I’ve put off blogging my remarks about “The Pentagon Papers” (2002, starring James Spader) because I’m torn abt what to say. I’ve commented in other posts and papers that the problem with challenges to the First Amendment is application and enforcement. What’s good for the goose must be good for the gander; it can’t be picked apart.

I struggle with my opinion on this true-to-life cinematic story for several reasons:

• I believe that security clearances are granted for a darn good reason and not everyone should have one;
• I think it is unethical for a paper to publish classified information;
• I don’t think the general public needs to know every detail about a war effort (as much as we’d like to think we’re capable of running the country, sometimes we need to accept that we don’t have the same access to global information that the President has);
• In a democracy that is supposed to have open channels of communication and checks & balances across all branches of gov’t, I don’t like the idea of being lied to, especially about something as serious as war.
• Part of the function of a free press is to challenge the status quo.

The movie portrayed that Ellsberg did not share portions of the papers that pertained to troop locations/movements or anything else that would jeopardize our armed forces in Vietnam at the time. I haven’t done the research to know if this is true or not, but it does seem to indicate that he had some scruples. He obviously struggled over his convictions. I do think that he would have been convicted of treason if the judge had not declared a mistrial. This was a scenario he was apparently willing to accept.

War is never pretty. I don’t believe there is a “good” way to conduct a war that will please everyone, because you can’t please everyone. Thankfully, we have better technology today than we had back then, and we can use more sophisticated equipment in place of so many troops on the ground, but the fact remains that in war — people die. The bad guys die, the good guys die and unfortunately, innocent civilians die. Could we — should we — have operated differently in Vietnam? Probably. Can we rewrite the past? No.

While I’m on my soapbox, I will add one more comment. Reporters who are embedded with our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan right now should know that people back home actually DO want to read and hear positive stories about our military successes. Instead of seeking out the rogue nutjobs for the latest scandal, why not tell us about the new schools, water treatment facilities, hospitals and businesses that have been built and are operational … thanks to our military?

In this article, a newspaper is petitioning the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to unseal case documents concerning a woman who was fired for having an abortion. (The court ruled the employer’s actions as unlawful.)

I understand the paper’s interest in wanting to know the details of the case, but I also understand the woman’s attorney for wanting to keep her identity protected. The attorney is quoted as saying: “If you couldn’t seal cases like this, a lot of people, like this Jane Doe,” he said, “would not file suit at all.”

Admittedly, I’m not clear on all the legalese involving the sealing of a case docket versus individual case documents (if there is a difference?), but I do think it’s reasonable to keep the plaintiff’s real name anonymous.

The article can be read here: http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=6801

I’ve been thinking a lot lately abt what it means to be a “public figure” or “public official.” A public official, naturally, is someone who holds an elected office or is a public administrator of some sort. A public figure, on the other hand, could be a well-known celebrity or someone who is thrust into the limelight, even temporarily. Even a business person could be considered a public figure, especially if they are a household name.

As I understand things, when it comes to liable and slander, a public figure/official must prove actual malice … simply being offended, insulted, critiqued or lied about isn’t enough to make a case actionable in court.

I can just imagine what the tabloids would say about my life, if they had the gumption to scrutinze it. What would they say about my discount-store apparel? My messy (albeit, lived in) house? My old, dented, messy (I’m seeing a trend here!), gas-guzzling Suburban? My kids? My marriage? My faith and how well (or not) I live it out? My reputation among my peers? My reputation among those handful of folks with whom I don’t get along?

I’d like to believe that I wouldn’t give a flip what anyone thought, if I were famous. Knowing myself as well as I do, however, I am quite certain that it would hurt my feelings if anyone broadcast or wrote cruel things about me. Sticks, stones and words can hurt, but sticks and stones are easier to press charges against.

Response to speech code article (http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9388.html):

I agree with the commentary in the article, namely that the university’s concept of appropriateness is too vague. The FGCU Personal Abuse policy lacks a clear definition of what type of behavior is and is not acceptable on the campus. The Housing & Residence Life policy is downright laughable. I can think of many “annoying” people from my old college dorm … too bad my alma mater didn’t have this policy back in the day! lol

We talked in class today about cases involving alleged harm through imitation (ie, books, movies, video games, etc. that supposedly prompted someone to commit a crime). It reminded me of a funny (and, thankfully, unharmful) situation with my 3-year-old.

I walked into the living room to find him standing on the corner of the couch — one foot on the arm of the couch and the other foot on the back. He had his arms in a “weightlifter” pose with a stern but playful look on his face. I told him to get down and asked what in the world he was doing, and he replied, “I’m a Ninja Warrior, Mommy! Argh!” and proceded to jump off the couch with much flair.

I realized in that moment that he was imitating the Ninja Warrior television show on G4, in which participants (some amusingly less coordinated & athletic than others) subject themselves to obstacle courses in a race against the clock. My tyke was emmulating the folks on tv.

The boys love that show — part of the appeal is the cool name, “Ninja Warrior.” My older two are purple belts in karate and love anything involving martial arts. The best parts, though, are the antics displayed by the participants and the voice-over commentary by the translator. (The original show is in Japanese.)

All that is to say, if my kid were to jump off the couch and — Lord, forbid — break an arm, I would not and should not blame Ninja Warrior or G4 for giving him the idea to be silly. Boys will be boys. Likewise — and on a much more serious note — criminals will be criminals, and reading a how-to-build-weapons book, watching a violent movie or playing a soldier in a video game may appeal to their degenerate minds, but the medium in and of itself is not responsible for the criminals’ actions.

I read a funny comic strip in the Trib today, and it reminded me of our recent class discussions about government-censored media. One of the characters has written some children’s stories, and another character comments that they are about Communism rather than Russian culture. Two of the books in question are: “Harry Pyotr and The Chamber of State Secrets” and “Harry Pyotr and the Prisoner of Kazakhstan.” haha

I read a funny comic strip in the Trib today, and it reminded me of our recent class discussions about government-censored media. One of the characters has written some children’s stories, and another character comments that they are about Communism rather than Russian culture. Two of the books in question are: “Harry Pyotr and The Chamber of State Secrets” and “Harry Pyotr and the Prisoner of Kazakhstan.” haha

An op/ed piece in the May 9, 2008, issue of The Chronicle of Higher Ed suggests that America’s seven wealthiest universities should pool their endowment resources to buy out The New York Times. The commentary is written by Lee Smith, a retired journalist, and he tries to make the case that newspapers, and The New York Times, in particular, are such a critical component of higher education that colleges & universities should “assume responsibility” for their survival (p. A32).

I’m not sure I buy his argument that universities should bail out the struggling newspapers. He asserts that such an effort would “… maximiz[e] intellectual value rather than financial value” and “… help ensure the continuing availability of the kind of information that helps make intellectual life possible.”

Besides my gut instinct that says this is a market condition that needs to right itself rather than undergird a business endeavor with nonprofit funds, I think it would be a conflict of interest for universities to have a financial stake in the news media. Part of the validity of the news is that it is external from the organization.