Recent Posts:

Archive for November, 2011

« Older Entries

Twitter, Brownback, and “The True Meaning of Free Speech” (#heblowsalot)

Monday, November 28th, 2011

By Joel LeVangia

By now you’ve probably seen that Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has blamed his “staff” for “overreacting” to a tweet written by a Kansas high school student that read: “Just made mean comments at gov. brownback and told him he sucked, in person (hash)heblowsalot.” Brownback proceeded to apologize for the “overreaction of his staff” saying, “Freedom of speech is among our most treasured freedoms.” And what do you know, Brownback? Freedom of speech IS one of our most treasured freedoms! What a wonderful opportunity for all of us to be informed of that! I am so glad your “staff” bullied some teenage girl so we could all be informed of something I’m pretty sure most Americans know already.

To be clear, the young lady in question, Emma Sullivan, was being lectured by Brownback when she sent the offending (to some) tweet. The governor’s “staff” which monitors social media for mentions of the present gubernatorial name “Brownback,” saw the tweet and contacted the Youth in Government program Ms. Sullivan was attending. This led to Ms. Sullivan allegedly spending an hour in a principal’s office being given various bullet points for an apology letter from her to the governor.

To her credit, Ms. Sullivan refused and was assisted by her elder sister Olivia, who exercised her freedom of speech and alerted the media. The media, in turn, exercised its freedom of speech and proceeded to beat Mssr. Brownback’s “staff” with the “freedom of speech” stick. This sequence of events culminated in the patronizing reminder from g. Brownback that “Freedom of speech is among our most treasured freedoms.” Although not before Ms. Sullivan’s school district issued a statement saying in part, “Whether and to whom any apologies are issued will be left to the individuals involved. The issue has resulted in many teachable moments concerning the use of social media. The district does not intend to take any further action on this matter.”

Regrettably, the district has not fully appreciated some of the “learnable” moments from the episode. They, like the governor, suffer from sort of a freedom of speech deficit disorder. If they were exercising their freedoms as they and all Americans should, their statements might have read:

Brownback: My staff, who I hired and am responsible for, took issue with a public statement by a citizen of the great state of Kansas and proceeded to contact her school to inform them of the comment. The likely intent of this communication was to harass, intimidate, and silence the citizen concerned. It is deeply wrong to manifestly and intentionally suppress dissent in a country founded on the same. I know this, my staff knows this, and our actions in response to the initial comment have been at least as immature and irresponsible as the comment itself. I apologize to all the citizens of Kansas and specifically to Miss Emma Sullivan for our lapse in judgment – which will not be repeated.

Shawnee Mission East School District: In response to a communication from Governor Sam Brownback’s office, the Shawnee Mission East School district and some of its employees made a bad situation worse. After being informed of a negative “tweet” from one of our high school seniors, we attempted to coerce a letter of apology out of the young lady to be sent to the governor’s office. This hypothetical letter could in no way affect the governor and was therefore merely to be a symbol of institutional control over an individual. The Shawnee Mission East School District and its employees must never forget that as a public American institution, it and they have a responsibility to inculcate the highest ideals of this country in its students. Those same students are bound to say dumb things on twitter, but the Shawnee Mission East School District must always respect their right to say them – particularly when they in no way reference the district itself. For this reason we apologize to Miss Emma Sullivan for intervening on the governor’s behalf against her freedom of speech. We promise to be more vigilant in the face of future temptations to pervert the paths of American public discourse.

To which Ms. Sullivan might reasonably reply: I am gratified by the statements issued by the governor and the school district. Although I was initially disappointed by the reaction to my tweet, which I consider merely a means of communicating to a large group of my “friends” or “twitter followers” at the same time, I am now satisfied that the appropriate attitudes have set in. I realize that things I publish on twitter have the potential to reflect more broadly than my own personal “circle of acquaintances” and in retrospect regret characterizing the governor as a person who “fellates often, frequently, or to a great degree,” as the hashtag I assigned to him indicates. However, we should all recognize that the restrictive nature of tweeting and the difficulty of fully expressing oneself in 140 characters can prevent the complete development of ideas. With this in mind, I would like to apologize to the governor for my crude expression and promise him that I will work to achieve at least as much publicity for the fully articulated reasons I disagree with his policies as this unfortunate episode has generated.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Law and Cultural Policy, News | 4 Comments »

A Conversation with Mayor Ed Koch

Monday, November 28th, 2011

By Ben Falk

Ed Koch has done a lot of things. He was a soldier. He was a U.S Congressman. He was reelected three times as Mayor of New York City. He was the judge on the television series “The People’s Court.” He is a movie critic. He is a lifelong advocate for the people of New York City.

By doing a lot of things, Koch has lived quite the life. He was born in the Bronx, but raised in Newark, New Jersey. Eventually, after high school, he was drafted into the Army and fought in World War II. He landed in France a few months after Normandy and earned numerous medals during the war. Then in 1969 he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives for the 17th District of New York. In Congress, he was an opponent of the Vietnam War and a strong supporter of civil rights. He stayed in Congress until 1977, when he ran, beating incumbent mayor Abe Beam, and was elected Mayor of New York City. He remained Mayor until 1989. While his life as a public servant may have been over, he was no less busy. He taught at Brandeis, writes movie reviews for The Huffington Post, writes restaurant reviews, and continually lectures on countless issues.

Luckily for the Forum on Law, Culture and Society, he will do one more thing: participate in the Forum’s conversation series. He is the perfect Forum guest. His years in public life give him a unique perspective on the issues facing New Yorkers. However, this isn’t totally unique. There are a lot of people in public life and a lot of those people have joined us at the Forum. What is so unique about Mayor Koch is his ability is to speak intelligently on political, legal, and cultural issues – really, any relating to law, culture and society. Just like the Forum.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Events, Film Festival, Forum Guests, Law and Cultural Policy, Series Review | No Comments »

Moral Punishment for a Moral Failure?

Saturday, November 19th, 2011

By Mara Wishingrad

In his article, “Penn State’s Tragedy Enabled By Coaches and Others Who Looked Away,” Forum director Thane Rosenbaum argues that the moral failures of Joe Paterno, Mike McQueary and Graham Spanier were aided by a “a lackluster legal system.” Because there is no legal duty to rescue, these men are immune from criminal punishment. In place of the traditional legal remedy of jail time, Paterno, McQueary and Spanier must instead face moral censure.

Does this form of punishment fit the crime? Perhaps.

Public shame is powerful and common form of extra-legal punishment. As Rosenbaum points out in his article, in situations where there are no formal legal consequences for a moral failure, “the community responds with its own harsh judgment and exacts a punishment of moral censure.” In some ways, moral censure may seem like a more powerful punishment than jail time. Jail time in the case of McQueary et al. would likely be finite, while moral censure will follow these men all their lives. Furthermore, with the aid of plea bargains and other such legal tactics, the Penn State trio might be able to mitigate or avoid their sentences. Public shame, on the other hand, is inescapable.

However, while moral censure may seem to be an appropriate remedy for moral failure, it may be an ineffective deterrent. Perhaps if there were an affirmative legal duty to rescue, McQueary et al. would have taken action to prevent Jerry Sandusky’s atrocious crimes. If this is true, Rosenbaum was correct to conclude that our legal system aided these men in their moral failure.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Law and Cultural Policy | 8 Comments »

The Social Media Candidate

Friday, November 18th, 2011

By Rebecca Seif

Two nights ago, I settled onto my couch to catch up on The Good Wife. Although the show is almost completely unrealistic from a practical standpoint in that first year associates argue cases at trial and every attorney in the firm practices every kind of law, I still find it irresistibly entertaining. One of the sub-plots of the most recent episode dealt with an issue that I have been thinking about for years. Specifically, what is going to happen when the social media generation starts running for political office?

In The Good Wife, the character Eli Gold, an advisor on campaigns and crisis management, is shown a picture of a potential candidate and asked what should be done to prevent it from blowing up as a media story. We learn that it is a photograph of the candidate pretending to perform a sexual act on a fake Santa Claus. When confronted with this image, the candidate starts laughing and says something along the lines of, “You can’t be serious – this was over 10 years ago when I was a stupid college kid.”

The issue for Eli Gold is, of course, that this photograph represents the candidate’s poor moral character. As he struggles with this problem, I had to smile. This question is one that I have raised in multiple conversations. How is anyone who is part of our generation going to be able to run for political office?

I don’t have the specific numbers, but I would venture to guess that a majority of Americans in their 20s are on either Facebook or Twitter or both. Speaking from personal experience, there are definitely some photos on Facebook that could easily be used against me were I to run for political office. These photos are not incriminating – or maybe they are to the extent they represent underage drinking – but presented in the wrong context, they could definitely raise questions about my “moral character.” Much like the fictional candidate in The Good Wife, I know that these pictures are harmless and just depict the fun I had in college. To others, however, I suppose they could represent my moral failings.

Even if someone has never subscribed to Facebook, there are still almost certainly pictures of them on someone else’s profile. The fact of the matter is, there are pictures or blog posts or tweets regarding everyone – saint and sinner alike. So, my next question is, in the next decade or so, are our moral “standards” going to change with regard to politicians? Is a photograph that would be considered a scandal in today’s political media culture still going to be able to bring a politician down in the future? I would hope that if every potential candidate has similar pictures, releasing them to the public would become a moot point. However, it is also entirely possible that campaigns will turn into one morally questionable picture after another. Either way, it’s something interesting to think about.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Law and Cultural Policy, Series Review | 5 Comments »

What About the Victims?

Monday, November 14th, 2011

By Jessica Parra

America’s latest bout of high-profile political and celebrity scandals presents a disgusting trend growing more and more common in American society – our willingness to completely ignore the victim.

The words Herman Cain, Penn State, and even, heaven forbid, Angelina Jolie all invoke a sense of outrage from popular culture, but what exactly is the outrage?

With Herman Cain, we are obsessed with the fact that past allegations might and probably should completely derail his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. At every turn, he seemingly proves himself to be more and more dishonest and suspect, claiming in the first place not to know about any settlements. Then he acknowledged that he knew about the settlements, but in his own words, had never settled on sexual harassment claims “outside of the National Restaurant Association”….as if. Cain’s later admissions resulted in his own unintended waiver of confidentiality regarding these settlements, allowing the women in the settlements to come forward and speak in very specfic detail about what happened to them. One would think that this would be the focus of conversation about Cain – what, exactly, he allegedly did to these women. Instead, what we get is even more conversation about Cain and what a jerk he is and how he shouldn’t be president and how he is a sexist and bla bla bla. Do we even know the names of the victims? Do their names come up in our conversations? Do the details of their allegations get more than a soundbyte? Not usually.

With Penn State, we are obsessed with the way Joe Paterno was fired and how we feel about the reactions of the students who vehemently defend the coaches, the institution, and or the athletes. In the meantime, there are 8 children that were raped. Again – EIGHT CHILDREN were RAPED. Should we be talking about that? Or should we be talking about how sad it is that now Penn State students might have to be ashamed of their alma mater? Should we be obsessed with whether and how what happened to these children is going to affect them for the rest of their lives, and how the society that allowed this to happen to them is now even more responsible for doing everything it can to bring Sandusky to justice and, even more, to somehow try to make these children whole again, or at least less broken? Or should we be talking about how Joe Paterno is a great guy who “made a mistake”?

I mention Angelina Jolie because she has a movie coming out this winter about a love story between a Bosnian woman and a Serbian man during the Bosnian war and genocide. The details of the plot have been controversial – not in America of course because we would never criticize the queen of all celebrities – but in Bosnia, due to the fact that Bosnian war and genocide survivors, mostly female, have strongly objected to the story since, reportedly, the Bosnian woman in the film falls in love with her male Serbian rapist. Angelina Jolie urges us not to judge the film until we see it, and it’s unclear whether this is exactly what the film is about, but the Bosnian government revoked Jolie’s filming permit due to their offense at this alleged plot and Jolie was forced to film the rest of the movie in Budapest and stage it as Sarajevo. Now, if female Bosnian war survivors are objecting to a plot about a female Bosnian war survivor, it seems clear that the film is probably going to be horribly offensive and inaccurate as far as they are concerned. Will Americans flock to it anyways? Yes. Will Jolie be lambasted in American culture for what will potentially be a tasteless and exploitative portrayal of, as she explains it, “how human relationships and behavior are deeply affected by living inside a war?” No. Why? Because Americans couldn’t care less about the victims.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Law and Cultural Policy, Movie Review, News | 8 Comments »

Thane Rosenbaum on Penn State: The Moral Crime of a Silent Bystander

Monday, November 14th, 2011

By Patricia Chang

It’s hard to identify what exactly is the most shocking element of the Penn State tragedy. Jerry Sandusky’s repeated sexual assault of numerous minor boys is surely at the top of the list, but what about the graduate assistant, Mike McQueary, who witnessed the abuse first-hand and, instead of immediately calling the police, called his father? What about Joe Paterno, who was made aware of Sandusky’s actions and allowed it to continue? And what of the Penn State rioters who make Paterno out to be the victim?

Forum director Thane Rosenbaum shares his thoughts on the moral responsibilities of a bystander who has the ability to help — and the societal repercussions of one who fails to do so — in an article for the Daily Beast: Penn State’s Tragedy Enabled by Coaches and Others Who Looked Away.

In light of the recently disseminated Grand Jury report regarding Mike McQueary’s testimony, it is hard to fathom that Paterno, knowing what he knew, failed to act, and Sandusky was permitted to continue:

As the graduate assistant entered the locker room doors, he was surprised to find the lights and showers on. He then heard rhythmic slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity. As the graduate assistant put the sneakers in his locker, he looked into the shower.

He saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Law and Cultural Policy, News | 4 Comments »

Tax Credit Veto

Saturday, November 12th, 2011

By H. Berman

Back in September, NJ Governor Chris Christie vetoed a tax credit of $420,000, which had been approved by the state’s Economic Development Authority for the production company of the reality show, “Jersey Shore.” The “Jersey Shore” tax credit, or as some are calling it, the “Snooki subsidy,” is part of a program that grants film and TV production companies a 20% tax credit on the money they spend in the state. It provides an incentive for tv and film production companies to film in the state.

Governor Christie, along with a lot of other angry New Jersey residents, hold the opinion that to allow such a tax credit would perpetuate negative stereotypes about the state and its residents. Shockingly, many New Jersey taxpayers were angered that the “Jersey Shore” tax credit would essentially mean they were subsidizing the cast members’ G-T-L (gym, tan, laundry).

According to an article in USA Today posted on September 16, 2011, initially, Christie’s spokesman, Michael Drewniak, indicated that the “Jersey Shore” production company met the requirements for the tax credit and that “[i]f the Legislature has buyer’s remorse, they are free to fix it.” Clearly, Christie changed his view a few weeks later.

Could the denial of the “Jersey Shore” tax credit actually leave the state of New Jersey vulnerable to a lawsuit? Questions have arisen as to whether Governor Christie’s decision to deny the “Jersey Shore” tax credit was proper, considering other tv shows and productions have received the benefit and the production company clearly did spend money in the state of New Jersey. Some have argued that Governor Christie is essentially acting as a censor in violation of the First Amendment. Governor Christie (and many New Jersey citizens) feel the show reflects poorly on the state. Even still, does this allow Christie to deny a tax credit for the show because he does not approve of the content?

Tags: , ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Law and Cultural Policy, News | 1 Comment »

How Do You Do New York?

Friday, November 11th, 2011

By K.K.

“How do you do New York?” These words caught my eye from a scene in the movie Kramer v. Kramer. The advertising workaholic father – Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) – had them in bold font in what looked like a newspaper cutout, sitting directly in the center of his bulletin board at his work place. Consequently, this scene was delivered to us after Ted Kramer’s wife had left him with their only son Billy (Justin Henry). I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that the director intentionally put those words there – center-stage, completely isolated from the rest of the bundled, indistinguishable pieces of paper. And why not? The truth is it is a perfect question considering the context. Kramer serves as a microcosm of the way in which so many New Yorkers inevitably end up. Working too hard while your personal life decays, not noticing that life is passing you by – not even realizing when you and one of the most important people in your life are being irreparably distanced.

So how do you do New York? Are you working the 9-5 to pay off debts? Has it been so long since the 1980’s, or does Loverboy’s motto still ring true that “everybody’s working for the weekend?” Maybe you already found your place – you know in your heart of hearts that what your doing is completely fulfilling. Or maybe your like the trust fund baby I met last weekend that was shoveling lines of cocaine into his nose explaining how his contribution to the world simply revolves around spending money.

In the pursuit of happiness we must find ways to afford it. In the attempt, for many of us, every time we reach a goal the finish line gets farther away. You get into school – you need the job. You get the job – you need to pay off your debt. You pay off your debt – you need to get promoted. You get promoted – you need the corner office. What was once a sustainable existence in the middle-class – the equilibrium between an individual’s professional work and personal life – is now being assaulted and erased from the constructs of the American economy due to a polarization of wealth. The “American Dream” has become an out of date expression – as if you dusted off an old post card from the industrial revolution. And as we wake from the reverie, we find ourselves in a state of political deadlock (where presidential candidates are either unqualified, guilty of sexual offenses, utterly crazy, or unable to recall even their own personal political platforms), an economic recession that is only rivaled by the single worst economic downturn in the history of the country, a litany of graduates whom have been failed by the educational institutions who continue to churn out record numbers of applicants and graduates every year, with a generation of texting, tweeting, closed-minded materialistic drones that are about to inherit this blissfully broken system.

I’m not sitting here telling you that America sucks. On the contrary, I’m proud to be an American. (If you don’t like the home team, you can get the hell out of the stadium). I’m sitting here telling you that the way I see it, George Orwell’s 1984 isn’t that far off. We may not have overt suppression of freedom of thought and people sitting in vans outside our homes – but we have the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act and an environment in which there are so many distractions that our baseline common sense has been sold up the river according to quarterly profits.

In the words of Frank Sinatra “If you can make it here you can make it anywhere.” So maybe it always has been this way and this is just the way it is. But the point is simply – at what fundamental costs will making it in the world today come? How many positive life experiences do you have to disregard? How many relationships will be unfulfilled? How much of your self will be inexorably stripped off and sold at a price?

At the end of the road when you add it all up, will the security and material possession you’ve gained and horded be less than or greater than all that you have given up to get there?

Tags: , ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog | 5 Comments »

The Saharawi “Problem”

Thursday, November 10th, 2011

Recently, I watched The Problem, testimony of the Saharawi people, a documentary about the situation in the occupied territory of Western Sahara. This Spanish documentary, realized by Jordi Ferrer and Pablo Vidal, shows us the repression of the Saharawi people by the Moroccan security force and includes victim testimony about repression. This movie is being shown at film festivals all around Europe and even in Mexico. It received a lot of prizes,including the Amnesty International prize at the Human Rights Film Festival in San Sebastian, Spain.

The situation in Western Sahara is murky. This territory is a former Spanish colony in North Africa. In 1975, Spain abandoned the territory without holding a referendum on self-determination recommended by the United Nation for the former colonies. It is since recognized as a non-autonomous territory (non-decolonize territory with the right of self-determination). Morocco took advantage of the situation by invading the territory and illegally occupying a part of Western Sahara.

The civil population has always claimed its right to self-determination, but that claim has always been violently repressed by Morocco. The Saharawi people live in a world where their culture, language, and songs are repressed. The documentary depicts the violently repressive lives lived by the civilian population in the occupied territory. Every Saharawi lives with the daily threats of arrest and torture simply for being Saharawi. The images were filmed clandestinely because the Moroccan government wants to keep the situation hidden. They want no visual proof about what is happening there. So, this is a valuable documentary.

One year ago, the Saharawi people started a campaign of nonviolent protest. They created a camp, regrouping 25,000 civilians, and asked for a referendum about independence and respect for civil and social rights. The Moroccan security forces reacted violently by destroying the camp, arresting and torturing people. The Saharawi people were the precursor to the Arab Spring, a revolutionary wave of demonstrations that began in mid-December, 2010. Yet, unlike demonstrators in Tunisia and Egypt, the world remains oblivious to the Saharawi’s plight. The question is why? Morocco is not a democratic country like Tunisia or Libya. The only difference between the Saharawi people and with the others experiencing the Arab Spring is that the Saharawi people don’t use violence: no terrorist attacks. 

Aminatou Haidar, a Saharawi defender of human rights, said “surely we’d heard more about this conflict if our people committed acts of terrorism. Will we only be heard if we resort to practicing violence in the occupied territories? I repeat over and over again, we’re a peaceful people and violence is what we suffer and this violence we live with is a state-sponsored terrorism.” She added “if the world now combating terrorism, it should support us. We are a peaceful people and we will never resort violence.”

Tags: , ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Law and Cultural Policy, Movie Review | 1 Comment »

Dexter

Thursday, November 10th, 2011

Dexter is a Showtime series based on the novel“Darkly Dreaming Dexter” by Jeff Lindsay. Dexter Morgan is a bloodstain pattern analyst for the Miami Metro Police Department during the day and a serial killer during the night. He was adopted by a police officer when he was three years old, after witnessing the murder of his mother. His adoptive father tried to help Dexter control his killing impulses. He taught him a“code” to avoid killing innocent people; Dexter’s victims must be killers themselves. He must have irrevocable proof that his victims are guilty and Dexter must never get caught. The series follows his evolution.

The series is popular worldwide and received acclaim from critics. However, two months ago, the Swiss French public channel decided to not air the series, judging it as contrary to the values of a public channel. The representative of the channel said “we have assumed that a representative of the law can not be a murderer. Beyond the violent scenes is the vengeful philosophy, an eye for eye; that bothers me the most.” Two main themes run through the show. First, obviously, the ambivalence of a serial killer: his two faces, the good and the bad one. Secondly, the issue of what happens when the justice fails to apprehend and punish a criminal. Dexter is a serial killer, but also a vigilante, fixing by criminal means the flaws in the legal system. A lot of people who watch this series are not shocked by Dexter’s crimes. Indeed, even though his ways are illegal, nobody is going to blame him for stopping a criminal who deserves punishment.

The reality is sometimes evil people get away with terrible things. Police officers or other law enforcement officials can also be criminals. This series makes us think about the issues in our legal system and the consequences of them. The role of a public channel is to entertain, inform, but also to show to the public another perspective of our system, even if it is disturbing. A public channel should propose programs giving another point of view of our society. We don’t need all of our programs to end happily with the justice triumphing. In the real world, the legal system fails at times. If a program includes a violent scene, as Dexter does,it could be shown late at night. Even if the channel does not have the obligation to program this series, the arguments given by the channel show us that they didn’t take into account the nobler side of the series.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Culture Forum Blog, Law and Cultural Policy, Series Review | No Comments »

« Older Entries