In the United States, editorial cartoons are seen in many news papers and magazines. It is the same situation in Japan where I grew up as well. Unlike those editorial cartoons in Japan, some of those in the United States are very controversial and aggressive; many of citizens doubt about existence of editorial cartoons when they see very offensive ones; for instance, fury raised when President Obama was depicted as a monkey shot by police men in political cartoon. I remember that one of Sirius radio’s hip hop program-host was cursing on this cartoon creator so hard, and also blaming on the particular publisher which the cartoon took place. I agree that depicting person as a monkey is very rude and controversial; however, I believe editorial cartoon should not be regulated and should be protected from the publisher, since it is one way of expression which not physically hurt others and regulating the cartoon is violation of the First Amendment of American Constitution, which is “freedom of Speech.”
When we observe controversial cartoons, we tend to focus on only negative side of them; nevertheless, we should consider good side of editorial cartoons as well, in order to evaluate the existence of them. I personally believe that drawing of editorial cartoons soften the expression comparing to just express verbally or in writing; because drawing in editorial cartoons are more likely comical in nature through drawing characters with deformation and emphasizing their uniqueness. Those drawing are not precise as pictures, therefore, editorial cartoons soften offensiveness. Therefore, I believe editorial cartoons are very effective way to acknowledge the readers very controversial point of view comparing to other medias of expressions. Another good side of editorial cartoons is that face to face communication would be avoided through expressing impersonalized media of drawing cartoons; the creator does not have to face to the person who is a target of criticism; on the other hand, readers do not have to face to the creator neither. If readers are dissatisfied with the cartoons, they can contact publisher instead of directly facing the creator, which may cause elevated emotion to increase chance of attacking him/her. Thus editorial cartoons can avoid hatred toward particular person and still encouraged to point out the controversial issues.
If editorial cartoons are regulated, we do not longer face one’s extremely controversial point of view or encountering the issues in form of the speech which increase the possibility of collusion by letting face taker and audience face to face. I especially believe that depicting politics through editorial cartoons are very effective way to convey the idea, since they are in the highest position basically citizens cannot control until election comes; therefore casting on issue by less offensive media of expression has to be promoted in order to make politicians and citizens know about it.
Doug Marlette in his article, “Freedom of Speech and the Editorial Cartoon,” suggests that the number of Cartoonist decreased from 200 to 90 in 20 years due to avoid conflict between publisher and the subscribers (Par. 2). This is a sad fact publishers are avoiding controversial issues in order to maintain their profit rather than acknowledging one’s point of view which may inspire readers to think deeply about it. I am a fan of such editorial cartoons which particularly focus on controversial issues, because I do not really see truly controversial editorial cartoons in Japan because of being too considerable to mention about it; I feel unique free atmosphere of the United States in free speech is decaying through overprotecting attitude of the society; I personally think knowing one’s point of view make others to think more about an issue or getting to know the issue; just hiding one’s opinion does not help to improve the society or letting know existence of other point of view. We cannot forget about greatness of American culture is diversity; we should not go toward homogeneous society where everyone becomes the same by regulating one’s opinion.
Editorial cartoons are symbol of freedom of speech which can express very controversial issue in less offensive way through less personalized cartoon; but it still conveys strong idea. Therefore we should encourage the expression made by editorial cartoons rather than undermining them, in order to maintain our democracy and freedom of speech.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Freedom of Speech Has to Be Absolutely Protected
We often argue the first amendment of American Constitution that “freedom of Speech” as a symbol of freedom in the U.S. I strongly agree with such statement. I believe having right to have speech is one of the most basic rights to maintain equality and democracy. However, many colleges today start restricting this freedom of speech by speech conduct, in order to build more avoid uncomfortable ambient created by offensive words. What would I do, if condition of acceptance to my school was signing an agreement that I would refrain from using racist, sexist, or otherwise abusive language on campus? I would not sign such agreement even though there is benefit from restricting abusive language.
First, what would be benefit of having a speech code to restrict abusive language? I believe restricting such language allow more comfortable environment for people who are targeted by abusive language. The code may encourage all people in school to behave more morally through practicing punishment. The benefit seems to improve whole society’s verbal expression to be highly ethical.
However, we should examine down side of the restriction of abusive language restriction, in order to analyze if such agreement is worth signing. The fact is that the one’s real opinion can be distorted through the speech code since his/her real degree of thought cannot be expressed by restriction of abusive language; opposing with mild and polite words is not same as using cursing words. Even though, use of abusive words can offend others, it can be viewed as sincere language since it reflects strong anger of strong opposing idea. We should consider the fact that restricted use of abusive words in the school does not restrict such use of words out side of the school; we cannot control such words unless we apply the speech code outside the campus as well; thus, the speech code does not serve to completely change abusive expression from the root. Another reason is that it is very hard to define the term abusive words; someone thinks the term is abusive, while other thinks it is not abusive at all; depending on the situation, the word can be offensive or affectionate. Thus code can be used to take advantage of restricting one’s positive expression; on the other hand, favoring other’s negative expression all depending on interpretation. Thus, speech code can create unequal treatment within the campus. It seems like usually people who are not in power have more chance to be abused or mistreated by the majority, since they cannot exceed in numbers; thus they can be treated unfairly by distorted interpretation of speech code if moral standard of people who control the code is not high. Therefore, speech code seems to protect people from abusive words, but actually it may promote inequality or aggressive verbal expression against people.
The biggest reason why I do not sign to agreement of speech code is that restricting abusive word conflicts with the concept of freedom of speech. Having freedom of speech is very important to maintain our basic rights, because speech is the media which can be used to express thought without interaction of physical expression, and powerful enough to change the society. If people are restricted to express whatever they want to say, they lose one of non-violent media to express issue, rather than practicing actual physical resistance. Civil rights movement would not happened without freedom of speech, because if Black people did not have such powerful and non-violent expression, their alternative is protesting or resisting physically, this would have produced more blood and lives lost, and may have been ended without any social change by just suppressing “violent minority group” by force. Many countries where freedom of speech is not allowed, suppression from the ruling group dominates by not giving the suppressed people the opportunity to express themselves; their considerable alternative to resist the ruling group is could be having coup de tat, or something violent. I believe limiting speech causes increase in physically violent actions.
Actually, there is a solution to decrease abusive words toward others. Ethical people do not use abusive words often, because they know that those words offend others and do not make others feel good; thus they tend to restrict themselves to use such words; such use of words are controlled internally rather than externally. Thus such internal control does not conflict with freedom of speech. Therefore nurturing ethnical people would eliminate problem offending others by abusive words. I believe encouraging moral thinking in the speech rather than punishing the speech is the solution to solver the problem.
So, if we analyze both pros and cons of speech conduct on campus, having the code creates unfair judgment toward some speech and which may lead to worth consequence than banning abusive words trough abusing interpretation of the words. Therefore I would not sign the agreement to restrict abusive words in the campus. I strongly believe that freedom of speech is absolutely protected both within and outside of the campus. We will maintain our democracy and liberty by having freedom of speech.
First, what would be benefit of having a speech code to restrict abusive language? I believe restricting such language allow more comfortable environment for people who are targeted by abusive language. The code may encourage all people in school to behave more morally through practicing punishment. The benefit seems to improve whole society’s verbal expression to be highly ethical.
However, we should examine down side of the restriction of abusive language restriction, in order to analyze if such agreement is worth signing. The fact is that the one’s real opinion can be distorted through the speech code since his/her real degree of thought cannot be expressed by restriction of abusive language; opposing with mild and polite words is not same as using cursing words. Even though, use of abusive words can offend others, it can be viewed as sincere language since it reflects strong anger of strong opposing idea. We should consider the fact that restricted use of abusive words in the school does not restrict such use of words out side of the school; we cannot control such words unless we apply the speech code outside the campus as well; thus, the speech code does not serve to completely change abusive expression from the root. Another reason is that it is very hard to define the term abusive words; someone thinks the term is abusive, while other thinks it is not abusive at all; depending on the situation, the word can be offensive or affectionate. Thus code can be used to take advantage of restricting one’s positive expression; on the other hand, favoring other’s negative expression all depending on interpretation. Thus, speech code can create unequal treatment within the campus. It seems like usually people who are not in power have more chance to be abused or mistreated by the majority, since they cannot exceed in numbers; thus they can be treated unfairly by distorted interpretation of speech code if moral standard of people who control the code is not high. Therefore, speech code seems to protect people from abusive words, but actually it may promote inequality or aggressive verbal expression against people.
The biggest reason why I do not sign to agreement of speech code is that restricting abusive word conflicts with the concept of freedom of speech. Having freedom of speech is very important to maintain our basic rights, because speech is the media which can be used to express thought without interaction of physical expression, and powerful enough to change the society. If people are restricted to express whatever they want to say, they lose one of non-violent media to express issue, rather than practicing actual physical resistance. Civil rights movement would not happened without freedom of speech, because if Black people did not have such powerful and non-violent expression, their alternative is protesting or resisting physically, this would have produced more blood and lives lost, and may have been ended without any social change by just suppressing “violent minority group” by force. Many countries where freedom of speech is not allowed, suppression from the ruling group dominates by not giving the suppressed people the opportunity to express themselves; their considerable alternative to resist the ruling group is could be having coup de tat, or something violent. I believe limiting speech causes increase in physically violent actions.
Actually, there is a solution to decrease abusive words toward others. Ethical people do not use abusive words often, because they know that those words offend others and do not make others feel good; thus they tend to restrict themselves to use such words; such use of words are controlled internally rather than externally. Thus such internal control does not conflict with freedom of speech. Therefore nurturing ethnical people would eliminate problem offending others by abusive words. I believe encouraging moral thinking in the speech rather than punishing the speech is the solution to solver the problem.
So, if we analyze both pros and cons of speech conduct on campus, having the code creates unfair judgment toward some speech and which may lead to worth consequence than banning abusive words trough abusing interpretation of the words. Therefore I would not sign the agreement to restrict abusive words in the campus. I strongly believe that freedom of speech is absolutely protected both within and outside of the campus. We will maintain our democracy and liberty by having freedom of speech.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Realizing Importance of Freedom by Reading “Reading Lolita in Tehran”
Today in the United States, many people would have hard time to imagine the life without freedom; many younger Americans may take for granted of this freedom society in the U.S. I have heard many people complaining how liberal today’s society is comparing to old days; I have heard such thing from many older people in countries where I have lived; the U.S., Japan and Ecuador. Thus I was assuming that freedom is spreading and gaining more power all over the world. However, we should remind that even today, some societies do not allowed practice of freedom. We are assigned to read the story, “Reading Lolita in Tehran” by Azar Nafisi in our English class, through this book; I was suppressed how women in Iran are suppressed by men in the name of religious moral. Women in Iran are obligated to followed the rule which is set by Ayatollah Khomeini regime which were designed to regulate women’s dress code in order to not morally distract men; many laws which are believed to enforce religious morality were set by the regime. Such slanted interpretation of religious ideologies is suppressing women. I was surprised the fact, that women in Iran prior to Khomeini regime had more freedom; which seems like the progress of time is in backward in Iran. Then I realize that my thought is based on my experience and it is very narrow perspective. The process of reading this book acknowledged me struggle of freedom in different society and the gender issue. Since I am man, I was mainly thinking in male point of view, so I did not focus on how difficult to be a woman in Iran; however the story made me realize that importance of thinking style as “what would I feel if I were that person.” Description of how women spend their time in Iran acknowledged me that I lacked to think such way.
This reading experience reminded me that we cannot take the freedom for granted. If we examine the history all over the world, we can see the history of control over the people everywhere in the world. In Japan, people were obligated to fight Second World War 60 years ago, in Ecuador, native people were enslaved by Spaniards, and in the U.S. colored people did not have basic rights to support their freedom until 1960s. Those facts come from not long time ago. People learned important to promote freedom through bloods after bloods. So I realized that how important to support and think in freedom in order to maintain or promote freedom in the society; we should never take freedom for granted. Thus, reading “Reading Lolita in Tehran” is recommendable to be aware of existence of suppressed people in the world, and to appreciate freedom we have. Hopefully many people read this book to realize importance of freedom. All readers can spread the idea of freedom to others and people who heard the idea tells other, and so on. Eventually, the idea will be spread all over the world to promote the freedom globally.
This reading experience reminded me that we cannot take the freedom for granted. If we examine the history all over the world, we can see the history of control over the people everywhere in the world. In Japan, people were obligated to fight Second World War 60 years ago, in Ecuador, native people were enslaved by Spaniards, and in the U.S. colored people did not have basic rights to support their freedom until 1960s. Those facts come from not long time ago. People learned important to promote freedom through bloods after bloods. So I realized that how important to support and think in freedom in order to maintain or promote freedom in the society; we should never take freedom for granted. Thus, reading “Reading Lolita in Tehran” is recommendable to be aware of existence of suppressed people in the world, and to appreciate freedom we have. Hopefully many people read this book to realize importance of freedom. All readers can spread the idea of freedom to others and people who heard the idea tells other, and so on. Eventually, the idea will be spread all over the world to promote the freedom globally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
