Neo-Nazis have it easy these days

On April 26, 2009 in Phoenix, Oregon, there was a peaceful protest on the street against the National Socialist movement. It was a protest for love, which was met by opposition on the other side of the street. The small opposition group had skinheads waving around their version of the American flag, mutilated with Nazi sign in the middle. The protest was peaceful in the fact that nobody got physically hurt, but as Nicole Strykowski said, the Nazi symbol has become a hurtful symbol. Although they have the right to protest and march through their right to assembly.

“The common good over self interest.” That is the dark bolded line of the National Socialist Movement’s 25 Point Party Thesis. This group is more commonly known as the neo-Nazis who are often identifiable as skinheads. They work to protect America for the Americans. Of course, they hate the Jews, homosexuals, (in fact, it is clearly stated that anyone seeking membership cannot be a Jew or a homosexual) colored people, racial traitors, illegal immigrants…and regular immigrants. Soo basically, everyone! They hate everyone, and the only true superior race is the “American race” are those of European ancestry. Sound familiar? According to history, there was the Holocaust and the enslavement of the African people. Both of these came about due to the belief that one race is superior to all others.

The Fighting words doctrine perplexes me. It includes the “lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” as stated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. In the case of Chaplinsky v. Fighting words does not apply to symbols though. Even in the case of burning a cross on someone’s lawn, does not qualify for the fighting words doctrine. (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul) New Hampshire, Chaplinsky was a Jehovah’s witness who verbally berated a town marshal calling him things such as, “a damned facist.” There was no immediate breach of peace, in fact, I think it was a big deal because he said insulting words to an authority. When the protestors for the NSM are saying that people of different colors, creeds, and sexualities are not real Americans and that the Aryan Americans will prevail, it is inherently threatening. Again, given our world history, this is how it all starts. Their words during protests sometimes incite immediate breaches of peace, but should there be no regulation? We need to keep in mind that Hitler started off the same way.

I think that the fighting words doctrine does not do enough, because it is difficult to apply to cases due to its strict definition and the Supreme Court’s decisions in accordance to the doctrine. In Cohen v. California, Cohen was arrested for wearing a jacket that said, “Fuck the draft.” The Supreme Court ruled that it still fell under protected speech and did not constitute fighting words. What if Cohen’s jacket had said Fuck the Jews? I think it would still be ruled protected speech, which bothers me. I think that Neo-nazis do have the right to assemble peacefully, but what about burning crosses and hating everyone else is peaceful?

On the Way to Springfield

As I was on in the car with my friend on the way to Springfield, I noticed the “Guns Save Lives” signs. Personally, I am from the city, and there is guns are for the police and gang members. I disagreed with the sign, but my friend said that they need guns on farms to protect their property. I argued that people, regardless of whether or not they lived on a farm, should not be forced to protect themselves with guns. To which she had a clutch reply that if the bad guys had guns, then the people would be defenseless against them. So, with that mind set, should the government give everyone guns to protect themselves from the bad guys?

Assuming that the signs were lined up on someone’s farm, they have the right to do what they want on their property as long as no one gets hurt. I wondered if it was constitutional for them to be able to put them up overlooking a highway. Anyone who drives down this highway is forced to look at the sign. I am all about a free marketplace of ideas, but what if I can’t just look away as discussed in the Paris Adult Theater I v. Slaton. These people are maintaining their second amendment right that says, “the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” I would argue that this may be a strict interpretation of the law. At the time of the forefathers, the purpose of this law was to allow them to protect their property from delinquents. Yet, in the time of our forefathers, they did not have to deal with urban gangs and school shootings. The message on the highway could be interpreted as nothing, but it can also be an advertisement to children.

Remembering Columbine, there were a lot of issues revolving around the shooting: bullying, goth culture, video games, and gun control. A recent article stated that it has become easier for people to bear arms in the past ten years. Texas is trying to make a law that allows college students to bring firearms to class so if a shooting like the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech happens, they can shoot the shooter. WHAT?!?! First off, the average person probably sucks at aiming. Second, can you imagine the consequences of drunk college kids having guns? What is wrong with people? Times have changed. What the second amendment secured for us in the days of our forefathers is not the same for us today, but it seems like we are not progressing the times.

It has been a difficult issue to address, especially with America’s gun culture. The issue is not going anywhere, school shootings have become a commodity. The Supreme Court has only taken 2 gun-control cases in the past 70 years. To indulge my neoliberal side, I think that the government could do us a favor and remove those Guns Save Lives posters and replace them with anti-violence and tolerance posters.

AP v. The World as We Know it!

In today’s technological world, the news reporting via internet, newspapers, etc, seem to leap across boundaries. The other day, I was browsing through some soccer fan sites, and I noticed that many of the websites had the same pictures of our favorite football players. Interestingly, some of those websites claim rights to the photos and clearly state that if anyone wants to use their pictures had to get their permission. I don’t know if that’s what makes any fan site legitimate, but it makes me wonder who really owns the photos. Also, can other people retain rights over photos that they did not take?

To move on with this point, I refer to the case with the iconic “Obey” photo of Obama staring wisely into the distance. (Interestingly, a gajillion versions of this picture and manipulations of this picture pop up when you type “obey obama” into google.) Today, we have the FCC patrolling the rights to broadcast media, but the internet is still up in the air. In Fairey v. The Associated Press, Shepard Fairey filed a lawsuit against the Associated Press asking the judge to declare that he was protected from copyright infringement with his artwork. The defense against copyright infringement is the “fair use” clause of copyright law. Fair use requires that the new work does not violate the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, and the works reproduced for the purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research, and personal consumption is allowed. It also depends on the court’s application of whether: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work, including the extent to which the use diminishes the economic value of the work.

Fairey took the original photograph taken by Mannie Garcia and, according to his lawyer, created a “stunning, abstracted and idealized visual image that created powerful new meaning and conveys a radically different message.” I laughed to myself or maybe even out loud, at my computer…by myself, when I read this. Fairey is known as an unconventional artist. He is part of the guerrilla-style art movement that has its origins from graffiti. Like graffiti, Fairey’s work can probably be found illegally displayed on public buildings and signs. His track record exposes that he was arrested in Boston for illegally pasting his work around the city. Surprise! The lawsuit was a pre-emptive strike on Fairey’s end, due to the fact that only one month prior to the lawsuit, AP had demanded that he fork over a portion of the profits he made from the photo. Interestingly enough, Mannie Garcia stated, “I don’t condone people taking things, just because they can, off the Internet, but in this case I think it’s a very unique situation. If you put all the legal stuff away, I’m so proud of the photograph and that Fairey did what he did artistically with it, and the effect it’s had.”

I indulge my artsy-fartsy side in that I believe that Shepard Fairey’s work is indeed original, because, like Andy Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup Cans, he took something that was already created and made it his own. The new image, although an alteration, is now an new piece of work. BUT, I do feel bad for Mannie Garcia. Maybe instead of paying off AP from photo profits, maybe Fairey should give it to Garcia. Recently, AP released news that they were launching a campaign against copyright infringement on the internet. Newsman Howard Beale stated that they will "no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories. We are mad as hell, and we are not going to take it any more." An attempt to control the use of quotes and photographs on the internet?!?! A brave step by AP, but I have a feeling that in the end, the people (bloggers included) shall prevail. Sorry AP.

Keira Knightley, Teri Hatcher, Lily Allen. We “know” these people, because they are relentlessly thrown at us via tabloid magazines at every checkout counter. These celebrities have one thing in common: they have all had problems with the tabloids whether it’s an allegation of sex in a van with several men or simply doing drugs. We all remember the threat to sue by Jessica Alba against Playboy for using her photo from another photo shoot on the cover of Playboy Magazine on the grounds of misappropriation for the purpose of profit. With the use of flashy titles and scintillating photographs, tabloids easily mislead the public in news of their fave celebs.
In December 2006, the Daily Mail used a photo of Keira Knightley in a bikini with their story of 19-year old Sophie Mazurek’s death from anorexia. Sophie’s mother “blamed the fashion and film industries - increasingly populated by size zero icons - for contributing to her daughter's death.” I do agree that these images in the media to present females with unhealthily-thin icons. However, I do maintain a libertarian stance in that there is so much information out in the world, it is up to the individual to be the gatekeeper in terms of how they interpret the media. We cannot say that every gun fight in the movies is going to lead to a shooting. In January 2007, Knightley launched a libel action against the Daily Mail for suggesting that she was losing too much weight and could be anorexic and attributing the anorexia-induced death to the waify actress. The lawyers also sought retribution for the defamation of their client by publishing false stories. In another Daily Mail article a month later Knightley stated that although she did not suffer from anorexia herself, her grandmother and great-grandmother struggled with the disease, which they also butchered to make it seem as if Knightley suffered from eating disorders.
In the case of Peoples Bank and Trust Co. v. Globe International Publishing Inc., Nellie Mitchell was a 97-year old woman who worked at a newsstand and delivered newspapers in her city Mountain Home in Baxter County, Arkansas for almost 50 years. Since she was a local legend and well known for her long record of service, she was deemed newsworthy in 1980 by the National Examiner and Sun. Globe. which ran news stories of her. In 1990 however, the same photo used in for the news stories in 1980 were used again to accompany an article titled, “Pregnancy forces Granny to Quit Work at Age 101.” was falsely claimed by the Globe to be retiring due to pregnancy. By misusing Mitchell’s photo, like the Daily Mail’s use of Keira Knightley’s photo, she was linked to a completely fictitious story as an Australian mail carrier who became pregnant in an extra-marital affair via her route. She sued under the false light invasion of privacy. In the As stated in Benz. v. Washington Newspaper Publishing Co. a “false light invasion of privacy claim requires a showing of 1) publicity 2) about a false statement, representation or imputation 3) understood to be of and concerning the plaintiff and 4) which places the plaintiff in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.” Knightley’s pains were similar to Benz’s in that it is “highly offensive to a reasonable person.” I guess this goes to show, not everything in the celebrity world is glitzy, and that famous or not, the tabloids will get you!