Muzzle Awards
April 13, 2003 2:00 PM Subscribe
The winners of the annual Muzzle Awards have been announced by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression; these are given out to "those who have forgotten Mr. Jefferson's warning that freedom of expression cannot be limited without being lost." The lucky winners this year include (among others) include John Ashcroft, for the DOJ's secretive expanded powers; the 107th U.S. Congress for USA PATRIOT; National Zoo Director Lucy Spelman for covering up mysterious deaths of zoo animals; and the NC House of Representatives for trying to shut down a college assignment involving the Koran. Are there any other outrageous cases of censorship this year that the Muzzles should have included? Are all of the winners worthy of ridicule?
I don't know, srboisvert. At least we get this fine quote:
Releasing such records, Spelman declared, would violate the late giraffe's right of privacy.
posted by LeLiLo at 4:13 PM on April 13, 2003
Releasing such records, Spelman declared, would violate the late giraffe's right of privacy.
posted by LeLiLo at 4:13 PM on April 13, 2003
Nothing to see here.
Why? I found this site quite interesting, evenhanded, and unintentionally funny in spots:
Sissonville High School sophomore Katie Sierra decided to form an anarchy club at her high school in Kanawha County, West Virginia. In preparation, she wrote fliers, a manifesto, and a constitution for the club.
Ha! A constitution? Obviously, this girl was a bit unclear on the concept of anarchy.
posted by MrBaliHai at 5:52 PM on April 13, 2003
Why? I found this site quite interesting, evenhanded, and unintentionally funny in spots:
Sissonville High School sophomore Katie Sierra decided to form an anarchy club at her high school in Kanawha County, West Virginia. In preparation, she wrote fliers, a manifesto, and a constitution for the club.
Ha! A constitution? Obviously, this girl was a bit unclear on the concept of anarchy.
posted by MrBaliHai at 5:52 PM on April 13, 2003
I'm thinking "nothing to see here, move along" is a bit of intended irony, given the nature of the link. Could be wrong though.
Good call on the anarchist constitution, but that's what high school's about. I found these stories pretty interesting, and disconcerting.
posted by pinto at 5:57 PM on April 13, 2003
Good call on the anarchist constitution, but that's what high school's about. I found these stories pretty interesting, and disconcerting.
posted by pinto at 5:57 PM on April 13, 2003
Cool. Three Presidents (G. Bush, Clinton, G.W.Bush), two Attorneys General (Reno & Ashcroft), and a couple of entire Congresses (106th & 107th) don't meet the high standards of the (quite self-righteously named) "Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression".
I'm sure Bush and Ashcroft are soooo upset that they'll stay up 'till all hours of the morning trying to figure out how mend their ways, so as to finally win the approval of such an esteemed and terribly important organization. What good is successfully protecting the US from terrorist attacks if it causes you to fall out of favor with "the Center"?
After all, their website has an animated .gif featuring a red x being drawn on Thomas Jefferson's mouth, and they have Sissy Spacek on the board ... so they certainly do have unmatchable intellectual and moral ascendency. Clearly, the entire 107th Congress is shaking in it's boots tonight, and undoubtedly holding emergency sessions to figure out how it can make things right with the Center.
posted by MidasMulligan at 6:22 PM on April 13, 2003
I'm sure Bush and Ashcroft are soooo upset that they'll stay up 'till all hours of the morning trying to figure out how mend their ways, so as to finally win the approval of such an esteemed and terribly important organization. What good is successfully protecting the US from terrorist attacks if it causes you to fall out of favor with "the Center"?
After all, their website has an animated .gif featuring a red x being drawn on Thomas Jefferson's mouth, and they have Sissy Spacek on the board ... so they certainly do have unmatchable intellectual and moral ascendency. Clearly, the entire 107th Congress is shaking in it's boots tonight, and undoubtedly holding emergency sessions to figure out how it can make things right with the Center.
posted by MidasMulligan at 6:22 PM on April 13, 2003
So they're wrong because they're not powerful? Shit; I guess I've never been right.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:34 PM on April 13, 2003
posted by mr_roboto at 6:34 PM on April 13, 2003
As to the giraffe one, the reasons sound daft on the face of it, but I think the Muzzle Awards are glossing over some of the background. Firstly, a quick websearch suggests that the American Veterinary Medical Association revised its Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics in 1999 to declare vet records as private and confidential. If so, her refusal was within her professional ethical framework. Secondly, item quoted from Washington Post here says that she didn't 100% refuse, but offered a detailed summary. Is it conceivably true - however much it may draw accusations of elitism - that the original format of a giraffe's autopsy report may not be understandable to the general public?
posted by raygirvan at 6:40 PM on April 13, 2003
posted by raygirvan at 6:40 PM on April 13, 2003
MidasMulligan, I suggest that you learn a bit more about the Thomas Jefferson Center lest you yet again open your mouth and remove all doubt, if I may coyly paraphrase Lincoln. The Muzzle Awards are an extremely small part of what the Thomas Jefferson Center does. It's a fair gamble that your ability to speak freely on-line can be credited in part to this organization; see their amicus curiae in Bernstein v. United States for an example. IMHO, their low profile serves as testimony to their quiet effectiveness.
posted by waldo at 7:20 PM on April 13, 2003
posted by waldo at 7:20 PM on April 13, 2003
I dunno about the Koran at Chapel Hill one. This isn't really a free speech/free expression issue. No one was trying to ban the book or forbid students (or anyone else) from reading it. It was a debate over the appropriateness of a college reading assignment; whether a public university should force the teaching of religion (a church-state separation issue) and whether the book in question was a balanced treatment of Islam, or a bowdlerized version of it.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 8:48 PM on April 13, 2003
posted by Slithy_Tove at 8:48 PM on April 13, 2003
MidasMulligan, I suggest that you learn a bit more about the Thomas Jefferson Center lest you yet again open your mouth and remove all doubt, if I may coyly paraphrase Lincoln. The Muzzle Awards are an extremely small part of what the Thomas Jefferson Center does. It's a fair gamble that your ability to speak freely on-line can be credited in part to this organization; see their amicus curiae in Bernstein v. United States for an example. IMHO, their low profile serves as testimony to their quiet effectiveness.
Oddly enough, I'm fully aware of them, and despite that, I don't happen to believe that my freedom of speech online is in any way, shape, or form dependent upon this particular organization ... and frankly (to just as coyly paraphrase Lincoln) believe anyone that asserts such a thing has already "removed all doubt". They're a decade old. Somehow free speech got along without them for a couple hundred years before they were around, and might actually survive should they close their doors.
They did file an amicus brief in the Bernstein case (as did a couple dozen individuals and institutions), but it had virtually nothing to do with the disposition of the case (in fact, half the damn thing is a review of how the founding fathers used encryption - lovely if you are an academic, but completely meaningless to the Judges ... who said, "The parties and amici urge a number of theories on us. We limit our attention here, for the most part, to only one: whether the EAR restrictions on the export of encryption software in source code form constitute a prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment. We review de novo the district court's affirmative answer to this question. See Roulette v. Seattle, 97 F.3d 300, 302 (9th Cir. 1996)."
While I was using sarcasm, the point was that I believe the Center started the awards to delibrately try to get publicity (and donations), and also believe that any organization that decides it wants to accuse every President and Attorney General that holds office of "muzzling" free speech (as the Center has - having awarded the Muzzle to every President and Attorney General in office since it's founding) really has done little other than indict themselves for not understanding government. If a doctor wants to assert that everyone should have three arms, and therefore diagnose every patient as missing an arm ... the diagnosis would say less about the health of the patients than it would about the doctor himself.
They've decided on some abstract definition of what is acceptable to them, and apparently no President, Attorney General, or Congress measures up to them. Fine. They are free to do so. I think it just makes them look foolish. They are like thousands of other "institutes" and "centers" that are attached to just about every university in the country (and breed like rats in the vicinity of DC), issue both profoundly reasoned papers and pop-culture awards ... and for the most part make little difference other than in their own minds, and the minds of their supporters. Forgive me for not taking them seriously.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:05 PM on April 13, 2003
Oddly enough, I'm fully aware of them, and despite that, I don't happen to believe that my freedom of speech online is in any way, shape, or form dependent upon this particular organization ... and frankly (to just as coyly paraphrase Lincoln) believe anyone that asserts such a thing has already "removed all doubt". They're a decade old. Somehow free speech got along without them for a couple hundred years before they were around, and might actually survive should they close their doors.
They did file an amicus brief in the Bernstein case (as did a couple dozen individuals and institutions), but it had virtually nothing to do with the disposition of the case (in fact, half the damn thing is a review of how the founding fathers used encryption - lovely if you are an academic, but completely meaningless to the Judges ... who said, "The parties and amici urge a number of theories on us. We limit our attention here, for the most part, to only one: whether the EAR restrictions on the export of encryption software in source code form constitute a prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment. We review de novo the district court's affirmative answer to this question. See Roulette v. Seattle, 97 F.3d 300, 302 (9th Cir. 1996)."
While I was using sarcasm, the point was that I believe the Center started the awards to delibrately try to get publicity (and donations), and also believe that any organization that decides it wants to accuse every President and Attorney General that holds office of "muzzling" free speech (as the Center has - having awarded the Muzzle to every President and Attorney General in office since it's founding) really has done little other than indict themselves for not understanding government. If a doctor wants to assert that everyone should have three arms, and therefore diagnose every patient as missing an arm ... the diagnosis would say less about the health of the patients than it would about the doctor himself.
They've decided on some abstract definition of what is acceptable to them, and apparently no President, Attorney General, or Congress measures up to them. Fine. They are free to do so. I think it just makes them look foolish. They are like thousands of other "institutes" and "centers" that are attached to just about every university in the country (and breed like rats in the vicinity of DC), issue both profoundly reasoned papers and pop-culture awards ... and for the most part make little difference other than in their own minds, and the minds of their supporters. Forgive me for not taking them seriously.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:05 PM on April 13, 2003
Surely, though, a little alarmist hellraising regarding your constitutional rights is a good thing? You may not agree with the extent of it, or the exact charges, but it's in the nature of governments--even democratic ones--to be imperfect, and power-hungry, and it's in the interests of the citizenry to keep those elected bastards on their toes.
posted by arto at 1:08 AM on April 14, 2003
posted by arto at 1:08 AM on April 14, 2003
whether a public university should force the teaching of religion
Actually, Slithy, that wasn't what the university was asking. Students could opt out and, to quote from the TJ Center's site, "If students want to participate in the academic exercise but object to the assigned book, they may write a one-page paper explaining the basis of their objection." Hardly an onerous task. I'm sure this was discussed ad nauseam at the time here (I just got up, haven't had coffee, and therefore won't look for a link), but are you saying that public universities shouldn't address religion? They're not forcing students to learn about, as noticed in the quote above. And I think that especially in the light of 9/11, many Americans were curious about Islam and Islamic fundamentalism, and I'd also argue that exposing college freshmen to something that's likely outside their worldview is generally a good thing.
posted by Vidiot at 5:04 AM on April 14, 2003
Actually, Slithy, that wasn't what the university was asking. Students could opt out and, to quote from the TJ Center's site, "If students want to participate in the academic exercise but object to the assigned book, they may write a one-page paper explaining the basis of their objection." Hardly an onerous task. I'm sure this was discussed ad nauseam at the time here (I just got up, haven't had coffee, and therefore won't look for a link), but are you saying that public universities shouldn't address religion? They're not forcing students to learn about, as noticed in the quote above. And I think that especially in the light of 9/11, many Americans were curious about Islam and Islamic fundamentalism, and I'd also argue that exposing college freshmen to something that's likely outside their worldview is generally a good thing.
posted by Vidiot at 5:04 AM on April 14, 2003
"Your comments have been noted in the building"
A more chilling statement for the good puppy dog press has never been issued.
Congratulations Ari Fleischer!
You're a winner!
And thank you Helen Thomas for being the singular member of the press corps to have a spine!
posted by nofundy at 5:24 AM on April 14, 2003
A more chilling statement for the good puppy dog press has never been issued.
Congratulations Ari Fleischer!
You're a winner!
And thank you Helen Thomas for being the singular member of the press corps to have a spine!
posted by nofundy at 5:24 AM on April 14, 2003
Arto: excellent comment. You said it.
posted by acridrabbit at 6:29 AM on April 14, 2003
posted by acridrabbit at 6:29 AM on April 14, 2003
They should give themselves an award for naming their organization founded to promote free expression after a slave holder. At least Washington freed his in his will, Jefferson apparently could write about freedom and men being created equal, but couldn't practice what he preached. Great namesake.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:50 AM on April 14, 2003
posted by Pollomacho at 7:50 AM on April 14, 2003
Whether it's outrageous censorship or not, it's timely: last week a federal judge extended a ban on a book that argues against paying taxes, The Federal Mafia: How It Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes.
Using this case as an example, perhaps the government can work toward banning all inconvenient and unorthodox books.
posted by win_k at 12:07 PM on April 14, 2003
Using this case as an example, perhaps the government can work toward banning all inconvenient and unorthodox books.
posted by win_k at 12:07 PM on April 14, 2003
After all, their website has an animated .gif featuring a red x being drawn on Thomas Jefferson's mouth, and they have Sissy Spacek on the board ... so they certainly do have unmatchable intellectual and moral ascendency.
~chuckle~
Some MeFites consistently spout ad hominem logical fallacies....even when their target isn't a hominem.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:19 PM on April 14, 2003
~chuckle~
Some MeFites consistently spout ad hominem logical fallacies....even when their target isn't a hominem.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:19 PM on April 14, 2003
Who are you calling a hominem?
posted by Pollomacho at 9:39 AM on April 15, 2003
posted by Pollomacho at 9:39 AM on April 15, 2003
« Older Ecce Pneumo! | Petrochemical Perfection! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by srboisvert at 2:24 PM on April 13, 2003