Monthly Archives: August 2008
Protecting Pornography
As anybody who reads industry publications can tell you, it is not a good time to be in the adult entertainment business. Since President George W. Bush assumed power, there has been a federal crusade against this supposedly immoral form of entertainment, aided in large part by his creation of the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force in 2005. These trials have done little other than disrupt businessmen from being productive contributors to the economy, and wasting taxpayer dollars. The initiation of this assault on a legal industry, and its continuation to this very day are both highly alarming.
Undoubtedly some shrug this off as inconsequential. After all, there are literally millions of pornographic websites on the internet, and thousands of new adult titles make it to DVD every year. Moreover, few people can name a single person or company that has been subject to this absurd attempt to regulate commerce and free expression by religious zealots and their leaders. The reason for this is that pornography is constitutionally protected, but “obscenity” is not, according the precedent-setting verdict of Miller v California (1973). Incapable as our government often proves to be, those in charge of the “obscenity” prosecution for the Department of Justice are smart enough to realize that they will not be able to convince the average jury that mainstream pornography should fall outside the scope of the First Amendment. Instead, they opt for easier targets, going primarily after fetish material. Because such content has a relatively small consumer base, and contains material that is both foreign and shocking to the average person, it is far easier to win a case against such content.
More unsettling is that there is nothing the industry can do to protect itself, short of shutting down completely. There is no list of things that are obscene, and standards are set by the community. As such, the government has license to target anybody they want, for any vague reason, in whatever venue is most sympathetic to their anti-pornography position. Consequently, a pornographer may make a title, and then several years after its release, be brought to court over it, being told that if his work is deemed obscene, he faces substantial time in jail. Each conviction carries with it a potential of five years in jail, with cases often involving enough counts to ensure they spend decades behind bars.
If we as a society value liberty, it is incumbent upon us to express out outrage over this campaign to quash freedom of expression and freedom of commerce, regardless of one’s own pornographic preferences. Whether you enjoy the material specifically under attack, or you’ve never seen so much as full frontal nudity is irrelevant. What matters is that the protection of minority rights and personal empowerment that is constitutionally ensured is not done away with because of the myopic views of a few faith-inspired extremists. At the end of the day, how we as a people respond to this siege on what our founding fathers fought for will determine whether we can begin to reclaim the freedom lost to two centuries of governmental overstretch, or whether we sacrifice what little we have left of it.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
Anti-Semitism Strong At Case
Other than advancing a person’s career opportunities or preparing a student for still higher education, one of the most important things any university can and should do is foster intellectual growth and development. For this to happen, open debate must be supported, with the dialog remaining honest and fair. Unfortunately though, our own university has failed to live up to this expectation, as demonstrated by its handling of the ever-uncomfortable Israel-Palestine issue.
Alice Bach, by virtue of her Hallinan Project position, is given ample funding to bring in some of the most vile, intellectually corrupt, and dishonest brokers of hate to our university. From Walt and Mearsheimer, whose book The Israel Lobby was called a collection of “well trafficked lies” by Harvard law professor and Israel expert Alan Dershowitz, to the Anti-Defamation League-listed “anti-Israel” Alison Weir who spoke on Wednesday, there seems to be no end to this list of unscholarly scholars. Every single speaker she has brought in to discuss the Middle East has a long, established history of distorting factual information to suit their own political purposes.
Sadly, it gets even worse. The school’s one class on the Israel-Palestine topic is taught by Alice Bach, the same woman who chose to fund campus visits by these deplorable slanderers of Israel. As if to further illustrate her own bias, which permeates the course in a disturbing way, she is the faculty sponsor of Students for Justice in Palestine. In a 2002 expose of the SJP, which is active nationwide, Wendy Webb concluded that the group was “a dangerous and dishonest organization taking advantage of the ignorance of America’s college youth to promote a deadly agenda.” The UC Berkeley-founded group uses inflammatory rhetoric and extensive deception to create a poisonous hatred for Israel.
This would be quite alarming if it were but one fringe professor expending all of her energy misinforming the student body on one of the great contemporary political issues we face. But of course, this is not the case. When SJP hosted their inaugural event last semester, they featured some of the most offensive speakers this university has ever had the shame of hosting. And yet, they had groups lining up to co-sponsor the event. Perhaps most alarming was the school’s Office of Multicultural Affairs. Its stated goal is the assistance of underprivileged minorities, which is laudable. However, that does not mean blindly financing and promoting events that make the campus environment hostile to Jews and non-Jewish Zionists, both of whom are clearly minorities.
The fact is, we cannot continue ignoring this, because the effects are more extensive than most people realize. I have several friends who, this year at our university, have been subjected to anti-Semitic violence. And there can be no question that it was exactly that, as they were called names like “kike” and “dirty Jew” while being attacked. As per their requests, I will not publish their names. The fact that I cannot give out their names, because they have never come forward, feeling that the administration is hostile to the Jewish community, should send up a serious red flag. How can this university or any other expect to maintain a positive reputation when it facilitates the sort of malicious rhetoric that engenders such sickening xenophobic violence?
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
In Defense of Business
These days, it seems that hating Microsoft is in vogue. With the rise of companies like Apple and Google, the technological giant is facing unprecedented levels of competition in every sector in which it dares to compete. Yet at the same time, it is coming under more governmental assault than ever. Just days ago, the European Commission announced an additional $1.4 billion in fines for “failure to comply with an anti-trust decision,” according to competition commissioner Neelie Kroes.
But is this really fair? Can we really expect businesses to implement injurious policies that harm stock returns when no clear benefit exists? And should we be punishing companies for their success in the marketplace? The answer to each of these questions is no.
Even if we were to assume monopoly laws were valid, to claim that Microsoft now holds one is intellectually dishonest. Take Internet Explorer, one of the alleged monopolistic abuses of power. According to XiTi Monitor, at the end of 2007 Microsoft’s share of the European market stands at 66.1 percent and is going down. That means more than a third of the market is filled by competing products, primarily by Mozilla Firefox, but also by Opera, Safari, Netscape (now a legacy browser), and dozens of others. In some European nations like Finland, 45 percent of the people use Firefox. Clearly, Microsoft isn’t the major force it once was. Similarly, there is plenty of competition in the media player market, from Apple’s iTunes and QuickTime players, to the former heavyweight RealPlayer, to more niche media players, like my favorite, VLC. And all of these browsers and media players, to say nothing of the open source program this article was written with, can be freely installed on Windows operating systems. Regardless of the legitimacy of anti-trust laws, it is painfully clear that Microsoft is not a controlling, unchallenged market dominator deserving of special attention or legal action.
Were the circumstances different, the question of legitimacy would then arise. It must be asked whether the role of government is to regulate industry into submission, and force the adoption of unsound practices, as European regulators want. Microsoft realizes that users want a simple operating system that is ready to go after a painless installation. For that to happen, there needs to be a built-in browser. Otherwise, most people would have no clue how to go about getting one, thus hampering access to the Internet and turning less technologically literate individuals away from embracing the Internet and other digital advancements. And what is gained from doing that? Microsoft would still have the sort of name recognition that would make their browser the most widely downloaded and installed. The average person simply does not care to test out dozens of browsers to decide which they like best. If it works, which Internet Explorer essentially does, they are satisfied. Why shouldn’t Microsoft have a right to include it, or similarly expected applications like a media player?
Seeing that Microsoft is not indeed a monopoly, and that the expectations of the regulators are unreasonable and detrimental to both the market and to societal advancement, the question of punishing success must be dealt with. In nations with repressive, socialist economies, the answer would certainly be to treat profits, especially on a great scale, as wrong or criminal. Europe, while not quite socialist, leans in that direction more often than not. In its eyes, such a notion has a degree of merit. Yet, I cannot think of a valid justification for this position. Large profits suggest that the company is making a product that is either vital or well liked, and is therefore beneficial to the society and its members. To punish a company for bettering the lives of its consumers is not only irrational, but also dangerous. It stifles innovation, and drives businesses out, leading to a weaker economy. This has been seen throughout history, and is now playing out quite clearly in nations such as India. After decades of socialist-oriented economic policy, India has opened up its economy and welcomed corporations in their effort to satisfy consumer demand. Consequently, it is experiencing an economic boom. The same situation played out in Eastern Europe less than two decades ago with the fall of Communism. Clearly, this is not a fluke, but a fact. Punishing profit retards national progress.
In view of all the evidence, it seems exceedingly clear that the Europeans are on the wrong side of the issue. Sadly, we too have harassed legitimate businesses that proved highly successful, and are thus not a stellar example. The best hope any nation has of advancing, thriving, and imposing just standards is to end this alarming anti-corporate disposition, instead allowing the market to solve such matters.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
The Downward Spiral of Case Western Reserve University
Aug 26
Posted by Caleb Posner
Note: The following post was written during my time at Case Western Reserve University, and reflects my evaluation of the school only as it pertains to said period. Having opted not to return there, but instead transfer to Washington University in St. Louis, I am unable to comment on the present situation.
Also, please keep in mind that this article first appeared on a website that has since closed down, for a group which I understand presently exists only on paper at Case Western Reserve University. Therefore, this article is being shared solely for the archival purposes.
This post may contain references that individuals not associated with Case will miss. For that, I apologize, and will gladly clarify anything upon request. For those alarmed by the situation discussed below, I am happy to put you in touch with the individuals at Case who are most actively involved in combatting this problem since my departure.
—————————————————————————
Update (4/13/08): The following post has been ported from our old website. We are no longer the Case Western ZOA, but the Non-Partisan Israel Movement of Case Western Reserve University. Please see our FAQ page [8/26/08: website closed, link dead] and our latest post for more information.
Note: The following article was written by Case Western ZOA President Caleb Posner, and does not necessarily reflect the views of our national organization, or any other group, unless otherwise noted.
In September, I started a campus chapter of the Zionist Organization of America because I was concerned with the situation at Case Western Reserve University. There were Jewish groups to be certain, but none were politically inclined, regardless of how legitimate the cause for outrage was. So, after attending a lecture by Walt and Mearsheimer designed to promote their re-framing of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a legitimate and scholarly work, and seeing that I was virtually alone in my condemnation of their lies, I assumed the burden of organizing a pro-Israel, or at least pro-truth group on campus. A few weeks later, cause for protest arose after a campus student group decided to fund raise for an organization seemingly linked to Middle Eastern terror organizations. Knowing that mounting a successful protest would require some outside assistance, I began the search for a partner organization. And, within moments of calling, the ZOA became exactly that. Their willingness to help, their resource generosity, and the experience that they were able to provide made that protest highly successful. In all, we turned away upwards of three dozen would-be supporters of the event being protested.
As time went on, the need for further protest not only continued, but increased with alarming frequency. Speakers who lied about Israel were being brought in regularly by the Hallinan Project, a local chapter of the radical Students For Justice in Palestine arose, and anti-Semitic graffiti covered the Spirit Wall. In response to every such event, we did our best to organize a strong response, focusing primarily on dispelling the false statements being made about Israel. Suffice to say, this was not enough. We realized that to become a more important voice on campus, hosting events of our own would be critical. Thus, with the start of the second semester, so began the quest to obtain USG recognition. Thankfully, this was granted to us days ago, and we are working hard to deliver thought provoking programming for the rest of the month, as well as for the next academic year.
It seemed momentarily as though the situation was getting better, and that with some hard work, the ZOA could severely reduce the problems this school’s Jewish community faced. However, this turned out be a grossly inaccurate evaluation of the situation. This semester, a Jewish student was violently assaulted based solely on his religious and ethnic heritage. There was no report filed, because the student in question lacked faith in an administration who was unwilling to condemn speakers like Alice Rothchild and Alison Weir, and who did nothing in response to the anti-Semitic vandalism earlier in the year. And every effort has been made to match the rhetoric with the violence in its offensiveness. From posters accusing Israel of being a terrorist nation, to guest speakers alleging that Zionists and Nazis collaborated during the Shoah, it looked like the situation had hit rock bottom.
And yet, in this past week, our institution has sunk to a new low. Palestine Awareness Week, the hallmark event of Israel hatred, was announced as coming to Case. In just a couple of weeks, we can expect an onslaught of the most vile and pernicious lies ever uttered about Israel, carefully concealed anti-Semitism, and the legitimization of terrorism. In short, by hosting this event, Case Western Reserve University has joined an elite circle of campuses most hostile to Jewish students. Were the administration willing to decry such practices, it would be less alarming. But just days ago, I spoke with President Snyder, who expressed no willingness to condemn the hateful campaign waged against Israel that has made campus hostile to Jewish students. And, even the university newspaper has caved to pressure, cutting my column in response to complaints I made about campus anti-Semitism. Of course, the editor tried to justify this by claiming there were factual inaccuracies in my article. But, as I explained to her, she was mistaken on both counts, and I am more than willing to prove it publicly.
My latest article engendered a lot of hated among those who are either loyal to the professor discussed throughout it, or who have distaste for Israel and the Jewish community. According to my editor, I was never in class with Alice Bach. This is untrue. I was enrolled in Ethnic Studies 251, a class of hers, at the start of the Fall semester. But, I removed myself from it during the drop/add period because it became immediately clear the sort of treatment that Israel would be given. And of course nowhere in my article did I claim anything longer than that. The second thing she claims, is that I was wrong in calling Alice Bach the faculty advisor for the SJP. That may well be, but I was going on Bach’s own words. Following the Alice Rothchild lecture, I and other members of the Case Western ZOA approached her and asked her to sponsor our organization. She declined, citing among other things, her status as the faculty advisor to the SJP. So, either she lied to us, or they have changed advisors exceptionally recently. But two other members of our executive board can attest to the claim I made in my article.
Outside of those points, there were no errors she could locate to condemn me for. Instead, she noted the heavy volume of critical responses. Naturally, a subject as sensitive as this arouses the passions of many. But who writes in to comment on how good or right a piece is? Not anybody that I know. And certainly, it wouldn’t make for interesting reading, so I doubt such material would have been printed even if submitted. While I received compliments from current and former students who read the paper, she was not privy to that information, as it ought to be irrelevant, in the same way that complaints are. The fact is, she caved into external pressure, and tried to justify her decision by citing supposed factual errors, which unfortunately for her were 100% correct as printed. By cutting the only column that ever stood in defense of Israel (since I started here at least), due to writing about anti-Semitism, the editor has only helped to contribute to the climate of intolerance that has now become a core part of campus identity.
The closing down of this major means of support for Israel is all the more alarming when put in context. Being newly recognized, our local chapter is essentially devoid of funding. We cannot afford to put on the same sort of flashy presentations that the opposition uses to draw in those who are uneducated about the Middle East. The lack of opportunity to voice our concerns due to lack of funding is made all the worse when you consider how many thousands of dollars the other side has been given to promote their message. Our school has not stood up for academic freedom, honest discussion, or balance, but for the unfettered presentation of bullshit.
Where Case will be by this time next year is anybody’s guess. But looking at the current situation, where every pro-Israel voice gets silenced, and every anti-Israel advocate is given a podium and an audience, the future looks bleak. The opposition seeks to silence us because they know we are right, and that if we were given equal voice, their support would readily dissipate. So they make every effort to quiet us down. But we at the Case Western ZOA will not stand for this. Instead, we will do whatever is within our legal ability to counter this unfortunate reality and make a positive change for the school’s Jewish minority, and for others who prefer tolerance to hatred.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
Share this:
Like this:
Posted in Campus Issues and Personal Commentary
2 Comments
Tags: Alice Bach, Anti-Semitism, Caleb Posner, Case Western, Shame