Week 5

Topic One

The first amendment is always referred to as "freedom of speech". In my mind the only thing I've ever really associated the first amendment is the right to say what you want and to protest what you want. I think it's incredibly important to have the first amendment, especially in entertainment. It's on the news all the time when people exercise their first amendment in a way that garners attention, whether that's from a speech, a protest, or a release of information. Sometimes, people can get offended by someone else's use of their first amendment right, but isn't that the whole point of the amendment? That it doesn't matter if you offend someone because you're allowed to say whatever you want? This is 'Murica after all, no one can tell people what to do. Or can they? Every example that immediately came to my mind of people overstepping their bounds regarding the first amendment was political. So it got me thinking, were they really overstepping their bounds? Or is the political world just overly butt hurt and whiny? Two examples stood out to me, and in my opinion they're on opposite ends of the spectrum as far as severity goes. The first example is from when I was a little kid. During George W. Bush's presidency, the Dixie Chicks made some derogatory comments about him at a concert. One member of the band stated that she was ashamed that the president was from Texas. Well, it tanked the band's career. In this instance I think there was a gross overreaction to what was said. For a more recent event that I wold say is on the more extreme side, let's look at a picture.

If nothing else, it's easy to see that holding a likeness of someone's decapitated head is a little more extreme than saying you wish someone wasn't from the same state as you. It almost crosses a line from freedom of speech to actually threatening a person. Now, don't get me wrong. Some people who may or may not have a likeness to the gross looking head in the picture bring these types of reactions and emotions out of people. To me there's a line between showing anger, disappointment, etc. in a political leader, and essentially saying that you want them dead. I'm all for talking trash about politicians, every single one of them is worthless. I also love making fun of politicians, it's a favorite pastime of mine. Donald Trump's hair and skin, George W. Bush trying to read, blaming Obama for anything and everything that happens to me (Stepped in gum? Thanks Obama!). When it comes to depicting anyone as dead I think that it crosses a line and it shouldn't be tolerated. I personally am glad that Kathy Griffith lost her job over the image. I think that if you want to speak out against someone you disagree with, or even just make fun of them, you should be allowed and there shouldn't be negative repercussions. However it's always good to remember that just because you can do something like hold a likeness of the current President's bloody head in a picture, it doesn't mean you should.

The other side of the first amendment is creative material. I think that imitation can either be the highest form of flattery, or it can be theft, depending on the circumstances. I hope that copyright laws don't become more stringent than they already have, because I really enjoy covers of songs and especially parodies. However, when something like a song is used without permission from the artist for personal gain, I think that it really sets the public use rights back.