Most avid sports fans have at one point or another heard about a player being fined an absurd amount of money, usually for something as silly as criticizing an official. Understandably, the leagues have to keep a firm hand on the athletes to ensure their images aren't tarnished. But when do these regulations cross the line? To what extent should the leagues even be allowed to impose fines on players who have the audacity to speak their mind? Now I know they make millions and millions of dollars, and a $45,000 fine is pocket change, but this is an issue of principle.
This wouldn't be as large of an issue if the restrictions stopped with the players. Well, in the America of today, it was inevitable that the fans would get theirs sooner or later. Recently, a Papa John's in Ohio had shirts for sale that insulted LeBron James, the Cleveland Cavaliers' superstar. They called him a "cry baby", referring to his comments after a particularly rough playoff game against the Washington Wizards. Instead of being accepted as a humorous side-effect of a heated rivalry, it was widely criticized by the media, and condemned as being petty. No punishment was handed out, but they felt the wrath of the nation and were in essence forced to make amends. They did so by giving out twenty-three cent pizzas last week to people in Ohio in honor of LeBron's number. The cost of this stunt would have to be immense, and all because one fan decided to have some fun with his freedom of speech.
There was a similar situation that we in Indiana can remember fondly. A shirt being worn by a fan at Assembly Hall during the Men's basketball season reading "Bring Back Bobby" came under fire from the university. They tried to make the man remove his shirt, and each time he complied, but later on simply put the shirt back on. But what makes IU think that it has the right to censor the shirt? What possible justification could they have for blocking this man's freedom of speech when it is so harmless and moot in the grand scheme of things? Anything that is considered controversial today is stifled whenever possible in today's world, because corporations and businesses only care about one thing: their own image to the world.
These sorts of incidents may not seem like things worthy of attention, but I think they are. We live in a time when censorship has a strangle hold on every form of media, and everything we see and hear first travels through a filter. Sure, we are allowed to express ourselves as fans, but do we truly have the liberties we think we do? Will sports teams impose so many rules that the games lose their fun and majesty? It's up to us to keep pushing the boundaries, and ensuring that the heated rivalries that make sports great for fans are kept intact. The balls in your court now.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Photojournalists are Reporters Too
Justina Grant
Photo Editor, the North Star
In the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is stated that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech or of the press…” Most journalists are familiar with this freedom, considering how they are the press, and they freely write stories and columns to exercise this freedom. However, journalism doesn’t stop at stories and opinion pieces. Another element of the press that some people may overlook is photojournalists, or photographers. How many people look at a newspaper or magazine that doesn’t include photos? Are there even any newspapers or magazines in existence that don’t have photos? Not that I’m aware of. What draws readers’ attention to a particular publication isn’t usually the small black text organized neatly into columns, but photographs of the subject matter. Photojournalism is journalism, and photojournalists are the press.
Restricting photojournalists from taking or exposing harmless photos that are taken in public places is the exact same thing as censoring a journalist from writing a story in a publication. It is both illegal and unconstitutional. Last summer, a photographer in downtown Silver Springs, Md., was reported to the management office by a security guard who said that there was no picture taking allowed in downtown Silver Spring. According to the story on NowPublic.com, the man said to the security guard “I am on a city street, in a public place -- taking pictures is a right that I have protected by the first amendment.”
The photographer was right. Although the property was said to be privately owned by the Peterson Company, it was still bought using some public money and was actually leased to the Peterson Company by Montgomery County. Technically, the area was public, and angered photographers gathered at the spot later on to protest the injustice.
Even photos of a high school sporting event, there have still been cases of people in charge of the event telling the photographers that they could not publish the photographs that were taken. Americans must be more aware of the First Amendment and the rights that it instates. Freedom of the press involves both reporters and photojournalists, so neither can be legally censored.
Photo Editor, the North Star
In the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is stated that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech or of the press…” Most journalists are familiar with this freedom, considering how they are the press, and they freely write stories and columns to exercise this freedom. However, journalism doesn’t stop at stories and opinion pieces. Another element of the press that some people may overlook is photojournalists, or photographers. How many people look at a newspaper or magazine that doesn’t include photos? Are there even any newspapers or magazines in existence that don’t have photos? Not that I’m aware of. What draws readers’ attention to a particular publication isn’t usually the small black text organized neatly into columns, but photographs of the subject matter. Photojournalism is journalism, and photojournalists are the press.
Restricting photojournalists from taking or exposing harmless photos that are taken in public places is the exact same thing as censoring a journalist from writing a story in a publication. It is both illegal and unconstitutional. Last summer, a photographer in downtown Silver Springs, Md., was reported to the management office by a security guard who said that there was no picture taking allowed in downtown Silver Spring. According to the story on NowPublic.com, the man said to the security guard “I am on a city street, in a public place -- taking pictures is a right that I have protected by the first amendment.”
The photographer was right. Although the property was said to be privately owned by the Peterson Company, it was still bought using some public money and was actually leased to the Peterson Company by Montgomery County. Technically, the area was public, and angered photographers gathered at the spot later on to protest the injustice.
Even photos of a high school sporting event, there have still been cases of people in charge of the event telling the photographers that they could not publish the photographs that were taken. Americans must be more aware of the First Amendment and the rights that it instates. Freedom of the press involves both reporters and photojournalists, so neither can be legally censored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
