Freedom?

Aizat Ismail.

I define free speech as a type of freedom that has its own category. A category which can be understood easily if we know the basic concept of free speech. Basically, I lack some parts of it but I know the values that exist within the free speech. In fact, it will not be necessarily true if we think of free speech as free speech, however, it would be much easier if we think of free speech as diverse viewpoints. By considering the opinions of others and not just constraints your thoughts only to something of your interests, would enable one to experience the true meaning of free speech. Again, if you engage in filtering, it means you are not engage in diverse viewpoints. For example, you focus more on Fox News in which the contents are toward more on conservative side and then you decide not to watch the New York News in which the contents are toward more on liberal side. Think about it. How is that going to help you learn the way things in our surrounding works and cooperate with each other? Is it even possible to say that one does engage merely in free speech which also known as diverse viewpoints when such act is applied in his or her daily life? As in individual, we can also define free speech as the rights of individual while for community or society; it is an expression of diversity of viewpoints. In the Unites States, free speech is expressed in the first amendment being stated that no restrictions should be established on expressions of our thoughts. That is why the term of diverse viewpoints is better to be used to describe the free speech and to think how freedom is much related to it.

Can you really define the First Amendment?

The First Amendment is ambiguous and for this it isn’t even made clear by those that are appointed to interpret it. Anthony Lewis has been writing about the justice system and the press for over 40 years, and in his book “Freedom for the Thought We Hate” he argued that the First Amendment is poorly understood and for much of its history has been poorly protected by the courts. Part of the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.” I think this lack of specificity makes the First Amendment powerful yet unreliable at times. It is powerful because it can last and make sense for means of interpretation to every generation in every time period. It is unreliable because of the “intentional” vagueness and the amount of mistakes that humans make interpreting the legality in accordance with this amendment. This is why Lewis feels that this poorly understood amendment has been poorly protected. It makes sense because everyone throughout history that stood up for free speech were punished until 1931 as Lewis stated. People of this nation had bad opinions about the president at the time and were placed in prison. This was because of Sedition Acts that were put into action and the acts are a direct violation of the freedom of speech but judges at the time were allowing people to be placed in jail. As expressed in Lessig, just like filtering is occuring today in cyberspace, Americans of the past were forced to silence of filtered thoughts of war and presidential decisions and it shows that history continues to repat itself event to this day. Therefore the First Amendment is still poorly protected.

Can Bloggers Save Journalism?

Chris Johnson
Often when I’m reading the newspaper or watching the news, I get tired of hearing about the same sorts of stories all of the time. Also, while most stories are strictly informative, some are presented with biased opinions when all I really want to know is the facts. The reason for this, I believe, is that newspaper while they do aim to inform readers of news, are profit driven. In order to maximize profits they must carefully choose which stories they publish and how they approach certain issues in the news. Personally I don’t think that there is anything wrong with this, because profits are important for newspapers to stay afloat. However, I do believe that there needs to be a medium of information transfer that does not have profits as one of its main motives. This is why I believe that blogs are so great. People get to tell the stories they believe are important and the floor is open for anyone who has an opinion. Blogs are created strictly for making information known. It is true that sometimes there are issues on the validity of the information or that the opinions of bloggers are questioned, but what is so great about blogs is that people can come in, read the blogs, get the facts straight, and then also tell how they feel about the issue. Newspapers don’t provide this. With technology becoming more and more advanced, I think that blogs are going to become more important and I believe that it is a great thing.

Value of free speech

Written By Lily Syafikah Mansor

Everyone in this world has their own freedom to voice out what they think. We cannot be jailed if we criticize someone. We have right to speak up. First Amendment is intended to protect the value of free speech from restrictions of government. People might believe that government is only a threat to free speech. It is undeniable that sometime government did restrict some speeches. However, the truth is government zoning the access which mean there is transparent and reason why we could not access on the web. In other hand, private companies might even more mean as they did filtered the speech that they don’t want and we even don’t know any transparent that prohibit us from access to the web. I think zoning is done correspond with what government thought good for the community and the good is at least we knew the reason we could not access compare to filtering.”The architecture of cyberspace is the real protector of speech",Lessig. For me, I agree with what Lessig tries to point out because even though the free speech is officially and legally protected under First Amendment but cyberspace is indirectly seem protected the value of free speech. This is because free speech is absolutely applies on cyberspace. It seems visualize what the free speech is. People could say anything that they want and voice out their opinion without worries that they will be sue or something. Nowadays, we could search and read a lot of sources in the cyberspace. Many people do blogging, like what I’m doing right now. I’m writing blog to speak up my opinion other than be asked by Prof. Am I will be sue if what I’m said might offense someone? Of course not because this is what the free speech is. Wikipedia basically is written by amateur that writing because they love to instead of do it because of money. Wikipedia and blog is broad base. There are no guarantees that the writing will be true 100% but there is guarantee on the process which is the collaboration process involved in working toward truth. This make free speech is valuable because we could exchange ideas with others.

Free Speech In Cyberspace

written by Ikhwan Jamaludin (free speech)

When we talk about free speech we always think that free speech comes into word from our tongue. So, when we say something, someone will agree with us and maybe someone will argue us. That is life. But, still there are also some restrictions in free speech according to First Amendment. Nowadays, free speech not only comes from our tongue, it also can come from our hand through cyberspace. According to Lessig, free speech in cyberspace is "relative anonymity, decentralized distribution, multiple points of access, no necessary tie to geography, and no simple system to identify content, tools of encryption". For me, free speech on cyberspace gives us a big impact. If, we want to argue something, we argue by speak out the argument to the public, but, maybe no one want to listen to us because we have no position in community and knowledge about it. Differently, through cyberspace, free speech attracts more attention from others to hear and see what we want to point out in our concern, comment or argument in our free speech. In cyberspace, we can describe our speech more clearly and express it creatively through a video or flash player to emphasize what we want to point out. Sometimes, free speech in cyberspace was trespass by society. So, here is where the First Amendment was read differently for cyberspace to protect free speech. The first amendment in cyberspace is like the first amendment with no regulation Like Lessig said in code, a First Amendment is "more extreme in code than our own First Amendment in law". So, from this understanding, internet actually is just like a medium of free speech to be practiced. Even though, it is easier to practice free speech in cyberspace and trespassing it but still there is restriction from the First Amendment to protect free speech.

Its Mine Now!

Chris Johnson

What if you were forced to keep everything you were ever, given as a gift, found, or purchased? Even when you were tired of it and ready for something new, you still have to keep it; your only option would be to give it away to someone else free of charge. Not only would your home be full of junk, you would be unable to purchase many new items because you could not make money off of your old ones. Obviously this is an absurd idea. I believe that once you purchase something it is yours to do any legal thing you’d like with it. This is the issue at hand with the First Sale Doctrine and Universal Music Groups suit against Troy Augusto. Augusto makes a living buying and selling CDs on Ebay, and Universal is trying to say he is breaking the law because these CD’s are theirs. In past cases involving both purchased items and items given as a gift, the First Sale Doctrine has been upheld and the owners were able to sell their items as they pleased. I believe this is the way that things should be. If the Supreme Court were to deny Augusto the right to sell his CDs they would open up a can of worms that would be difficult to deal with. Anyone who ever made something would be able to deny the owner the right to sell. People would be complaining everywhere. I don’t think it is a serious issue if someone doesn’t want something they made sold, but this should be made clear to the person who receives it before hand. Any sort of sticker or written document that states the provisions of the agreement would ensure that the sorts of issues don’t arise.

Politicizing Copyright

Chris Johnson

Imagine this; you are protesting at a local pro-life rally when a news reporter comes up to you to ask a few questions. You answer them and conclude your argument with the statement “who are these political leaders to decide who gets to kill another living being”. The next thing you know you see your face all over the news and internet with your words “kill another living being” taken completely out of context. Is this fair? Of course not, but it happens all of the time. Take the proposition 8 example giving in the recording. These kids attended a lesbian wedding of one of their school teachers, and the next thing they knew, they were all over pro-prop 8 videos. These kids aren’t even old enough to know about these sorts of issues but yet they are forced into them without consent. Is it fair to categorize them with one belief without their consent? I for one am strongly against gay marriages, but I still believe that the news clip of these children was used unlawfully. Lessig says that copyright laws function to create and incentive for people to create great new works, and I am a firm believer in this. However, I’m also a firm believer that copyright laws should protect from wrongful usage by others. There is a very thin line between these two things, but I believe that only when this line is firmly establish will we be able enjoy the great new works that Lessig speaks of.