Censorship and the Government

One of the most important and influential innovations over the past two years has been the creation of the organization "Wikileaks". This website is a non-for-profit media source that publishes confidential documents from anonymous sources. These documents tend to revolve around American issues and conflicts, such as the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. The governments that are in question, such as the United States, states that “We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information.” The United States government has strongly opposed Wikileaks because they claim that the documents are meant to be highly classified and it could be a national security risk to the entire nation.

This goes along well with what we have been discussing in our American Studies class. With the Perilous Times project, we have been asked to investigate civil liberties issues in our specific wartime era. The question is this: Like in our Perilous Times project, are the government's attempts at censoring Wikileaks a violation of our free speech? Personally, since we are at a time of war, I do not believe that this is a free speech issue. Since Wikileaks is a free source, that means anybody, including terrorists in the Middle East, can obtain these files. In order to carry out our duties in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is essential that our enemy not obtain any information that could compromise the mission at hand. So I do agree with the government's desire to stop these harmful documents from being released, as it actually is a matter of national security for us all.

Mixed Signals

Earlier this week, MSNBC suspended its leading liberal voice, anchor Keith Olbermann, for his donations to the Democratic Party during this month's midterm elections for the United States Congress. The primetime news anchor states that he did not know about this rule and he has since apologized. This suspension has been used as a display between objectivity and opinion on television today.

I think there are two parts of this story that are particular interesting. First, I personally believe that this move is a very different one than I would have suspected. Over the years, MSNBC has been accused by multiple sources of having an extremely liberal bias towards the news. This strong difference can change the news, known from its inception to be objective, into something much more opinionated in order to persuade viewers in a certain way. Even with these reports, MSNBC refused to alter their technique, most notably leaving their extremely left-wing anchor in the nightly news. I think that MSNBC was sending a message to the American viewers and beyond that the were accepting their role as liberal media. On the other hand, suspending Olbermann for his donations to the Democratic party is nearly in exact opposite of the signal that MSNBC was sending previous. MSNBC was probably doing so to appeal to their audience that they are "neutral" and that they hold their star, Olbermann, to the same standard. However, it did not come out this way. The network has completely contradicted themselves and sent mixed and insecure messages. If they want to have a liberal bias, go ahead and announce it for everyone to know. But to not, claim neutrality, and screw news in your favor is just wrong and hurtful to the public. So what do you think: is MSNBC sending mixed signals to their viewers?

The Pledge of Allegiance

Earlier in class today, we discussed civil rights here in the United States. We participated in an exercise where our teachers gave us certain instances and we had to decide whether they were protected by the government or limited by the government. For most of the situations, I agreed with the governments' stances on these very controversial topics. I believed that usually the government has taken the right direction that keeps our civil liberties and follows the Constitution while keeping our citizens safe. But for one, I strongly disagreed.

The issue was this: "Students refuse to cite the Pledge of Allegiance during class or advisory". It appeared that most of the class agreed that this is a right protected by the government and the Constitution. The supporters of this statement believe that it is an act of free speech and is at the basis of our Bill of Rights, in the First Amendment. While I do also agree that this act resembles free speech in some sort of way, I personally believe that all students should stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance fully. My reasoning for this is for a few reasons. One reason is that the Pledge represents what being an American citizen is all about. The Pledge of Allegiance is just that; it says that you are proud to be an American and will always treat it at home. We are all citizens of the United States, and people are saying that it is that hard to stand up, look at the red white and blue, and put your hand over your heart? Following the Pledge is a simple way of stating your citizenship proudly and respecting where this nation has been. I know the opposing arguments, but I still believe that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance should be followed by all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion. After all, we all are Americans.