Free Speech Post 9/11

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 –Amendment I to the United States Constitution

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it
-Voltaire

Does the protection of the First Amendment protect all words? The obvious answer is no. For instance, one who yells fire in crowded room where there is no fire can be held criminally liable for public endangerment. The First Amendment and the subsequent free speech it accords appears a seemingly simple doctrine, however it is more philosophical than one might initially expect.

Of course the philosophical basis of any fundamental right lies in an argument, often officially illustrated in the United States through our legal system. There have been many court battles concerning various First Amendment queries, usually involving legal discussions of obscenity (which is not protected under the guidelines of the First Amendment) and other speech acts, e.g., hate speech, sex speech, etc. Unfortunately, the virtue of tolerance is most usually codified in the abstract; therefore outside of the courts when deciphering free speech from other speech acts, difficulties and confusion can and do occur.

Although spotlighted recently, internal security has always been a stipulation of the First Amendment principals. Internal security comprises the various efforts and means by a nation or government to combat subversive acts that could destroy the exiting state. Subversive acts include, but are not limited to, espionage, sedition, sabotage, terrorism and treason. The idea is that the aforementioned subversive acts are less likely to involve First Amendment considerations because they are more than likely to involve actions and not expressions (Willis 2005). Although the United States Patriot Act makes no official provisions to the First Amendment, I believe that we are currently moving in a direction that compromises our First Amendment rights. This is exemplified in two recent, albeit significant free speech judgments, one of which was determined in a court of law.

On July 13, 2005 an influential Muslim scholar Ali al-Timimi whom U.S. prosecutors called a “purveyor of hate and war” was handed a life sentence for allegedly inciting his followers in Virginia to wage war against the U.S. following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. While the federal district judge hearing the case, Leonie M. Brinkema, said there was significant evidence that Mr. Timimi incited his followers toward violence, she noted that she considered the sentence “very draconian” but was bound by “federal guidelines.” The language used by Mr. Timimi, although considered offensive by many, the defense contends was free speech, protected by the First Amendment. Mr. Timimi continues to maintain his innocence (Lichtblau 2005).

On July 7, 2005, the rapper who goes by the name of the “Arabic Assassin” whose real name is Bassam Khalaf, was fired from the George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston. Mr. Khalaf’s unreleased CD “Terror Alert” contains descriptions of himself as a “crazy, suicidal Arab…equipped with bombs” and rhymes about flying planes into buildings. The Transportation Security Administration conducts criminal background checks but does not investigate what people do in their spare time a spokesperson said. However, once the web sites with the raps were brought to the attention of the agency Mr. Khalaf was terminated. Mr. Khalaf contends that he is not a terrorist but that his rhymes were simply exaggerations intended to attract publicity (Van Gelder 2005).

A principal of free speech of course concerns some, but not an entire, range of protection for speech. The subject nevertheless is complex given the uneven application of various reasons for free speech to different sorts of communications as the two aforementioned cases exhibit. Will certain speech acts now be provisioned separately since we have waged a war against terror? Although a few cases is by no means an indicator of provisions against free speech, it appears as though we are heading in that direction.

Works Cited

Lichtblau, Eric. 2005. “Scholar Is Given Life Sentence in ‘Virginia Jihad.’ New York
Times, July 14.

Willis, Clyde E. 2002. Student’s Guide to Landmark Congressional Laws. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.

Van Gelder, Lawrence. 2005. “Rapper Loses Airport Job” New York Times, July 16

Is X&Y Coldplay's "Joshua Tree?"

Well, we are officially in heat of the summer and most of the summer releases have hit the shelves and the airwaves. Coldplay’s X&Y (Capitol), as predicted is a blockbuster. According to the BBC, X&Y has topped 20 global charts to date including Hong Kong, Mexico and Italy. Moreover, the last British artist to have a simultaneous UK and US number one hit was the Beatles #1 in 2000, exclusive company to say the least (BBC.com).

X&Y is the biggest smash for the music industry this year so far (other than 50 Cent’s The Massacre), increasing sales revenue in an otherwise steadily decreasing market. The massive sales of X&Y also ironically have hurt the music industries purported claims that internet piracy is cause for the steady decrease in sales in the past few years. Despite X&Y leaking online a week prior to its release, EMI, Coldplay’s record label has said that legal digital downloads of the album have accounted for 8% of the album’s US sales which is the biggest share of any new release to date (BBC.com).

More than 737,000 copies of Coldplay’s X&Y were sold in the first week of its release in the US, subsequently dislodging the always emotionally unstable Mariah Carey, from the number one spot (BBC.com). The initial sales figures, as one might expect, have launched the hype concerning Coldplay to epic proportions.

Some industry “experts” (be leery of anyone who makes such an outlandish claim) purport X&Y to be Coldplay’s "Joshua Tree" a reference to the album that launched U2 into the stratosphere as one of the world’s top rock acts. In the US Joshua Tree was number one for nine weeks and in the UK went platinum in just twenty eight hours, remaining on the charts for a mind boggling one hundred twenty nine weeks. In the US alone, Joshua Tree has sold more than 10 million copies, earning the RIAA diamond certification.

In its third week of release in the US, despite being knocked from the top spot, X&Y’s album sales were at 1.2 million. Statistically, there is simply no comparison yet between X&Y and Joshua Tree and such comparisons are frivolous at best. Only time will yield answers to such quantitative inquires.

Perhaps, aesthetically the two albums contain similarities. For instance, Joshua Tree begins with the ever popular “Where the Streets Have No Name” which is now a trademark U2 song but more importantly is perhaps where the Edge made his permanent mark with his unique guitar sound, supported by a simple, albeit solid rhythm section.

We can draw a parallel to Coldplay’s “Fix You” which like “Where the Streets Have No Name” begins slow, captivating its listeners, finally culminating with Coldplay’s now trademark sound which comprises of a erringly simple combination of Chris Martin’s piano accented by a mind numbingly simple drum beat. My brother, a musician, and accordingly whose opinion I hold in high regard, once remarked that if you remove the lyrics from any Coldplay tune, it becomes comparable to a Disney composition, e.g., very simple, happy, and aesthetically pleasing to the psyche. U2, whose arrangements are slightly more complex, could be held in similar regards.

Nevertheless, I believe simplicity is what makes Coldplay’s brand of music unique and is why the masses have taken such a liking to it. Our lives are more complicated and complex than ever. We are often juggling two and sometimes three jobs, children, education, etc. The last thing most people want to hear on the radio on the way home from a hard day at work is some sophisticated jazz number or lyrics that are comparable to poetry, often with no fixed meaning and sometimes undecipherable. Most people yearn simply for something to tap their foot to in addition to lyrics that are not only easily understood, but resonate with themes they are familiar with, e.g. love, which doesn’t always make for interesting listening but that is not necessary what music is all about. The reciprocal, e.g. difficult music, of course also contains social value as well as it often teaches us to withhold understanding thereby resisting the false clarity simple music often accords us.

Is X&Y then Coldplay’s “Joshua Tree?” Statistically, of course not, at least not yet. Aesthetically? Well I certainly cannot make that assertion for you as this would negate the very use of the term. Listen, think, and make up your own mind.

Support our Troops?

Today I was awakened, like every other day, by my local NPR station. As a usual part of my morning routine I lay groggily in bed for a half hour or so listening. I often have strange recollections of segments and stories that I heard early in the morning throughout the day. These memories remain couched in my unconscious until I see or hear something that triggers a particular memory.

Today was no different. I watched a soccer mom in a minivan swerving through traffic. As I watched her speed by I noticed that she had a yellow “support our troops” magnet fashioned ever so carefully next to a sticker of a soccer ball on her otherwise impeccable automobile. I wondered whether or not she really gave a shit about our troops or if she had placed the sticker on her minivan to be trendy. This got me thinking, does anybody really give a shit about our troops or are we merely relieving ourselves of our conscious by simply purchasing a sticker or magnet and affixing it to our car so that we can show everybody that we support the troops?

This reminded me of a segment I had heard that morning, one of a two part series titled “When I Came Home” a documentary which tracks the lives and struggles of several homeless veterans, including those who have recently returned home from the war in Iraq. The segment examined the subsequent factors which led more than 150,000 Vietnam veterans from the battlefield directly to the street, positing the question: will what happened to Vietnam veterans happen to a new generation of soldiers? (www.kjzz.org) How can it be that we are still asking such questions?

For many young Americans joining the military is a path out of poverty. But to those who return to impoverished neighborhoods with such ailments as Posttraumatic Stress Disorder an all too common psychiatric injury of war, can find it especially difficult to recover (www.kjzz.org). A veteran whose name I can’t quite recall noted in the segment that it is great that we recognize the sacrifices of those who died (he specifically mentions The Vietnam Veteran’s Wall Memorial) but is saddened that those who made it home alive are often forgotten, a reference to the vast amount of homeless veterans (he himself was homeless).

No veteran should ever be without a home, food, and clothing. For or against the war, love it or hate it, we can all agree that these people make the ultimate sacrifice for our livelihood yet are disgraced upon their return, forgotten by most like a piece of trash. One hundred and fifty thousand plus homeless Vietnam veterans, America, we should be ashamed of ourselves. This is absurd, simply unacceptable.

We should draft up legislation to honor these folks by giving them a modest house free of charge and granting them with tax exempt status for life. This should include all property and sales tax. They should also be accorded a stipend, comparable to a living wage, so that if they decide to work it will be by their own choosing. Also, free health insurance for life. I would be all for the necessary tax increases to pay for these simply necessities for our veterans for it is the LEAST I/we could do. Instead of purchasing support our troops merchandise, why not support the Department of Veterans Affairs directly? Perhaps some people do, but due to the fact that homelessness and other problems are still rampant among veterans I really doubt most send money but just purchase the magnet and stick it on the ol’ minivan so they appear as good caring little people.

According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, of the 25 million veterans currently alive, nearly three of every four served during a war or an official period of hostility (www.va.gov). A unnecessary amount of these people are also homeless. Donating to the VA would be for the good of all our living troops, currently serving and otherwise. Remember, support our troops should refer to those previous and current who have enlisted, served, returned home, and those who have unfortunately perished in the name of the United States of America. Homeless veterans = shameless Americans.

Fear and Panic in the Age of Terrorism: Marx (Briefly) Revisited

Tragedy has struck again as it has countless times before. Yesterday, London was subjected to a series of terrorist attacks, again directed toward innocent civilians. My thoughts and condolences go out to all those suffering as a result of these random acts of senseless violence.

It would seem plausable that if you are going to bomb someone to make a statement, political or otherwise (do keep in mind that I do not condone such behavior) why not bomb politicians and those alike that are elected or appointed often to directly shoulder the burden and subsequent alleviation of social maladies? The terrorists it seems are not only sick sadistic bastards, but also directionally impaired.

Terrorism is a complicated matter perhaps best exemplified by the old saying, one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. One could certainly provide a compelling argument that the United States, currently viewed by many around the world as a terrorist organization, was founded by a bunch of terrorists.

The “war on terror” is beginning to resemble the “war on drugs,” a tireless, shameless, and seemingly useless battle where we waste a vast amount of precious resources and where innocent civilians suffer the most casualties. Such battles have no foreseeable end. It would seem common sense that we should and need to rethink the situation.

I don’t claim to have the answers; I merely contend that our current solutions are not working and will never work. My thoughts regarding the matter, although utopic, are informed via Marxist ideology. First, religion must be eradicated. Second, resources must be redistributed. Easy enough right? However I must note that although I find most of his ideas compelling, I do not purport to be a Marxist.

Marx argued that religion kept people in check, passive, comfortably numb, or as his famous quote goes;

“Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people” (Marx 1884).

Marx calls for the abolition of religion, an illusionary happiness, so to foster the development of a real happiness. They say kill the infidels, we say kill the infidels; they say Allah is on our side, we say God is on our side. Who is right and who is wrong doesn’t matter, theoretically if religion were eradicated nobody could justify violence in some silly hypocritical hocus pocus nonsense.

After the dissolution of religion, we simply redistribute the vast amount of available and sometimes unused and often wasted resources, thereby facilitating a peaceful coexisting society. Unfortunately the dream espoused by Marx will never be realized, and as a result we will live in a constant state of fear and perpetual panic that is exacerbated by an ever expanding globalized media.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one, I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will live as one" (J. Lennon).

Racial Imagery (Again) in the Courtroom

We live in a very frightening time where most people believe that we have fully eradicated racism. Nevertheless the importance of race and racism in the United States continues to lurk in the deep recesses of society and remains as strong as ever. Most Americans believe that racism was eradicated by the subsequent passing of legislation, such as the 13th and 14th Amendments and Title XII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. White people are no longer "responsible" for combating racism as they can merely point to the legislation and deny that it exists. Such legislation lifts whitey off the hook. This of course is not always the case, there are white folks still fighting for equality but when compared to the larger social body, they exist in relatively small numbers.

Only occasionly does overt racism rear its ugly head in its most blatant form for everyone to see (e.g. Rodney King). Such instances are usually spotlighted by the media and create fervor and outrage as being an overt racist is no longer status quo, however rarely do the media concern itself with overt blatant racism without foolproof evidence, e.g. videotapes, as such instances, are easily dismissed by rich white politicians and others alike. The same could be said of sex discrimination, homophobia, and all the other isms for that matter however I will not be addressing these here.

A direct descendent of racism is the use and reliance upon racial imagery by the media (e.g. news broadcasts that spotlight the stereotypical black criminal or the stereotypical black mother on welfare, or blockbuster movies that exploit stereotypes such as Training Day in which Mr. Washington was awarded an Oscar for his part in playing the “role” of a “black person”), racial imagery by the police (e.g. racial profiling), racial imagery by the courts (pictures, stories, and examples used for instance by prosecutors, such examples are often exemplified in the television series Law and Order), and racial imagery by judges (Johnson 2001).

Yesterday, female rapper Lil’ Kim whose real name is Kimberly Jones and is black was sentenced to a year and a day in prison and ordered to pay a $50,000 fine for perjury after she admitted in a courtroom that she had lied to a grand jury during her trial (Preston 2004). Racial imagery was used during her two-hour hearing by Judge Lynch (interesting last name huh?) who, as it was reported, repeatedly compared Lil’ Kim to Martha Stewart, the rich whitey homebody who was convicted last year on similar charges in the same courthouse no less by a Federal District Court in Manhattan. Judge Lynch, whose race was undisclosed thereby implying he is white, noted that Martha “happens to be older and whiter and whose entertainment following is richer,” emphasizing the specific brand of racial imagery known as the “us-them” imagery (Johnson 2001; Preston 2004:A22). How necessary was it that Judge Lynch made this racial distinction in the sentencing of Lil’ Kim? Moreover, what implications do you suppose arise concerning our current criminal just-us system?

Works Cited

Johnson, Sheri Lynn. 2001. “Racial Derogation in Prosecutors’ Closing Arguments” Pp.
79-114 in Petit Apartheid in the U.S. Criminal Justice System edited by
Dragan Milovanovic and Katheryn K. Russell. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic
Press.

Preston, Julia. 2005. “Lil’ Kim Gets One-Year Prison Sentence and Admits She Lied in
Testimony About Shootout.” New York Times July 7.

Brian Wilson and the Music Industry

As a self-proclaimed audiophile, a musical aficionado of sorts, I am continually perplexed and amazed by Brian Wilson, founder of the Beach Boys. The subsequent release of SMiLE in September of 2004 nearly forty years after the project was initially conceived has prompted many “experts” to proclaim the album as one of the all time greatest. I cannot disagree; I would venture to say that SMiLE IS THE best album ever recorded. Next to Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon, the crux of which concerns madness, alienation, and societal disconnect, SMiLE’s themes concern among other things overcoming obstacles, joy, and self actualization. When one thinks of it, DSOTM and SMilE are the ying of the yang of contemporary pop music albums.

DSOTM is often heralded as a cutting edge revolutionary album (I would not contest this), as the things Pink Floyd were doing in the studio were simply unheard of, both literally and figuratively. SMiLE, whose release date was initially slated six years prior to the release of DSOTM and although released nearly forty years later continues to remain more cutting edge and sophisticated than anything ever recorded in the history of modern man. Unfortunately, the recording tactics used for SMiLE are now considered primitive by today’s recording standards (e.g. digital technology).

Amazingly enough, SMiLE although “officially” released in 2004 as indicated above (although various bootleg recordings from the original1966-67 Smile sessions have long been in circulation for years) is still better than anything currently or previously released. This says two things; first and foremost, Brian Wilson was and continues to be so far ahead of his time that we can never really be certain as to the extent and magnitude of his genius. Second, the contemporary state of the music industry is sad and pathetic. Currently the industry is far more interested in album sales more so than it is the quality of the music. This of course has always been the case, however we are currently suffering more as the development of advanced capitalism continues toward its peak. Albums are now more so than ever cranked out like parts on a factory assembly line, and as one might expect the quality of the music is not only secondary but often subsides, musical casualties of the capitalistic nightmare Marx prophesized.

Brian Wilson is arguably the best and most prolific pop songwriter of the 20th century, just ask Paul McCartney what he thinks. Sadly enough, SMiLE entered and peaked on the Billboard chart (the musical yard stick) at #13. Even more sad perhaps is that the album which wasn’t even that publicized, has not even gone platinum (neither amazingly enough has Pet Sounds), yet artists (I hesitate to use this term here) like Eminem who advocate the beating and raping of his then at the time wife, promote hate, gay bashing, death, and violence is currently a certified multiplatinum "artist." Something is really wrong here folks what the hell is going on? Are we so brainwashed by awful music that we are now simply unable to recognize good music when we hear it? Has our musical aesthetic been extracted by greedy corporate hate mongers who bombard us via multi media outlets with constant and incessant musical trash?

Which brings me to yet another point. How the hell did the music industry eclipse Brian Wilson from an album of the year nomination when the “artist” Kayne West (who mind you is an asshole for complaining about being “ripped” off at a certain award show) received a staggering ten Grammy nominations for his so tastefully titled College Dropout? Brian Wilson received one Grammy award, ironically for best rock instrumental. Talk about tossing the dog a bone. The Beach Boys changed the music industry forever with their vocal arrangements. Best instrumental, are you kidding? The Beach Boys for that matter have never received a Grammy. Yet we give them away to musical assassins who are ruining music for everyone. We need to denounce the music industry and demand better quality music or else we’ll surely be doomed forever.