and action that must analyzed to fully understand the Westboro Baptist Church rights. As long as the church continues to only express their messages, and not act our or on such messages will their speech be protected. Under the stipulations of the Thomas I. Emerson’s Expression Action Theory; expression must be freely allowed and encouraged while action can be controlled, and subject to other constitutional requirements, but not by controlling expression. As long as the church continue to express their messages without invoking action or promoting action like threatening, then their message deserves to be freely expressed.
The Westboro Baptist Church message is not a clear and present danger so I do not think that it would be fair to punish such speech. It would be fair to place this speech under the category of “immediate incitement” test because their messages are sometimes close to overstepping the boundary’s by invoking a public disturbance. For each case the question is whether the words used are in such a circumstance, and is of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about evils that congress has a right to prevent. So if the Wetboro practitioners carried weapons, promoted violence, or directed their protest at a specific person, the bad tendency test would be fair to place them under. As long as they continue to direct their message at large groups, and protest peacefully then they are safe from such regulation.
Westboro Baptist Church has had some regulations or time, place and manner applied to their protest. They are not allowed with in 300 ft of a government grave yards, and are not allowed to protest and hour before or after a funeral. These rules were put in place so that families could burry family members in peace. Such regulation at funerals is necessary in order to allow family’s time to grieve about the loss of a loved one. Westboro is not alone in being placed under such government regulation. For instance in the case of Hill v. Colorado; on June 28, 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court decided to uphold the constitutionality of a Colorado law that makes it unlawful for any person within 100 feet of the entrances to a heath care facility to “knowingly approach” within eight feet of another person without that person’s consent for the purpose of passing a leaflet, displaying a sign, or “engaging” in oral protest, education or counseling. Such regulations are put into place to keep the peace in the public. We are free to speak, but we are not free to disturb the lives of other in the public. These laws allow people to peacefully attain medical attention, and attend funeral. These are acts that should not be deterred or disturbed by the promotion of others messages no matter how important.
It is important to protect the public in from speech at specific times and places, but it is also important to clearly define when these times and places are. We as a society should pay close attention to the regulations government places on our speech, because it is our greatest tool for change and evolution. Westboro Baptist Church reveals the most beautiful aspect of America through the ugliest messages. We cannot simply accept that with witch we agree, and deny, and refute the messages that we do not. All messages must be freely and fairly criticized, because only then can we asses our current positions. We realized the weakness of Westboro’s messages because of this freedom. Only once a message has been freely and fairly expressed can the public understand and asses it completely. We must cherish and protect one of our most vital rights by any means. If we lose our Freedom of Speech we will lose the opportunity to evolve as a society and a country.


Bibliography

Tedford, Thomas L, Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States.
5th ed. State College, 2005.

2 Redish, Martin. “The Value of Free Speech.” University fo penssylvania Law Review (1982); 591-645

Response to Sean's Question http://seanssynth.blogspot.com/

This is my Response to Sean Milton’s question; How has your interpretation of the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech in America Changed?
My time at Seattle University has caused a transformation in my interpretation of the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech. Prior to coming to Seattle University if I were to have seen footage of the Westboro Baptists Church I would have been outraged and insisted that it was unlawful. Now my view differs immensely, I believe that their speech is protected just as mine and yours. As long as there speech does not insight or promote violence than it is only right that they are free to express it.
My time in college has shown me the importance of allowing the promotion of new, and sometimes unpopular messages. In out of the class room I have found proof that Freedom of Speech is our greatest tool for change and evolution. Because of its importance we as a whole should also protect it to our fullest ability. This means not allowing only the speech that you agree with but also that which you do not agree with to be promoted. Through history classes I have seen the immeasurable effects of speech during World Wars I and II, Civil War, and during the Civil Right movement. Out of the class room I have seen the effects of speech on the Gay Rights movement, and Gay marriage movement. All of these are perfect examples of how the promotion of unpopular messages had an overall positive outcome on society.
I think that apart of the reasoning for my ignorance prior to Seattle University was immaturity but I think it was also because I was unable to dispute with opposing views logically. Now that I am coming up on my final year I feel that I am pretty well educated on a multitude of subjects and now am more acceptable to the promotion of all messages because I can educationally and locally dispute such views. Silencing messages only gives them strength, when we allow there promotion only then can we reveal their weaknesses to the public. We must not be afraid of what is different, we should allow it, analyze it, and learn from it so that our evolution as society can continue.

Sexting

1. Are the lawful consequences of sexting to strict? Should we place an age limitation on sexting laws? Are youth sometimes impulsive and naïve? All of these are topics that have risen during my CMJR 494 Freedom of Speech course. We have had many discussions and debates on this subject, and I have been surprised at the strengths of both sides’ positions. My personal point of view is that I do not agree with the strength of sexting laws. Although I do think that there should be some consequences placed on youths that take part in such action. I am not a promoter of sexting, I just think that placing life long ramifications of a felony on a naive youthful decision is unjust.
2. The idea that sexting can become a means of production for child pornography is true. If sexting were taking place between an adult and a minor then law should fully apply, using the age of consent from each state. Why not make a law for certain ours of community service? Some may think this is not severe enough but let’s judge them case by case. When mistakes are made in your youth you should learn from them, not suffer your entire life. Federal judges are also seeing flaws in the laws for instance in a Pennsylvania case on March 30; when a US judge barred a Pennsylvania prosecutor from filing child pornography charges against three teenage girls. The girls were said to have had said to have had sexually suggestive pictures on their cell phones. If the girls were found guilty they could face possible incarceration and would have to register as sex offenders for life. U.S District Judge James Munley said he was issuing a restraining order on Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick because his proposed action would violate freedom of speech and parental rights.
3. This also brings up the debate of, what is defined as child pornography? This question best answered by the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA). Any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct where:
a) The Production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
b) Such visual depictions, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
c) Such visual depiction has been created , adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
d) Such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described or distributed in a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

Paper 1

From the birth of freedom of speech in Athens when aristocratic rulers allowed certain classes of citizens to express their opinions without fear, there have been disagreements as to how far man should be allowed to express himself. The United States of America has adopted Athens’ idea of freedom of speech for the survival of a democracy. We have also inherited the problem of deciding what doesn’t fall under the guidelines of free expression. By looking at a few current communication justice controversies, the principles that should guide our understanding of communication justice and freedom of expression will become more evident. I chose to look at three specific cases that are areas of concern in current communication justice; Bogglers’ rights, obscenity, as well as arts and free expression.
Before getting into each case I think that it is important to acknowledge a central idea of a system of freedom of expression. The distinction between expression and action is important because, “expression must be freely allowed and encouraged,” whereas, “Action can be controlled, subject to other constitutional requirements, but not by controlling expression…” (Tedford, Herbeck, 2005). This distinction is not always so clear because sometimes action can be in the form of expression. The burning of draft paper to boycott the war, or lying in front of a bulldozer to stop environmental destruction are examples of how action and expression can intertwine. Thomas I. Emerson’s Expression-Acton Theory points out the importance of this distinction because our Supreme Courts’ failure to apply any single theory to free speech cases. Emerson’s theory provides clear principles to help our understanding of communication justice and freedom of expression.
This distinction between expression and action brings me to the first communication justice case of obscenity. This case focuses on a current problem of adolescents sending pornographic pictures to each other via cell phones. A result is that all over the country kids as young as the 13 are being arrested and charged with sexual abuse of children, and dissemination of child pornography. This act that has been deemed as “sexting”, which clearly falls under Emerson’s definition of obscene action. Most of what society calls “obscenity” is protected under the expression action theory, but this case differs because it, “consists of live conduct.... sexual materials thrust upon unwilling receivers so as to produce a “shock effect” (Tedford, Herbeck, 2005). I agree that the production of underage pornography should be prohibited and laws should be enforced, although, like most freedom of expression cases, there are no clear cut laws to make judgments on any case. For instance, what if both kids are participants in the action and neither is having the material thrust upon them. I also concur that if an adolescent is sending out self pornography to unwilling receivers that they should be prosecuted as a minor by the court system, but like most cases, the outcome should be minimal. We need to send a message to others but not ruin the lives of those involved. We can not ignore the inevitable mistakes children will make while maturing.
The next case is one that hits home for me personally. This case revolves around arts and free expression when a Cincinnati sports fan took his heckling too far. Jeffry Swiecicki was arrested at a 2001 baseball game at Jacobs Field when police officers saw him heckling a player on the team, and charged him with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. The charges were overturned on appeal and the fan later sued, charging his First Amendment right to free speech was violated, among other claims. For this specific case the actual remarks the fan made are not for sure, because he and the arresting officer had conflicting versions of the events at the game. This is a common occurrence at sporting events. For some fans, heckling the opposing team has become more important than cheering for the home team. I have played multiple team sports throughout my life and have been exposed to both just and unjust hecklers. The infamous “boo” or even “you suck” and other common heckles that go with specific sports are not the problem that need to be addressed. It is when a fan directs their defamation at a specific player or, “private individual in a way that does harm to those persons feelings” (Tedford, Herbeck, 2005) that both Emerson and I agree that such speech is no longer protected. Obscene gestures, racial or sexual remarks, and personal threats are all examples of “defamatory assault”. One way to prevent cases like this is for organizations like the National Basketball Association, to put conditions on tickets and announcing before games that such acts are illegal, as well as the ramifications of such actions to remind fans of their responsibilities as a viewer. Sometimes fans become so engrossed in the emotion of the game that they forget the players on the field are human beings just like them.
The last case relates very closely to the next, because they both emphasize the actions that can lead to “defamatory assault”. This case was about a gossip web site called “JuicyCampus.com” where college students would gossip about campus life. The site became problematic when hateful and offensive chatter about other students began to be printed. One example is when rumors that a specific student had certain sexually transmitted diseases were posted. Like the last case, this is speech that makes the transition into a defamatory action, because the comments are being directed at a specific person. Such personal libel could have a negative affect not only on their personal feelings, but also affect their peers’ perception of them. It is important to point out that if such allegations and remarks were being spread by word of mouth such speech would be permitted; but because it was being posted in a public domain it is not.
The laws that support the First Amendment are not cut and dry, and technology makes the lines of the laws even more transparent. How could a document created hundreds of years ago even imagine the development of our society? Our laws, like our society, should develop as well. Freedom of speech is no question a vital part of the democracy we live in, but let us also recognize when speech makes the transition into action it can have a detrimental effect. As time goes on and society grows, so will our understanding of effectiveness of our First Amendment laws.

Bibliography

1.Tedford, Thomas L, Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States.
5th ed. State College, 2005.

2. Redish, Martin. “The Value of Free Speech.” University fo penssylvania Law Review (1982); 591-645

Wed 4/22

1. “Occupy position of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes… have thrust themselves to forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. In either event, they invite attention to comment” Do these two tiers of profile for pubic figures justify any comment made about them? Do movie stars and professional athletes fall under the spectrum? If so how?
2. How do gossip magazines get away with obvious acts of invasion of privacy? Paparazzi have taken their jobs to far on many occasions. They intrude on personal property as well as deny those who we consider famous the ability to live regular lives. On some occasions the Paparazzi has put the lives of stars in danger. I also wonder what the laws are for the digital reconstruction of pictures. Sometimes you will see pictures that have obviously been touched up, or added to for shock value. Is this a version of defamatory or libel, because I believe a picture could have made untrue insinuations and affect the live of those people in the public’s eyes. How are they not found guilty of Intrusion?
3. The defining of libel makes the case of JuicyCampus.com a clear breach of the law. If students are using the site to make untrue statement about other students having sexual diseases the site is clearly providing a forum for libel. Such untrue rumors could no doubt have a negative affect on the reputation of those being gossiped about, and should most definitely either be eliminated or controlled so that such acts don’t occur in the future. The question is who pays the price, the website or the student who post the statements?

Gossip

One of the most pressing current communication issues is the debate over whether journalists who reveal the lives of the rich and famous to the world are slanderous or simply expressing their right to freedom of speech. The tabloids are under constant scrutiny by our society. We consume the work of these journalists and then later judge them for the conclusions of their work. The famous that are the focus of such article are constantly in dispute of whether such pieces found in the tabloids should be considered slander. This has become a common theme in court rooms finding stars vs. journalist debating whether the rich and famous lives can legally be revealed to the world. There are questions that must be answered to better understand this dilemma. When do you give up your right to privacy? What fact, event, or job justifies such exploitation? How many facts do journalists have to produce before publishing their work? Should Journalist be required to reveal the sources of their facts? These questions are what fuel this debate. Government prosecutors and lawmakers threaten journalist with prison if they don’t give up their sources and notes and stop exposing embarrassing secrets. This is particularly true when the famous whose lives are revealed are politically involved. Where is the line drawn? Right now it is unclear and almost invisible?