We have been discussing a court case that sums up our society in a nutshell. It’s a classic look at the struggle between youth and the adults (term used loosely) and their ability (or inherent inability) to understand one another. We have to live together; there should at least be some attempt at compromise. Anyway, we have been looking at the court case affectionately called BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.
But, let’s stop and think. What would our enlightened and philosophical friends Aristotle, Kant, and Bentham have to say about this?
(First, they would all probably be confused about the high-tech, face-paced society in which we live.)
Let’s talk Aristotle.
He was an ancient Greek philosopher who believed in the Golden Mean. By this, he was sort of saying to take the middle ground and not go too far out on either extremes of the issue. Aristotle would probably tell both the kid and the principal to chill. He would tell the kid to not press his luck with the principal because the two already had a history of not getting along. Also, I think Aristotle would tell the kid to pick his battles carefully with the principal. As for the principal, Aristotle would tell her not to abuse her power by making an example of this kid. He wouldn’t want her to go on a power trip with this case. Also, Aristotle would want the Chief Justice to really take a look at the evidence and not jump to either side of the issue – possibly settling somewhere in between so as not to make an example of either party.
Care to consider Kant?
Kant’s theory is called the Categorical Imperative. Not need for further explanation, right? Riiiiight. What Kant meant by this was that you should live as if your behavior became general law or was a general rule. Kant would ask both parties to consider: “would you want everyone to do the same thing you’re doing?” Or, “what if everyone started doing what you did?” I honestly think Kant would tell the kid to go ahead and do what he did. (He wasn’t doing anything illegal. He was making a statement. Kant wouldn’t be against making statements. He would say “do it” so then other people can see they have the freedom to make their own statements.)
Kant would ask the kid to reevaluate his choices and think about why he really is doing this. Kant would ask him why he was doing it – are you doing it because it’s funny or do you really want to take it as far as it could go (i.e. federal court, etc)? After the kid has really thought about why, I think Kant would have him figure out if there would be another more suitable way to do what he really wanted, such as be funny or make a statement.
Another way to interpret Kant is to say that he believes in the Golden Rule – treat others as you wish to be treated. I think he would use this philosophy to talk with the principal. He would have her reevaluate her choices as well. Kant would want her to think about how she would want to be treated if she were in the kid’s shoes. Kant would have her think about if she ever did stuff like that when she was the kid’s age. He would have her put herself in his shoes and think about whether or not she followed all the rules when she was his age. I think that is how he would have the principal reevaluate her choices in the incident.
Bring it on Bentham.
Jeremy Bentham believed in Utilitarianism. The main point of this philosophy is that the outcome should be the one that causes the greatest good for the greatest number. I think this philosophy would apply more to the Chief Justice in charge of the outcome of the case. Bentham would have the Chief Justice consider both verdicts. Then, the Chief Justice would have to figure out who would benefit and who would be hurt the most from it. He would, most of all, need to consider what each outcome would teach the students – about their rights, about the justice system, etc. Bentham would have to ask himself “what am I teaching these kids about America, our society, their rights and our Government by making this decision?”
Final thoughts:
1) Statements aren’t illegal. Actions are.
2) Aristotle would love the iPod.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Monday, March 3, 2008
the.day.it.all.changed.
1. What is the significance of Times v. Sullivan:
In regards to American history, Times v. Sullivan was a turning point in First Amendment and free speech law. With the reversal, freedom of speech and freedom of the press became more protected. Due process also gained significantly more protecting. The case’s decision made it harder for defendants to be discriminated against or given an unfair trail because of a biased jury or corrupt local court system. How it made it harder for an unfair trial has to do with how the verdict affected lawyers.
For lawyers, the Times v. Sullivan switched the burden of proof in libel cases. It also introduced the concept of “fault.” The plaintiff had to now show that the defendant had published a false statement “knowingly or recklessly” or “with a high degree of fault” (Lewis, 157). The plaintiff now had to first show something in the publication was false and that the defendant published the falsehood knowingly with the intention of having it damage the plaintiff. In this sense, the court was giving the defendants some leeway in that false statements that were thought to be true when published (or even insignificant false statements) could not be held against them. There was some breathing room when it came to false statements.
This breathing room was a relief to journalists. The courts thought that self-censorship might occur if people (or the press) thought they could be prosecuted for getting a minor detail or something like that wrong. It allowed for “honest mistakes” (Lewis, 157). Also, this allowance for honest mistakes encouraged the press to challenge “official truth” (Lewis, 158). Journalists now had the freedom and the desire to delve deep into controversial situations and events without fear of being sued for libel is they didn’t have every single one of their facts straight.
This court’s decision means a lot to me, personally. It made great strides for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I considered myself a journalist and respect and appreciate the freedom this reversal gave to me. I know that I am not going to be sued for insignificant mistakes and that I am free and protected to give my opinions on various issues. I do not have to self-censor my thoughts and writings because I am afraid of getting sued or shot or hanged or made to drink hemlock or something like that. Also, I know that what I read in the news has not been censored by the government, that I am not being fed what only one side to an issue. I am able to make informed decisions based on what it is reported on both sides of an issue and share my thoughts on them. Because of this decision, I can report the truth as well as share my opinions on it and not fear retribution.
2. What were the rules of libel law for working journalists before Times v. Sullivan?
The rules of libel before Times v. Sullivan revolved around the defendant or journalist having to prove that every instance of the story was true. And, in some instances, truth was not even a defense. This meant that journalists would have to be sure that ALL of their facts were accurate. Checking all of these facts of perfect accuracy was/is not feasible in any way for any publication. Before the reversal of Times v. Sullivan libel law was abused and used against journalists. It was used and twisted by officials, judges, etc. to put down journalists who were covering controversial issues (such as racism and discrimination) that Southern officials didn’t want getting out (Lewis, 153).
3. What is "actual malice," and how did it change the rules?
Actual malice was defined in Justice Brennan’s opinion as “knowing and reckless falsehood” (Lewis, 147). This changes the rules because the burden of proof of actual malice was now put on the plaintiff. They had to prove that the defendant knew the information was false and meant for its publication to cause harm. This meant considerable more research on the part of the plaintiff. This way there was room for error on the part of citizens who had the right to criticize the government. The press and the people were given some leeway in their criticism in that their facts did not have to be 100% accurate. Also, this gave people the fall back that there was room for error. That they could make an honest mistake with their facts or facts they thought to be true.
4. How could you cover Illinois statehouse politics if Times v. Sullivan hadn't been decided the way it was?
You couldn’t cover Illinois statehouse politics if Times v. Sullivan hadn’t been decided the way it was. We would not be allowed or willing to publish any views that were inconsistent with the ones the government supported. All of the reporting would be incredibly one sided. And, there would be no criticize of any kind in it. All of the information would also have to be very generic to avoid details that could be proven false or that could be insignificantly false, but used against us in some way. Basically, if the case had not been reversed, reporters would not be able to publish anything critical of the government or public affairs issues for fear of retribution.
In regards to American history, Times v. Sullivan was a turning point in First Amendment and free speech law. With the reversal, freedom of speech and freedom of the press became more protected. Due process also gained significantly more protecting. The case’s decision made it harder for defendants to be discriminated against or given an unfair trail because of a biased jury or corrupt local court system. How it made it harder for an unfair trial has to do with how the verdict affected lawyers.
For lawyers, the Times v. Sullivan switched the burden of proof in libel cases. It also introduced the concept of “fault.” The plaintiff had to now show that the defendant had published a false statement “knowingly or recklessly” or “with a high degree of fault” (Lewis, 157). The plaintiff now had to first show something in the publication was false and that the defendant published the falsehood knowingly with the intention of having it damage the plaintiff. In this sense, the court was giving the defendants some leeway in that false statements that were thought to be true when published (or even insignificant false statements) could not be held against them. There was some breathing room when it came to false statements.
This breathing room was a relief to journalists. The courts thought that self-censorship might occur if people (or the press) thought they could be prosecuted for getting a minor detail or something like that wrong. It allowed for “honest mistakes” (Lewis, 157). Also, this allowance for honest mistakes encouraged the press to challenge “official truth” (Lewis, 158). Journalists now had the freedom and the desire to delve deep into controversial situations and events without fear of being sued for libel is they didn’t have every single one of their facts straight.
This court’s decision means a lot to me, personally. It made great strides for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I considered myself a journalist and respect and appreciate the freedom this reversal gave to me. I know that I am not going to be sued for insignificant mistakes and that I am free and protected to give my opinions on various issues. I do not have to self-censor my thoughts and writings because I am afraid of getting sued or shot or hanged or made to drink hemlock or something like that. Also, I know that what I read in the news has not been censored by the government, that I am not being fed what only one side to an issue. I am able to make informed decisions based on what it is reported on both sides of an issue and share my thoughts on them. Because of this decision, I can report the truth as well as share my opinions on it and not fear retribution.
2. What were the rules of libel law for working journalists before Times v. Sullivan?
The rules of libel before Times v. Sullivan revolved around the defendant or journalist having to prove that every instance of the story was true. And, in some instances, truth was not even a defense. This meant that journalists would have to be sure that ALL of their facts were accurate. Checking all of these facts of perfect accuracy was/is not feasible in any way for any publication. Before the reversal of Times v. Sullivan libel law was abused and used against journalists. It was used and twisted by officials, judges, etc. to put down journalists who were covering controversial issues (such as racism and discrimination) that Southern officials didn’t want getting out (Lewis, 153).
3. What is "actual malice," and how did it change the rules?
Actual malice was defined in Justice Brennan’s opinion as “knowing and reckless falsehood” (Lewis, 147). This changes the rules because the burden of proof of actual malice was now put on the plaintiff. They had to prove that the defendant knew the information was false and meant for its publication to cause harm. This meant considerable more research on the part of the plaintiff. This way there was room for error on the part of citizens who had the right to criticize the government. The press and the people were given some leeway in their criticism in that their facts did not have to be 100% accurate. Also, this gave people the fall back that there was room for error. That they could make an honest mistake with their facts or facts they thought to be true.
4. How could you cover Illinois statehouse politics if Times v. Sullivan hadn't been decided the way it was?
You couldn’t cover Illinois statehouse politics if Times v. Sullivan hadn’t been decided the way it was. We would not be allowed or willing to publish any views that were inconsistent with the ones the government supported. All of the reporting would be incredibly one sided. And, there would be no criticize of any kind in it. All of the information would also have to be very generic to avoid details that could be proven false or that could be insignificantly false, but used against us in some way. Basically, if the case had not been reversed, reporters would not be able to publish anything critical of the government or public affairs issues for fear of retribution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)