CMJR 450

2। In chapter seven of PaSM, slogans are defined as “definitive statements of the social movement’s truths and rely on audience dispositions to achieve expected responses.” Choose a cause you would choose to fight for today. Based on your chosen cause, what would be your target population? What slogan would you use? Would you use humor, would you use shocking language, etc.? Which type of slogan do you presume would be most effective to reach and affect people – sanctioned or advertising; or would you rather create a spontaneous slogan?

"The brevity of slogans limits their use in transforming perceptions of reality, but some encapsulate an intolerable situation in a few striking words..." My cause would focus on animal rights. "meat is murder" would be my slogan the book talks about an attempt to redefine reality through your use of language. The language meat is murder makes people think twice about what it takes to produce their meal. My target population would be meat eaters that were not aware of the horrific process of the slaughter industry. The slogan "meat is murder" creates a strong personal identification the animal right cause. I firmly believe shocking language would be more persuasive then humor for my cause. The book talks about slogans acting as physical surrogate for physical aggression. The shock factor permeates a strong message that is a serious issue of the humane treatment of animals. The slogan that uses language that might possibly shift their attitude is going to be the most persuasive and reach the most amount of people. I would use whatever means of advertising we were able to afford from our resources. I would employ a grass roots style movement. I would use signs, the internet, banners anything to get the message spread.  

CMJR 494 response to Evan's question week 8

3) Last week I was intrigued by Gary Atkins’ presentation about definitions of Child Pornography and worldwide ages of consent relating to having sex. I found it very interesting that even though an American citizen may travel outside of the United States, the same sexual consent laws still apply even in an international setting and the same applies for foreign citizens when the come to visit the United States. I have several questions based upon the class discussion. 1) How much of a role do you think biology plays or should play in determining the legal age for two consenting people to have sex? 2) Based upon different cultural understandings of consent relating to sex, can you still hold someone from one culture accountable in another culture for any violation of sexual consent laws they may have committed in a different country? For example the legal age of sexual consent in Washington State is 16/18 meaning that it is legal for a 16-year-old male to have sex with an 18-year-old female. In the Philippines it is legal for a 12-year-old male to have sex with an 18-year-old female. If an 18-year-old female citizen of the Philippines comes to the United States and has sex with a 12-year-old male can you hold her accountable and charge her with rape? Or do you excuse her because according to her cultural understanding it is accepted even though she was in the United States when the sexual act was committed? If the scenario was reversed and an 18-year-old male had sex with a 12-year-old female would it make a difference? Based upon this knowledge does your answer about how much biology should be involved in determining the age of consent change? If so why or why not?

This topic cultivates quite a discussion. The age of consent internationally is an interesting issue. I believe as an American citizen we should be held to the same expectation legally around the world. The lines get blurred if we don't sustain this same standard. Although I do believe there is a double standard when it comes to sex. Why is it socially acceptable for a 16 year old boy to sleep with an 18 year old women but if you reverse this scenario it is rape?  I don't think biology should be involved in decisions of age of consent. So much of this issue is tied up in religion. Four boys in Iraq were just hung in public to denounce the act of homosexuality. Why such a horrendous act? The government can justify the execution of teenagers in the name of Allah and the Muslim religion. There is absolutely no logic in religion when it comes to sex. It is harmful to society and the progression towards a greater good. When will religion be extrapolated from law?

CMJR 494 response to Evan's question

Questions for Week 8 from Chapter 5 in “Freedom of Speech in the United States”

1) Since George Carlin’s monologue, “Filthy Words” much has changed in terms of what is now considered obscene language over the airwaves. With the invent of select radio shows such as the Howard Stern show where he has porn stars and other celebrities come and talk over the air waves it seems that just about any kind of profane and disgusting speech is allowed to be broadcasted. Now, radio talk show hosts can pretty much swear on demand saying obscene and vulgar things about pretty much anyone one they want and it is alright. Yet, while the lines are becoming blurred in terms of what is considered obscene speech, there are still distinguishable lines that do exist. Take Don Imus and the “Nappy headed Ho” comment that cost him his job as a radio host and forced him off the air. My question is: If the line is blurry and profane and disgusting speech in terms of obscene expression has become more about “sensual and erotic images” (pg 121) where would you draw the line? If Howard Stern can have a radio show with porn stars getting naked and doing all kinds of sexual things to each other (and he even has a pay per view late night radio show that is broadcast via television so people can actually see the sexual acts being done in the studio) how can this be allowed? Yet, Don Imus makes a comment about some Rutgers women basketball players and loses his job due to the obscene nature of his language. Where is the line then? Does it have to be related to racist comments? If so, why don’t all the other radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and various others get kicked off the air for racist comments? Once you answer those questions consider the 3rd category of obscenity. Is it still a legitimate claim for obscene speech then? Even though it has been more identified with sensual and erotic content can simple language in the form of spoken words be enough to be considered obscene?

Justice Brennan in his majority opinion upheld the conviction of the Roth v. United States, he stated: "All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance.....have the full protection of the guarantees," he observed "unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests" In terms of Howard Stern's cable show consumers must subscribe to his show so it is held to a different standard by the FCC then Don Imus's bit on the radio. Stern has more freedom to express his message to his audience because they all want to see the material. Don Imus was on the public radio which has different provisions then cable. Imus's message would not be considered obscene and was not fined by the FCC. His employer terminated his position due to blatant disregard of their code of conduct. Your question brings up two separate issues: one of racial slurs said on the public airwaves and sensual/erotic language used on a cable network. The "Roth test" would not apply because of the nature of the broadcast. So it's a far fetched argument to compare Don Imus losing his job because of a racial slur and the "sexual' material on Stern's show. The message is not held to the same test due to its content. Justice Brennan talks about the idea of social importance. I firmly believe if obscenity is aired to the public it should be held to the Roth test and be censored if found to be obscene or vulgar. On the other hand if you are subscribing to a channel that contains this material you should be able view it.  Spoken words can be considered obscene but not in the case of Don Imus. I would side with the FCC to censor Howard Stern if he was on public airwaves speaking obscenely.

Response to Anna's question CMJR 450

It is stated that, “Nearly all social movement persuaders use the notion of a people to unify and to provide a means of identification for otherwise disparate groups. They claim to speak in the name of the people, for the will of the people, and in the “soul and spirit” of the people,” (161). Thinking back to President Barack Obama’s campaign and his idea of “Hope”, how did he to use this notion of a people to reach the American audience? What about in his inaugural address?

identification was a fighting force throughout his entire campaign. Obama inspired America to act, to be part of a greater good, and that everyone has democratic obligation to do their part. His message transcended past the political norm and enabled us to overcome our differences. As a culture we are all diverse but we also have common ground this is where our president succeeded. He was able to take a Country that was terribly even vulnerable and unite us. Divided in many aspects Obama established commenality within our Country. Kenneth Burke talks about sharing important aspects of nature and substance this enables the process of identification that reduces ambiguity thus encouraging cooperation. One of Obama's notable victories was galvanizing the youth vote. I firmly believe he won in part by the youth votes grass roots efforts. He used identification as an instrument of transformation by taking people that our usually disengaged with the political system and inspire them to take action. The message of Hope that was at the core of his argument gave us motivation to reach a common ground. He was able to bring different subsets of people together. 

In his inaugural speech Obama paints a narrative that people could identify with. When he said "We the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebear, and true to our founding documents." this plural pronoun is incredibly powerful He builds identity through we versus them ideology. The audience feels a bond, a sense of moral obligation. In conclusion his language and use of identification were pivotal in his victory 

CMJR 450

Week Eight Reponse

Social movements and opposing movements (voices) argue with each other because they believe their case to be just or (slightly) the better choice। Our text states that it is more difficult for social movements in arguing their view over opposing ones because they “have limited resources and find it difficult to prove that an institution, competing movement, norm, or value is utterly without value.” (PASM, pg.248) You cannot make everybody happy, so what do you do when a social movement and opposing movement have equal support? For example: Pro-life vs Pro-choice. Do you think one movement is more just than the other? What beliefs and/or ethics support your views? Does it always have to be black or white, or should ethical values be viewed in grey?

Ethics of abortion is a tough issue and has been argued about for years. However, the recent slaying of Dr. George Tiller has cultivated discussion around the topic. Pro-lifers recently denounced the act calling it a heinous act at the same time their movement fuels this behavior. “Should an innocent human being be killed for the crime of another.” (PaSM, 242) This quote from the text brings attention to the pro-life movement. Does this justify such a horrific act? The dichotomy between the two movements is interesting due to there shared popularity. Although the pro-life movement does have a slight advantage according to the text it does not give the movement more authority. The pro-life movement’s main tenet is the right to control one’s body and the death of the fetus is an unavoidable consequence of choosing not to continue their pregnancy. A woman has an ethical claim to personal, bodily autonomy and must be regarded as fundamental to the conception of any ethical, democratic, and free society. The readings talk about the idea of the four points of comparison on the issue they are: quality, quantity, value and hierarchy.  The four points are intertwined in the reasoning and rhetoric behind the movements. The anti-abortion movement is not making any attempts to harness the evil that they perpetuate. Dr. Tiller is a recent example of their rhetoric in action. Taking the life of one to justify the death of a fetus is tough message to sell the audience. Given the ethical dilemma between the two movements it is a gray area. That is fundamentally my reasoning and the beauty of our Country is that you have the right to choose.

 

Strategies that are ineffective and effective in social movements CMJR 450

I think ridicule as an effective strategy can be extremely strong. It becomes an effective way of polarizing a social movement and its opposition. It becomes irrefutable when it’s someone’s opinion. The black panthers used this strategy to their advantage. They would often call police “pigs”. The verbal assaults become more ideological then personal giving the assaults more strength. Ridicule can take different forms: in text, speech, and songs. Our last president was constantly ridiculed this became a cultural norm. There was very little “shock factor” associated with this political ridicule.
I think violence is an ineffective strategy when used. Violence perpetuates violence which is a slippery slope in a social movement. Gaining credibility in a movement is integral changing minds and when violence is used as a tactic it opens the flood gates.

CMJR 450 response to what left a lasting impression from the quarter

The story that left a long lasting impression with me was Claire Garoot’s presentation on photo journalism. The piece that I found very interesting was the powerful impact of photo journalism on society and how these photos shape people’s views and ideals. Claire explained the portrayal of the European immigrants living quarters in New York and how this was viewed by Americans. The stories that these photos told changed people’s perceptions. In the Franklin D Roosevelt era of the post reconstruction these photos brought light to basic human needs required by farmers. The absolute impoverished state they were forced to live in due to their economic status was unknown by the majority of American until photo journalist made light of it. The photos were a catalyst for social change. Not only did it help deploy and galvanize the civil rights movement it allowed people to have a voice. Their voice was inherent to their cause. FDR needed the American people behind him in effort to change the “system” these photo journalist aided his efforts. This truly painted a picture that deployed situational needs.