Talia Shifron
Calendar Editor, the North Star
There is a bumper sticker that says, “God is too big to fit into any one religion.” All people praying in their own ways are needed in order to rejoice in God’s greatness. This idea celebrates how many different religions there are in America, and how much diversity this contributes to American society. Freedom of religion is one of the greatest gifts that the founders of America gave to the people of this country. The people of the United States are extremely lucky to live in a country where there is freedom of religion. This allows people to practice their beliefs openly without having to be afraid of being persecuted for their beliefs.
There are two important aspects of the first amendment’s stance on freedom of religion. First, the government cannot promote a particular religion and there must be a distinct separation between religion and state. Secondly, all citizens can openly practice any religion that they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with another person’s freedom or hurt anyone. This is so important because it allows for diversity among people. It allows people to grow and learn from each other and not be set in one particular way.
Throughout the generations, most countries have had an established state religion. People who did not agree to follow that particular religion were often kicked out of the country or killed. People were only as safe as the ruler of the time allowed them to be. People were either forced to believe in a religion that they might not have agreed with or forced to wander from country to country. This practice doesn’t honor God but rather forces people to conform to something they don’t believe in.
Many of the people who founded America were faced with religious persecution in England before they arrived in the United States. Therefore they were looking for some place to come to so they could practice the religion of their choice in freedom. Because of their commitment to religious freedom they were able to overcome obstacles and establish a country where there is religious freedom. To this day America’s greatness is partially because of our founders’ commitment to religious freedom.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
Amendment's Abuse a Slap in Face
Ariel Boehnlein
Copy Editor, the North Star
“Freedom of speech” is one of the most overly used phrases inAmerica America
This practice is becoming more and more prevalent, especially among teenagers. People think that “freedom of speech” is a pass to be rude and even threatening because it’s their right as an American. Although those who cry, “but it’s my right,” are legally correct and can’t be persecuted, it’s a shame that people believe it’s okay to take advantage of such a precious gift.
Americans should appreciate their First Amendment rights because we're extremely lucky. Countries all over the world, especially those in theMiddle East , have officials who will punish, imprison or even kill those who speak against their authority.
InAmerica America
The next section of the First Amendment is freedom of press. While it can be argued that publications have every right to print something, even if it's controversial or harmful to a person’s reputation, tabloids defame their subjects simply for money with no regard to the subject’s privacy rights. Again, they have the freedom to publish what they wish but they’re taking advantage of that right when they publish false information, or pay sources to give them desirable, possibly even false, quotes.
Instances such as this, along with many other cases of First Amendment abuse, occur daily and are a slap in the face to James Madison, the original creator of the Bill of Rights, and all of those who do get persecuted for what they say in countries less fortunate than our own. Our rights are something that should be cherished and appreciated, not abused and disregarded.
Copy Editor, the North Star
“Freedom of speech” is one of the most overly used phrases in
This practice is becoming more and more prevalent, especially among teenagers. People think that “freedom of speech” is a pass to be rude and even threatening because it’s their right as an American. Although those who cry, “but it’s my right,” are legally correct and can’t be persecuted, it’s a shame that people believe it’s okay to take advantage of such a precious gift.
Americans should appreciate their First Amendment rights because we're extremely lucky. Countries all over the world, especially those in the
In
The next section of the First Amendment is freedom of press. While it can be argued that publications have every right to print something, even if it's controversial or harmful to a person’s reputation, tabloids defame their subjects simply for money with no regard to the subject’s privacy rights. Again, they have the freedom to publish what they wish but they’re taking advantage of that right when they publish false information, or pay sources to give them desirable, possibly even false, quotes.
Instances such as this, along with many other cases of First Amendment abuse, occur daily and are a slap in the face to James Madison, the original creator of the Bill of Rights, and all of those who do get persecuted for what they say in countries less fortunate than our own. Our rights are something that should be cherished and appreciated, not abused and disregarded.
Monday, February 11, 2008
IDS story features North award nomination
The Indiana Daily Student produced a story about BHSN Publications' nomination for the First Amendment Press Freedom Award.
Click here to read the story.
Click here to read the story.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Defamation versus free expression
Samantha Stillions
Managing Editor, the North Star
If there is one word that journalists despise, its defamation. According to dictionary.com, defamation is “false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel.”
When a journalist writes a story that contains false information detrimental to another person’s reputation, the one defamed can file a suit for defamation of character. Every person has the right to defend themselves when they feel they have been falsely accused of something.
On the other hand, the very existence of these laws interferes with rights listed in the First Amendment. The press has the right to print the truth, even when the truth is not pretty. Citizens of the United States have the right to freedom of expression. Thus, if a reporter or any person writes something unfavorable, he/she has the right to do so, according to the First Amendment.
Because of these two conflicting ideas, the government had to create a balance in order to reconcile both of these rights. In 1964, the ruling of New York Times v Sullivan helped set the standard by which the U.S. court system judges cases of defamation. In the case, Montgomery County Commissioner L.B. Sullivan claimed that the New York Times had published an advertisement that defamed his character. The court ruled that a defamation case having to do with a political figure must present evidence proving that the publication knew that the information was false. This ruling is called the “actual malice” standard.
However, the way in which a private person’s defamation suit is determined is different. In Gertz v. Welch (1973), a magazine called American Opinion published an article stating that a Chicago attorney named Elmer Gertz had helped frame a police officer. The article contained several incorrect statements. The original court told Gertz that he had to have proof of “actual malice.” Gertz disagreed, saying that he was a private person, not a public figure, so the same guidelines could not be used to determine his case. Gertz appealed to the Supreme Court. They determined that “so long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual.”
These cases changed the way in which defamation suits are handled. Publications cannot say whatever they want about people, but people cannot take everything written about them to court either. If such events had never occurred, many publications and reporters in the U.S. would not write the way in which they do. Controversial subjects would never be covered and stories would generate much less feeling among their readers. The First Amendment forced the government to allow publications the freedom to present facts and truths about people. Without it, reporters and writers wouldn’t be able to say anything about anybody without having a suit filed against them.
Because of the First Amendment, newspapers and publications are able to do their jobs – gather the facts and inform people of the truth.
Managing Editor, the North Star
If there is one word that journalists despise, its defamation. According to dictionary.com, defamation is “false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel.”
When a journalist writes a story that contains false information detrimental to another person’s reputation, the one defamed can file a suit for defamation of character. Every person has the right to defend themselves when they feel they have been falsely accused of something.
On the other hand, the very existence of these laws interferes with rights listed in the First Amendment. The press has the right to print the truth, even when the truth is not pretty. Citizens of the United States have the right to freedom of expression. Thus, if a reporter or any person writes something unfavorable, he/she has the right to do so, according to the First Amendment.
Because of these two conflicting ideas, the government had to create a balance in order to reconcile both of these rights. In 1964, the ruling of New York Times v Sullivan helped set the standard by which the U.S. court system judges cases of defamation. In the case, Montgomery County Commissioner L.B. Sullivan claimed that the New York Times had published an advertisement that defamed his character. The court ruled that a defamation case having to do with a political figure must present evidence proving that the publication knew that the information was false. This ruling is called the “actual malice” standard.
However, the way in which a private person’s defamation suit is determined is different. In Gertz v. Welch (1973), a magazine called American Opinion published an article stating that a Chicago attorney named Elmer Gertz had helped frame a police officer. The article contained several incorrect statements. The original court told Gertz that he had to have proof of “actual malice.” Gertz disagreed, saying that he was a private person, not a public figure, so the same guidelines could not be used to determine his case. Gertz appealed to the Supreme Court. They determined that “so long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual.”
These cases changed the way in which defamation suits are handled. Publications cannot say whatever they want about people, but people cannot take everything written about them to court either. If such events had never occurred, many publications and reporters in the U.S. would not write the way in which they do. Controversial subjects would never be covered and stories would generate much less feeling among their readers. The First Amendment forced the government to allow publications the freedom to present facts and truths about people. Without it, reporters and writers wouldn’t be able to say anything about anybody without having a suit filed against them.
Because of the First Amendment, newspapers and publications are able to do their jobs – gather the facts and inform people of the truth.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Pushing Back: Media rights in unwanted places
Anna Connors
Managing Editor, the North Star
In journalism, the phrase “off the record” is not a common term. These unwanted words belong between the whispering lips of close friends and in the privacy of closed meetings. They do not however, belong in the Indiana Memorial Union’s Whittenberger Auditorium this past Tuesday in front of a public audience that got in for free. Why then, were they there?
Meghan O’Sullivan, President Bush’s former deputy national security advisor was scheduled to speak that night about recent events concerning the Iraq War. However, a glitch between the people who invited O’Sullivan and the Indiana Daily Student (IDS) took place. O’Sullivan ended up withdrawing from the presentation claiming she wasn’t feeling well and there was a violation of her agreement to speak only “off the record.”
Throughout the past week numerous features and public-written editorials have been pointing fingers in all directions trying to show which organization caused this distress. But equally important in this issue are the rights at stake from lectures like this. The fact is that O’Sullivan had no legal right to control what media outlets were used doing her lecture. And because of the request, the media almost had an obligation to be there.
“Off the record” is something a journalist can either accept or ignore. And the public has absolutely no responsibility. Herald Times (HT) writer, James Boyd, even admits that the HT was planning on covering the event despite the request. And IDS editor-in-chief, Carrie Ritchie, said it was ridiculous to think that anything O’Sullivan said would stay within the auditorium.
The ethics of the request was just one problem surrounding IU’s first planned off-the-record speech. When the presenter runs no risk of being repeated, what is the incentive to even be honest? Our First Amendment rights give the freedom in this situation, to the press. A “private” public speech is just the oxymoron it sounds like.
If all former government workers went off the record how could the press ever serve their watchdog purposes? Why even speak if you don’t want to be heard? Off-the-record is a different breed of confidentiality since it doesn’t protect identity. If nothing can be repeated, how are facts checked, would anything she could possibly say legitimately mean anything to anyone? Welcome to the new “no liability” presentation. Drop your rights at the door.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
