On Free Speech and Nazism

Free speech is commonly cited as being something fundamentally American – very few nations around the world, including other Western strongholds, permit their citizens absolute freedom in this regard. Take, for example, Germany. Present day Germany explicitly prohibits any outward manifestation of Nazi sentiments or affiliations. Nazism and Adolf Hitler left an indelible mark of shame upon the nation, and for that reason, Germany has resolved to purge it from her lands. Are such motions justified?
In brutally murdering nearly 12 million people, Nazi Germany permanently scarred the countless millions who lost loved ones. Germany's prohibition of Nazism may easily be justified as a small measure designed to protect those who have suffered so very much. In the United States, a country renowned for her freedom and equality, racially charged, incendiary groups are protected by the Constitution's First Amendment defense of freedom of speech. Which is correct – Germany in suppressing hate groups, or the United States in protecting them?
In developing an answer to this query, it is first necessary to explore major instances of first amendment right suspension in the United States. President Adams authorized the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, and President Wilson successfully sought the passage of the Sedition Act of 1918. In both instances, the federal government sought to limit and make punishable by force of law any speech or press that would threaten morale during times of war. Such limitations are nigh inconceivable to 21st century Americans. In restricting freedom of speech, the federal government is merely empowering itself. In robbing opposition of their voices, the balance of power shifts dramatically away from the people and to the government.
As such, preservation of freedom of speech is imperative, despite the protections afforded to hate groups. Public opinion and derision sufficiently quell the voice of such bodies – the government has no need to do so.

The Expansion of Free Speech

                Historically, free speech referred to media outlets exercising a constitutional right.  Today, I could fill a 250 word blog just by listing various outlets of free speech, thanks to technology and the ease of access it provides to the individual.  Now, one does not only think of a mass publication such as a magazine or a newspaper, or a syndicated television broadcast like a news production or documentary, as the primary utilization of the right to free speech.  Instead, while individuals can read a publication or turn into the television, they tend to also include an extensive list of ways to exercise free speech besides these two—surf the web, send an e-mail, compose a blog, create a website, host a chat session or chat room, write an editorial piece to be published by a third party site, engage in a Facebook conversation, send a text message, talk on the phone, mail a letter, fax a document, etc. 

                All in all, technology has increased the venues and inherently increased the ease with which individuals can exercise this right.  Additionally, this increase in free speech generates a multi-opinioned society.  The days of “one thought” or one organization’s thoughts heavily influencing a vast population are over.  They are replaced with conflicting views, which must each be supported by appropriate verification and validation.

Due to this fact, I believe that today’s society is better off in general.  Thanks to the increase in the exercise of free speech and the breadth of which one’s views can reach the public, we are no longer subjected to the knowledge, views, and information “given” by those who have access to means of delivery.  Instead, if you are willing to put for the effort to search, read, and explore these different venues, it is possible to educate yourself on almost any subject of interest, from multiple viewpoints and varying opinions.

Flaw of Free Speech

Free speech has been stretched too far.  In the times of the founders, free speech was implemented so the individual would be permitted to speak against those in rule.  The freedom to speak brought diversity into the opinions of the people and allowed growth in a developing society.  Latent ambiguity has played a vital role to many of our governing politics but in terms of free speech, our country has regressed.  Because of the largely unregulated spectrum of free speech, tabloids are now the poster-child for American culture and burning the country’s flag is legal. 

Free speech gives media the power to say almost anything they want.  We are showered daily with the opinions of writers on the “War in Iraq” or “the latest movie release” or “how parents should treat their children.”  Although “confronting the problems of unfiltered content” creates better citizens, this showering of opinions creates a bias in the content provided to the reader because the content released by media is controlled.  The large media businesses like New York Times or CNN all release or discuss content that favors their points of view.  Because of competition rooted in capitalism, the media is now controlled and express no diversity in opinion.  Therefore, free speech is flawed.

On the internet, we can view blogs, forums, and chats.  These online resources are the essentials of free speech.  They provide a common place for people to banter, support, and refute opinions.  This open source, “forum” style of free speech should be the model of free speech.  

A Bridge Between Two Worlds

Think about where you grew up, who your friends were, and what kind of school you went to. All of these are things that have shaped you in to the person that you are today. These items and situations that you have encountered with these items have also shaped your values, opinions, and ideas. We all grow up differently, with different parents, different friends, and in different environments. All of this combined means that we are all different when it comes to our values, opinions, and ideas. This shaping is not necessarily a bad thing, but it limits the diversity in which we are exposed to in our lifetime. Someone who grew up in California will have a completely different outlook on life than say someone who grew up in Alabama. Although there is nothing wrong with either of these lifestyles, these gaps in exposure can be closed with a little something called the internet.

Although some people may disagree, I believe that the internet has opened doors to free speech in a way that was unpredictable to the framers of our Constitution. Lessig makes the claim that there is “a value in confronting the unfiltered,” and the internet does just that. Although the internet can be filtered, so can aspects of real space. Just like the internet can keep you from certain web pages, your parents can keep you from being exposed to certain opinions or certain situations. I believe that this “unfiltered” world in which Lessig speaks of is most apparent on the internet, compared to anywhere else in society. The web creates an array of opportunities to search for information, gain knowledge, and teach one about diversity in other parts of the country, or even other parts of the world. With just the click of a few buttons, one can be exposed to the thoughts and opinions of millions. People often show this freedom by posting things on websites such as YouTube, Facebook, and community chat sites. The media is also able to express this freedom by having their own news sites, such as CNN, Fox News, and NBC. Most everyone has this opportunity to be involved, it all comes down to whether they take advantage of it or not.

So, although you may come from here, and I may come from there, we as people can become more connected with one another’s ideas because of the internet and the freedom that it gives us to speak our mind. Although some may argue that the internet is a filter, it is only what you make of it. If you choose to only enter web pages that are suitable to your opinions, then you are choosing to miss out on the wide variety of new and exciting opinions that are sitting there, waiting for you to read. The internet has done wondrous things for free speech. It has also helped us to create a more diverse society, which in turn will lead us to becoming a better nation.

FREE SPEECH

Free speech is the diversity of viewpoints. Anyone expose to the wide values ideas and perspectives. First amendment can get in the way of protecting free speech because the first amendment is accountable and thin. The right to freedom of speech is closely related to other rights. The right to freedom of speech is particularly important for media, which plays a special role as the holder of the general right to freedom of expression for all. Nowadays, there are many media such as internet offer us on a global scale of free speech. Here, anyone can say anything they wishes, anyone else free to heard and even can responds to the thought or perspective on any topics of discussion, for example, the Wikipedia. The aim is neutral as contributors feel free to edits and reedit to the frames of ideas neutrally. Free speech indirectly develop such a kind of community of people worldwide which collaborate working to converge upon truth across a wide range of topics. If we do believe that the nation depends on public look of new ideas, then the standard of freedom of speech is the most important value that society should support. The more experience someone has with the Internet the more strongly they generally believe in the importance of freedom of speech. This is because this personal experience has convinced them of the benefits of wide view expression. This online media offers the universal access to free speech and promotes the fundamental concept of freedom of speech.

Apple's Contribution to Preserving IP

As a major contributor and provider for technology in the current market, Apple is making great steps in preserving intellectual property through technologies. 

With the creation of iTunes and the corresponding iTunes Store, Apple has provided music listeners with an alternative to illegal fire sharing.  They have combined the ease of their reputable “user friendly” programming with online music downloads that go straight to the user.  The neat thing is that even though Apple provides a safe, easy, and high quality place to download music, they are not detracting from the original artists ability to make profit.  The way Apple has made deals with the publishing companies that represent the artists are in a way that the profit is divided into percentages so the artist, song-writer, publisher, producers, etc. all gain their share.

            Apple has also provided a way where programmers who write applications can host their freeware or shareware programs.  In the downloads section of Apple’s website there is a library of applications that either cost money to download or are free.  Many of these applications enhance the user friendliness of Apple’s software or provide neat additions to them.  This creates a symbiotic relationship with Apple and programmers by basically giving them a place to advertise their programs to make money (while Apple’s reputation and large security measures protect them), while these programmers uphold Apple’s reputation as well.

            Apple has integrated technology that can host programmers as well as musicians to provide greater, more reliable alternatives to illegal file sharing, thus, preserving intellectual property.

Less is More

Copyright is often seen as a good thing, and in most cases it is. It protects the individualistic ideas of citizens within our country. If someone comes up with an original idea, they should have the rights to that idea without anyone else being able to profit off it. I have no qualms with the idea of copyright itself, but rather the idea of how long that author is able to hold on to those rights.

As it is in effect right now, Spinello states that, copyright laws give authors “exclusive rights in their works, especially the right to make copies” for the author’s lifetime plus 70 years. No, I did not make a typo. Even 70 years after departing from this earth, an author is still able to hold on to the rights of their works without anyone easily making copies or using them. To me this seems a little absurd. It seems unnecessary that the author should hold the rights even after they have passed away. I think that it would be more logical to cut down those rights. The author did put a lot of long hours and hard work into their specific works and therefore should be rewarded for it, but only for a reasonable amount of time. I present that the author have copyright on their works for the period of their lifetime. This way, the author will have control and profits from their efforts all the days of their life and do not have to worry about anyone taking that from them. It makes no sense for them to still be profiting off of a work when they are not even alive anymore.

I will reiterate that I am in no way saying that copyright is a bad thing, but rather that it just needs some small revisions. By protecting these works for such a long period of time, I believe that we are only hindering our country, instead of providing it with incentive to be more creative. This would be a small effort that would reap an even greater change.