Blog 7 Jour 4460: How Far Does Freedom Of Speech Go?

Picture by Alex Dobson
From the WKUHerald.com

In my opinion, Twitter is an open social networking site where people can voice their thoughts and share them with a large audience.

Western Kentucky University has been “aggressively” trying to shut down parody accounts on Twitter and is attempting to silence any negatives comments about school officials and policies.

What is the limit for freedom of speech? If I’m not harassing school officials, what legal rights does the school have when it comes to sharing my opinion on an open networking site?

Instead of scolding students online, officials should take the comments that are posted to heart, if it’s a valid complaint. Then take the necessary steps to correct the subject of the complaint.

This isn’t some random fishing expedition by the school. If WKU is actively searching for parody accounts on social media sites and comments that show the school in anything else but a good light it’s because more than a few students have issues with the university.

Stacy Biggs, WKU’S chief marketing officer, remarked that the school isn’t trying to censor students, but that the school “has to offer some amount of protection to its students.” Protect them from what though? The comments made and parody accounts that are being sought after are targeted toward the school’s policies and officials, not the students that attend. Another reason stated by Biggs is that “such efforts are aimed at protecting the school’s reputation and brand.” If this is the case there is no basis for the search because scolding students who don’t agree with certain policies into silence online to protect your brand is unethical.

Autum Calloway, a WKU junior and psychology major, said “ ‘I don’t ever criticize the school on Twitter because I don’t want an ordeal made,’ ...noting friends have been scolded by officials for postings deemed poor representations of the school.”

“Western Kentucky University's president has used Facebook to lecture students about social networking etiquette, and officials persuaded Twitter to briefly shut down a parody account dripping with sarcasm and criticism with posts marked "(hash)wku," according to an article by the Associated Press.

This is not okay. If this ever went to court and WKU won, which I find a very doubtful outcome, then it could set a precedent for another organization to pressure anyone who doesn’t agree with what the organization is doing with a lawsuit if he/she doesn’t keep their comments to themselves. Then the First Amendment goes out the window.

The current policy in the student handbook at WKU dealing with online communication states “accessible communications deemed inappropriate may lead to disciplinary action.” However, “because WKU is a public university, it can’t make policies on what is and is not appropriate speech,” said Adam Goldstein, attorney advocate with the Student Press Law Center at WKU.

In an article posted on WKUHearld.com, Goldstein said, “As long as the word ‘inappropriate is there, that just means we’re going to punish whatever we don’t like, as the government you positively cannot do that ever.”

WKU officials needs to get out of their dream world and understand that there is no utopia when it comes to being in the public eye. There is no feasible way to make everyone happy. I think that if the school had left the accounts alone, as long as no harassment was involved, the comments would have stopped, eventually. WKU really drew more attention to itself because it addressed the problem in a loud manner.

Blog # 2 Jour 4470: Advertising Ethically

Do advertisers have a duty to the public to present the actual truth to the audience or does their loyalty lie with the client who is paying them to come up with and execute a concept?

The video in this blog discusses advertisements by Apple, a wrinkle cream and Doritos. Some of the ethical aspects of advertisements I agree with, some I don’t. The Apple commercial, for instance, does make it appear that the download speed of the phone takes only a few seconds. The actual download rate is shown and the person who shot the film shows the final result after video is spliced and cut. In this case, yes Apple is acting a tad unethical giving the impression that the phone is faster than it actually is.

 

However, within Egoism it is acting ethically toward the company. Since the ad gives Apple the connotation that it’s the fastest and best technology on the current market it promotes the company’s own long-term self-interest through the use of sales. Although, its state of corporate transparency is in question.

I don’t agree with is the video’s view on the Doritos commercial. The commercial isn’t meant to inform the audience of the cheesiness that is Doritos. The commercial was meant to entertain, and it completed its objective when I saw it.

Advertisements do have an obligation to be truthful, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be fun as well.

An example of advertisement being exposed for lying is the Dove commercial where an average woman has professionals do her makeup and hair, completes a photo shoot and even after has her picture photoshopped for the final product. This commercial revealed the edits the beauty industry makes all the time. It’s good that Dove did this because there are young women and girls who takes what’s in the magazines for face value, not knowing that the majority, if not all, of the photos in it have been altered somehow. An example of over dramatization is the case where Ralph Lauren edited the body of Filippa Hamilton to the point where her head was bigger than her pelvis, and actually her body.

The Ralph Lauren incident is a clear violation of ethical practices. The purpose of the ad was not to entertain. The model’s body was altered because it was perceived that it would be more beautiful that way. It ended up looking like nothing in this world, and not in a good way.

It’s important that young girls learn not to take everything in as they see it. They should know that the picture was altered. Even though it might take away the artistic value of a photo if there’s a disclaimer on the bottom stating, “Models in the picture are bigger than they appear.”

In accordance with Utilitarianism, the greater good would be to use models as they are or put a disclaimer on the advertisements so that a false ad is not taken for reality. And in this case the end doesn’t justify the means. The end being that the company makes a little bit of money, the means being a person is altered. Ads like this have a very heavy affect on young minds, and can leave an impression that if you don’t turn invisible when you turn sideways you’re not pretty.

It actually goes against cultural relativism as well. In some cultures being “thick” is what is considered beautiful. Take a look at hip-hop music videos. You won’t find too many walking toothpicks in them.

Another debate of ethical practices of advertisements is one that was discussed in class. Actually, this is the second class that this subject was brought up in. That is the way that advertisers appeal to children.

Cereal commercials are basically 30 second Looney Tunes commercials, and the box is the souvenir that kids ache for when they see the box at the grocery store.

In the grocery store cereal boxes directed toward children are placed on the lower shelves of the aisle. Why? Well, there aren’t that many 6-year-olds who are 5’ 6’’.

Is it ethical to exploit children with talking rabbits, leprechauns and pretty colors to make a profit?

Looking back, I don’t agree with how advertisers lured me into the sugary sweetness that is Lucky Charms. However, my mother was there to tell me no when I wanted to eat certain things. If I wanted something sweet I was offered a piece of fruit. My communitarianism view is that advertisers should alter how they sell kids’ cereals, but I also think that parents should step up and spend time with their kids instead of just letting Dora the Explorer and the Backyardigans baby-sit them. Everyone has to alter their behavior in order to make a lasting change.

Blog #6 Jour 4460: Teens Ask "Am I Ugly?"

When I was going through middle and high school teachers and parents always emphasized positive body and self-worth images. In health class there would be videos about anorexic or bulimic girls who thought they were fat but in reality barely made 100 pounds.

Like every school there were some bullies, but I had my friends to back me up. Today, it seems that this isn’t enough for some young girls. There is a new Internet trend. Young girls are posting YouTube videos asking strangers if they are pretty or not.

The two girls shown in the video on the ABC website both said that their friends say that they’re pretty, but other things contradict what they say. One, girl says she doesn’t think she’s pretty because other students at her school tell her she’s ugly. She looks to be about middle school age with heavy eyeliner, mascara and a red lipstick on in the video. The other girl believes she’s ugly because she doesn’t have a boyfriend and believes that “boys don’t like [her].”

Videos like these make it easy for Internet trolls and cyber creeps to exploit young girls with low self-esteem. Creeps like the men that get caught on How To Catch A Predator.

Social media, and technology really, is becoming more easily picked up by younger generations. This trend could be a good thing, but if young teens are having unrestricted Internet access, they can do things that can put themselves at risk, even if they don’t realize it.

One of my biggest questions is what will the girls gain from the comments of strangers? If the majority say the girls is pretty will she go to school and tell those who call her ugly they’re wrong, and that strangers on the Internet told her she was pretty. If the comments say that the girl is ugly what will that do to her obviously already low self-esteem? Would she take so far as to harm herself?

Who’s to blame for these videos? Their parents because they should be more involved with their children and place restrictions on them? Should YouTube delete the videos posted by the young girls? What about the schools the girls attend, should they become more involved with the bullying that occurs?

It’s not hard for a 13 year-old girl to say she’s 21 on a social media site. Just click on the appropriate year for the birth date section. Should social media sites come up with a more productive way to verify the age of its users? The Internet is not a babysitter, but I believe sites that allow children to utilize them have a responsibility to help protect them. Parents should also monitor their children’s online activity because kids are curious; they go places they shouldn’t and do things that aren’t in their best interest.

These young girls need to get help from somewhere because posting these videos is not an emotionally healthy thing to do. 

Blog #5 Jour 4460: Kind of, Sort of Bold...Maybe

February 13, 2012 the University of North Texas revealed four new “bold goals.” They are as follows:

1.     Provide the best undergraduate educational experience in Texas

2.     Provide superior graduate education, scholarship and artistic endeavors and achieve status among the nation’s tier-one research institutions

3.     Become a national leader among universities in student support, employee relations, operational effectiveness and service to constituencies

4.     Establish UNT as a nationally recognized, engaged university and regional leader by building and expanding mutually beneficial partnerships and resources

The university did very well letting the students know about the event and what it would entail through the use of the school’s email system and Twitter. The majority of students I spoke to, however, heard about the event through the use of the Twitter hashtag #UNTBold. I think that the school should use Twitter as a main source of dispersing information because not a lot of students check their UNT email that often since they have other primary accounts with other services. I know before this semester, when a professor said she would only send messages through the UNT email, I might have checked that account every four to six months.

While, the school did a phenomenal job getting the message about the event out there, I must admit I was a little disappointed in the goals themselves. Hearing the word “bold” created in my mind a connotation that the school was going to step out of the box with the goals, create something with an in your face feeling. Because of this I was excited to go and hear what the faculty came up with. In truth though, I feel that these goals are stuff that any school should be doing anyway and that there’s nothing to bold about them. If anything “bold” should be changed to “ambitious.” 

At this event UNT also released a new motto and logo. “A green light to greatness,” is the motto and the logo looks like, to me, a cartoon version of a green stoplight, green sun or something that an energy company would use. The motto I’m a fan of, the logo not so much. I think with an entire degree plan dedicated to graphic design someone could have come up with something better.

The school wasted no time in spreading its new image. Often I have to leave for work hours before the sun even comes up, and on my way to work I passed a billboard with the new motto and logo up. I later heard my classmates say billboards were also changed in Dallas.

It has also crept its way on merchandise in the UNT bookstore located in the Union on campus. As soon as you stand in front of the entry ways the first thing a visitor, student or faculty will see is a display that is, in my opinion, bold.

Perhaps, over time, the lime logo will go me, but as of now I prefer the Mean Green eagle. 

Blog #4 Jour 4460: Birth Control Spill

Recently President Obama has announced that as a part of health care he wants birth control to be free. Doing this would require religious-affiliated organizations and universities to pay for the contraceptives. Birth control goes against Roman Catholic beliefs. So of course, there were some who strongly opposed this rule.

To appease those who did oppose this plan Obama softened his ruling so religious organizations wouldn’t have to pay for the contraceptives and shift the cost over to health insurance companies.

In my opinion, there are two ethical sides to this story. On one side, there is the whole notion of the separation of church and state. The whole point was so that neither the government nor the church could abuse its power to dictate the other. By requiring that a religious organization to go against their beliefs is by no means right.

However, this is not the same world as it was when the law was drafted. They didn’t have “16 and Pregnant” playing once a week in the local theatre. Nor, did they have a daycare as a part of the local schoolhouse for young teenage students. The strict adherence to religious beliefs has also changed. While, there still are people who abide by their beliefs in the strictest manner, many people do not. I’m Catholic myself and I see nothing wrong with birth control. My mother actually tried to get me on it for about four years before I finally agreed. Many other mothers in my church back home actually suggested to their daughters to start taking birth control pills.

I can understand why church officials don’t want the government giving them mandates. But, if the people that work for the organizations feel the same way the organization officials do then they shouldn’t worry. I just think that Obama isn’t trying to regulate religion. The reality of today is that most young people have sex and the average age seems to be getting younger. With this comes more problems because the majority of these kids don’t know about STDs or how to properly go about safe sex. Their parents don’t talk to them about it and not all high schools do either.  Yes, there are safe sex programs, abstinence advertisements and the whole “Wrap It Up” campaign, but the problem of unwanted pregnancy still erupts. And, if making birth control free can help curve this unwanted pregnancy rate then I’m all for it. Because trust me, without insurance covering it, a one month supply can cost about $100. And, I have the receipts to prove it. It was hard for me to get along, so I know it’s hard for other women as well.

I really just think that instead of trying to fight the issue using strategies that obviously don’t work, except for MTV’s ratings on Tuesdays at 9 p.m. central time, Obama is trying to find a helpful solution. While, trying to maintain a fair perspective of everyone’s views.