Jordan Sports Double Hitler Stash

Have you seen the latest Hanes commercials featuring Michael Jordan? One of the all time greats of basketball is sporting the Hitler mustache with a Soul Patch. I guess the later nullifies the negativity of the former. Or perhaps he is taking after the great Charlie Chaplin.

Free Speech: To a Point

Can we avoid this on the Internet?

Choose your words carefully because you'll never know who is reading. 

Recently the Los Angeles Times posted an article that touched on Internet free speech. The opening sentences sum up the issue well enough.

"The Internet has allowed tens of millions of Americans to be published writers. But it also has led to a surge in lawsuits from those who say they were hurt, defamed or threatened by what they read, according to groups that track media lawsuits."

This is a brand new issue that will continue to evolve as more incidents arise and rulings are passed. At the moment the cases I've seen have been at the local/state level, and there has been no sweeping reform or ruling that would effect the entire nation. Those filing complaints are generally defending themselves and their reputation.

In western Pennsylvania, for example, a politician was accused of collecting tax dollars for personal use. He was also called a "jerk," and the the cars sold at his dealership were deemed "junk." The poster was anonymous. The targeted individual sued for defamation, and the judge ruled that the community site must identify the Internet address of the posters.

My initial gut reaction was for unlimited freedom of speech. I don't want anyone limiting my right to type my mind on-line. After further thought, I found sympathy for the targeted individual mentioned above. If that was my business or political career, then I sure wouldn't want my reputation being tarnished by a few disgruntle individuals. Especially if I hadn't done anything wrong. I, however, don't know the nitty gritty details of this case so I can't accurately make an objective ruling one way or the other.

"Although bloggers may have a free-speech right to say what they want online, courts have found that they are not protected from being sued for their comments, even if they are posted anonymously. "

Two of the biggest problems with on-line speech are accountability and accuracy. Individuals will be more bold with their statements if they think there will be no repercussion. I see/hear this everyday while playing video games on Xbox Live and reading various forums. Individuals will use hateful speech that would be absent from their average face to face encounters.

People are also extremely lazy (or maybe busy), and rarely fact check their sources. With no accountability they are, in my opinion, more likely to state something that may be misleading or not entirely true. There is also a lack of fact checkers on the Internet. This, however, will be a persistent problem due to the shear amount of information on-line.

As seen in N. Korea.

Oh what to do? Censor everything? Hell no! Allow people to tarnish the reputation of others? Well only if it deserves to get tarnished. Should people be held accountable for what they say? That all depends on what was said, and under what context.

I actually like the current methodology for dealing with this issue. If a website or poster has wrongfully hurt, defame, or threaten someone, then the targeted person has every right to defend themselves. Let the courts take these issues on a case by case basis. Hopefully they can differentiate between legitimate complaints and unwarranted hate.

Unfortunately lawsuits cost money. This means wrongfully accused individuals may not have the financial resources to defend themselves. (This goes for "victims" as well as "posters.") This problem, however, seems less damaging to the whole of society. I don't want to see sweeping federal censorship of the Internet, and the slippery slope extreme argument leads down that path.

This issue is not going away, and it will be interesting to see Internet laws evolve. I hope the Internet remains free, but I would also like to see greater accountability from posters/bloggers. I don't think everything needs a "fact check." Someones rant on how to survive a zombie apocalypse is not as important as an article about real life current events. Hopefully we will find away to keep the freedom while increasing the accuracy, but that is easier said then done.

America Loves to Hate

The Issue:

An Islamic community center and prayer space is being built two blocks from "Ground Zero" aka the former World Trade towers. This has sparked controversy. In general there are two sides--for and against. Those in favor believe the mosque has every legal right to exist anywhere because of the first amendment. On the flip side those against feel the Islamic building would be a "slap in the face"* to everyone who died during the 9/11 Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks.

Behold American Hate

Whenever an issue like this arises I feel ashamed. As a white male I strive not to make the same mistakes of the past. Prejudice on any level should not be tolerated, and I am continually amazed at America's infatuation with needless hate. News organizations and American extremist (I'm looking at you FOX and Palin) use convoluted language and sensitive issues to infuriate the masses. Americans need to calm down and examine the issue.

B = Ground Zero A = Cordoba House

"Ground Zero" is the current term for the area destroyed by the 9/11 Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks. Two blocks away, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is planning an Islamic community center named Cordoba House. He is converting an old Burlington Coat Factory into a diverse facility that will include a mosque, sports areas, a theater, and a restaurant. The center would be open to the public. Mr. Feisal hopes to enlighten the ignorant, and denote Muslim life in America.

The main argument against the building of Cordoba House is this (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). The Islamic center at Ground Zero is a provocative act that is hurtful to the families tragically effected by 9/11. Paraphrasing Sarah Palin, it is ok to build a Mosque. Just not near Ground Zero. FOX news personalities also pointed out that countries like Saudi Arabia do not have any churches despite many requests. The more extreme opponents take things a step further, and declare that the problem is Islam. The slippery slope keeps going with wild baseless accusations that the center will become a future strong hold for Muslim terrorist.

Rendering of Cordoba House

Alright everybody gather round it's time for some history. Predating the World Trade Center was a portion of lower Manhattan called Little Syria. This community consisted of Muslims and Christians from the Ottoman Empire.

But wait there's more. Four blocks away from Ground Zero is a Mosque that also predates the Twin Towers.  

Fascinating. Do go on. The first amendment goes even further back and is pretty straight forward. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (Ironically this wonderful amendment gives the American extremists the right to express their point of view.)

Really? Yep. And the group responsible for the 9/11 attacks, Al-Qadea, is a radically extremist group that happens to follow the teaching of Islam. Just like the Nazi's happened to be mostly Christian. Guilt by association is not justice.

Current Picture of Islamic Center

If you haven't figured it out, I obviously support Imam Feisal right to build a religious center on private property. This center has the potential to further Americanize Muslims, which is the best way to combat Islamic extremist. Immigrants come to this country and succeed through hard work. They are overwhelmingly entrepreneurial, and create strong ties to their old homes. This process promotes America and globalization around the world, and America is always in need of good press. I am sympathetic to the victims of 9/11, but hurt feelings is no excuse for unconstitutional prejudice. Let us not forget that about twenty American Muslims died in the 9/11 attack.

Way to take the high road chump.

America has a dark history riddled with hate. The Native Americans were either wiped out, or continually manipulated. Slavery in this nation was race based, and drastically effected the entire world (Africa is still recovering.) Even as "free" individuals black Americans had to face legal prejudice via Jim Crow Laws until LBJ signed The Civil Rights Act. The Chinese were wage slaves, and abused to build the West. The Japanese were unconstitutionally incarcerated because of Executive Order 9066. Latinos were targeted by the U.S. Military during the Zoot Suite Riots in California. And the list goes on.

In post 9/11 America, the prejudice continues with irrational and ignorant hate directed towards individuals of Middle Eastern descent. (Also towards Hispanics in Arizona, but that is another topic.). The worst part is a person doesn't even have to be Muslim. Guilt by association ensures everyone who looks the part will get the blame. This is not what I want in my America. Like Dr. King Jr. I want a land where people are judged by their character, and not by the color of their skin/religion. The moral high ground isn't always easy, but in the end it is the only logical path to take. This means tolerating an Islamic community center near Ground Zero. Even if there isn't a church in Saudi Arabia.


Direct Source: CBS, Time,and Telegraph UK

Indirect Source: CNN, LA Times, and news blogs.

*Quoting former NY Fireman Tim Brown.