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.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Understanding the First Amendment
Free speech holds a great amount of value in the United States today, especially with all sorts of new technology, like computers and cell phones, but free speech is just one little part of the whole First Amendment.
Many people in the United States think that the First Amendment only contains the right to free speech, but it also includes the right to assemble peacefully, to practice a religion without persecution, and the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances".
Americans are always on the lookout for wrongs committed against freedom of speech, whether it be from a high school paper that was wrongly censored, to someone who has had their right to free speech taken away from them for no legitimate reason. But Americans need to realize that the other parts of the First Amendment are just as important.
The other rights in the First Amendment have just as much weight behind them as the right to free speech with significant backgrounds in history. The pilgrims and others like them left Europe because they were being persecuted for their religion, so they came to America, where they could practice their religion in peace. The Declaration of Independence is a petition to the English government for the wrongs committed against the American people.
The Founding Fathers understood the four rights contained in the First Amendment all had a certain importance to the Bill of Rights when they were writing it, so they chose those rights, not just freedom of speech, to comprise the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights for the citizens of the United States of America.
- Emily Baugh
Many people in the United States think that the First Amendment only contains the right to free speech, but it also includes the right to assemble peacefully, to practice a religion without persecution, and the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances".
Americans are always on the lookout for wrongs committed against freedom of speech, whether it be from a high school paper that was wrongly censored, to someone who has had their right to free speech taken away from them for no legitimate reason. But Americans need to realize that the other parts of the First Amendment are just as important.
The other rights in the First Amendment have just as much weight behind them as the right to free speech with significant backgrounds in history. The pilgrims and others like them left Europe because they were being persecuted for their religion, so they came to America, where they could practice their religion in peace. The Declaration of Independence is a petition to the English government for the wrongs committed against the American people.
The Founding Fathers understood the four rights contained in the First Amendment all had a certain importance to the Bill of Rights when they were writing it, so they chose those rights, not just freedom of speech, to comprise the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights for the citizens of the United States of America.
- Emily Baugh
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Fighting for Freedom of Speech 2400 Years Ago
While many people today take freedom of speech for granted, many people throughout history didn’t even know what this freedom was. In the past, few sought to tell their opinions and speak their minds in opposition to authorities. The few who did rise and say what they had to say would have had to be very brave characters.
In 339 BC, Socrates, considered today one of the greatest philosophers who ever lived, was put to trial by the Athenians for his social and moral criticism of the city. He was sentenced to death. Before his death, he challenged the government in a great speech, claiming that he was right and they were wrong. He never backed down, accusing his prosecutors and pointing out their faults. Socrates considered himself a teacher of morals to the people and spoke his mind even though he knew his words might lead to his death.
Socrates compared himself to a fly bothering a horse, the horse being the state. He was constantly criticizing, judging and urging the state to take moral and correct actions.
During his trial, Socrates said: “Men of Athens, I am grateful and I am your friend, but I will obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall not cease to practice philosophy, to exhort you…” (Plato, Apology. 30E). Though he knew this would anger the people, he told them he would keep criticizing them and teaching them as long as he could; he would continue being the fly bothering the horse. Socrates’ words and actions, which angered and contradicted the state, eventually cost him his life.
Americans today, as possessors of the great liberty of free speech, the freedom to say whatever they want whenever they want, should remember Socrates and his persistency. Socrates stood up to authorities in a time when speech was not a freedom.
-Naama Levy
In 339 BC, Socrates, considered today one of the greatest philosophers who ever lived, was put to trial by the Athenians for his social and moral criticism of the city. He was sentenced to death. Before his death, he challenged the government in a great speech, claiming that he was right and they were wrong. He never backed down, accusing his prosecutors and pointing out their faults. Socrates considered himself a teacher of morals to the people and spoke his mind even though he knew his words might lead to his death.
Socrates compared himself to a fly bothering a horse, the horse being the state. He was constantly criticizing, judging and urging the state to take moral and correct actions.
During his trial, Socrates said: “Men of Athens, I am grateful and I am your friend, but I will obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall not cease to practice philosophy, to exhort you…” (Plato, Apology. 30E). Though he knew this would anger the people, he told them he would keep criticizing them and teaching them as long as he could; he would continue being the fly bothering the horse. Socrates’ words and actions, which angered and contradicted the state, eventually cost him his life.
Americans today, as possessors of the great liberty of free speech, the freedom to say whatever they want whenever they want, should remember Socrates and his persistency. Socrates stood up to authorities in a time when speech was not a freedom.
-Naama Levy
Friday, April 11, 2008
In a little less than a month, Indiana will hold its first meaningful primary in forty years. With 84 democratic delegates up for grabs, and only 143 delegates separating Barack Obama from Hilary Clinton, there’s a lot at stake in this primary.
For many people our age, this will be the first time they get to make a difference in the political process. For eighteen years, voting has been distant and far-off. But now many high school students are forced to actually contemplate who they think will do a better job of leading America.
When the stakes are so high, it is absolutely necessary that they take voting seriously. Being allowed to effect change in one’s own government is a right which should not be taken lightly. It is an incredibly important part of freedom of expression, and with this right comes the responsibility to sincerely weigh the options available to them.
This is the closest nomination contest in years. No matter which candidate comes out on top, there will be a large-scale change in the new administration from the past one. It is in the voters hands to make that change. As new voters, high school students might not yet be aware of the power they wield. They should realize that voting is an important right which is an integral part of their freedom of expression.
-Stan deRuijter
Staff Writer
For many people our age, this will be the first time they get to make a difference in the political process. For eighteen years, voting has been distant and far-off. But now many high school students are forced to actually contemplate who they think will do a better job of leading America.
When the stakes are so high, it is absolutely necessary that they take voting seriously. Being allowed to effect change in one’s own government is a right which should not be taken lightly. It is an incredibly important part of freedom of expression, and with this right comes the responsibility to sincerely weigh the options available to them.
This is the closest nomination contest in years. No matter which candidate comes out on top, there will be a large-scale change in the new administration from the past one. It is in the voters hands to make that change. As new voters, high school students might not yet be aware of the power they wield. They should realize that voting is an important right which is an integral part of their freedom of expression.
-Stan deRuijter
Staff Writer
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Freedom of speech is not excuse for slander
Juicycampus.com has recently been a frequent news story. It is a gossip site, whose slogan states “Always anonymous…Always juicy…”
Juicy campus is full of anonymous sources posting on sexually explicit subjects as well as fellow students. The problem with the anonymousness of the site is that it only applies to the poster, not the person being talked about. The site, which includes an Indiana University chapter, is full of names of university members.
While the site is infamous for accusing innocent and naïve students of being “the biggest sluts on campus” there is plenty more gossiping going on. The site also accuses professors of sleeping with students and having STDs, which is an accusation that could very negative affect that professor’s career.
What’s the site’s excuse for all this “anonymous” posting? The first amendment of course. A California court agreed, backing up forums everywhere.
However, that ruling only protects California, leaving the rest of the world to fight for their rights. The first amendment was put in place to protect the public, not as an excuse to publicly humiliate peers and post slander.
So far, there have been a few arrests through Juicy Campus. Posts about school shootings are taken very seriously, and a few posters have been arrested. This is a very small number of users and has yet to discourage students from using the site.
Fighting against websites like Juicy Campus is protecting the first amendment’s reputation, because like the law also states everyone has the right to a good reputation.
- Kali Skiles
reviews editor
Juicy campus is full of anonymous sources posting on sexually explicit subjects as well as fellow students. The problem with the anonymousness of the site is that it only applies to the poster, not the person being talked about. The site, which includes an Indiana University chapter, is full of names of university members.
While the site is infamous for accusing innocent and naïve students of being “the biggest sluts on campus” there is plenty more gossiping going on. The site also accuses professors of sleeping with students and having STDs, which is an accusation that could very negative affect that professor’s career.
What’s the site’s excuse for all this “anonymous” posting? The first amendment of course. A California court agreed, backing up forums everywhere.
However, that ruling only protects California, leaving the rest of the world to fight for their rights. The first amendment was put in place to protect the public, not as an excuse to publicly humiliate peers and post slander.
So far, there have been a few arrests through Juicy Campus. Posts about school shootings are taken very seriously, and a few posters have been arrested. This is a very small number of users and has yet to discourage students from using the site.
Fighting against websites like Juicy Campus is protecting the first amendment’s reputation, because like the law also states everyone has the right to a good reputation.
- Kali Skiles
reviews editor
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Recently, in a Burke County school in Morganton, North Carolina, Khaled Hosseini’s novel The Kite Runner came under fire, for being “inappropriate” reading material for high school students. In one scene of the book, a young boy is brutally attacked and raped. Because of this scene, some parents now want the book removed from the tenth-grade reading list.
Although these parents mean well, they are hardly doing their children any service. By deciding that a book such as The Kite Runner unsuitable, these parents are insulting the intelligence and maturity levels of their children. They are high school students; they will soon be adults, and they are old enough to handle the subjects discussed in The Kite Runner. Some scenes in the book are somewhat hard to stomach, but that hardly constitutes it being banned.
The novel has important themes and morals, which students can learn a lot from. Attempting to censor it does much more damage than good. By doing so, these parents will only increase interest in the book, and will make the students who haven’t been assigned to read the book interested as well. Soon the decision will be made by the school board about whether or not the novel will be removed from the reading list. If the members of the school board have any sense of what is right, they will throw out this case and keep The Kite Runner on the required reading list.
-Zhaleh Breen
Although these parents mean well, they are hardly doing their children any service. By deciding that a book such as The Kite Runner unsuitable, these parents are insulting the intelligence and maturity levels of their children. They are high school students; they will soon be adults, and they are old enough to handle the subjects discussed in The Kite Runner. Some scenes in the book are somewhat hard to stomach, but that hardly constitutes it being banned.
The novel has important themes and morals, which students can learn a lot from. Attempting to censor it does much more damage than good. By doing so, these parents will only increase interest in the book, and will make the students who haven’t been assigned to read the book interested as well. Soon the decision will be made by the school board about whether or not the novel will be removed from the reading list. If the members of the school board have any sense of what is right, they will throw out this case and keep The Kite Runner on the required reading list.
-Zhaleh Breen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
