Censorship and Academic Freedom

Censorship is the intentional curbing of ideas in speech and writing before they are expressed.  Notice the word before. The idea is  denied before even being put to words. Our rights of freedom of speech insure no government official can prevent anything being said or written. Once something is expressed, you are accountable for it. A person can express themselves and then be charged with libel, slander, obscenity, etc.  They get a free ticket to express, but not a free ride.

Academic freedom  is the idea that teachers and students have the right and duty to pursue the truth with no restrictions as long as it is along the lines of accepted scholarship.  Notice it includes students. Violations of academic freedom are handled with due process, just like criminal and civil cases. In an ideal world, a student can write and tell the truth in a scholarly fashion such as a debate or research paper and not be retaliated against.  A teacher does not have to adhere to any orthodoxy and it should not affect their job.

Now let’s talk reality.  There is some gray areas in these two basic rights that we as citizens and the courts struggle with daily. Motion pictures are slightly censored.  Communities have the right to ask for films to be given to a censor for review.  School publications that do not support the school mission can be censored.  Any music or art that is created using federal funding is subject to a decency clause. These philosophies have all been supported with court cases. Depending what community you are talking about, academic freedom varies.  The courts nearly refuse to put conditions that stifle the freedom to teach and learn. Yet, educational programs are investigated.  Teachers political views are put into question.  Student and teachers private political or social activities are brought to light anytime there is a conflict with censorship or academic freedom.

Live the lie or live the truth. Both have consequences. Or maybe it is the struggle that really counts.

Should the Wealthy Receive Tax Breaks?

President Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders have proposed that the federal tax breaks that have been given to all (and that expire this year) should be adjusted so that only individuals who make $200,000 a year and couples who make $250,000 a year or lower should continue to receive the breaks. This makes sense since those who make more than that should carry more of the burdens since they can afford to do so better.

But there are those in Washington who disagree. One of them is Senator Joseph Lieberman who feels that the only way to help with recovering the economy is to keep money in private hands. The fact is, however, that the rich are more likely to save. So how much will this help the economy if the rich end up saving the money that they would have spent on taxes? In the meantime, our country’s national debt grows.

Lieberman isn’t the only person who is pushing for the tax break to apply for everyone including the wealthy. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, is also encouraging others to join their side of the debate. Boehner did state that he would ultimately vote for Obama’s version of the bill is left with no choice has hopes that others will see how valuable it would be for all to have tax breaks. This statement came after President Obama criticized Boehner and other Republicans for possibly hurting the middle class to fight to help millionaires get tax breaks. The Democrats are worried about a filibuster because Republicans hold enough votes to cause one.

Now that Boehner has stated that he is willing to potentially vote for the bill, the next obvious step would be for the Democrats to put the bill on the House floor for a vote and see what happens — whether it comes to a vote or whether it’s filibustered. It will give Boehner a chance to prove himself and his word.

If you were voting on this bill, would you vote for or against it? What would influence your decision?

Enhanced by Zemanta