Apologies

We have all decided that free speech equals a free democracy, right? What is interesting is that although free speech is protected in many different forms, protecting ratings or profit of someone who angers the majority is not. I mentioned in my last post that I keep up with issues related to size discrimination from several sites, including the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA) and the media watchdog site from the National Eating Disorder Association (NEDA). For an example, see NEDA's latest letters to Apple concerning a recent ad campaign. Just because a person has the right to their opinion, it doesn't mean that they will continue to voice it when concerned, vocal citizens/customers let them know they don't approve.

The reason I mention this is because this kind of action often encourages debate and discussion. For instance at a size-acceptance/feminist/liberal/civil rights blog I follow, Kate Harding's Shapely Prose, I found information about the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). Their "Call to Action" was due to a radio host's comments that implied LGBTQ teens should be physically punished and "beat down," by society. You can read GLAAD's full response here. At first, the radio hosts refused to respond, stating it was just a joke. Until their ratings started to slip. That's right, when their fans told them it was unacceptable, then they really apologized, and started a respectful discussion on both sides. That radio host, Apple, David Letterman, Oprah - they have a right to make comments, endorse products, and spout off about their latest fad, BUT their fans and consumers have the right to stop listening, stop buying, and send complaints. Having that dialogue and having the right to give feedback, is what makes intellectual freedom so great.

"A Sarah." (2009, June 5). Quick hit: GLAAD call to action. Message posted to Kate Harding's Shapely Prose. Retreived from http://kateharding.net/2009/06/05/quick-hit-glaad-call-to-action/

Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. (2009). Call to action. Retrieved from http://www.glaad.org/Page.aspx?pid=730

National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance. (2009). Get involved. Retrieved from http://www.naafaonline.com/dev2/get_involved/index.html

National Eating Disorders Association. (2009). Media watchdog program: Recent action. Retrieved from http://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/p.asp?WebPage_ID=300

Rob, Arnie & Dawn in the morning. (2009). Transgender response. Retrieved from http://www.robarnieanddawn.com/newsite/index.html

Oprah's crazy guests

Newsweek had an interesting article on Oprah this week, titled, "Why health advice on 'Oprah' could make you sick," that lists all the quacks and charlatans that she has had on her show, including:

Suzanne Somers who takes over sixty vitamins a day and injects estrogen into her vagina.

Dr. Christiane Northrup who uses tarot cards to help diagnose her patients.

Dr. Karyn Grossman who touted the one-hour face lift!, without bothering to mention the serious side effects and complications to the procedure.

The article has a few more "experts" that Oprah has given air time to, but failed to mention my least-favorite quack, Dr. Phil. "You don't need a porcupine to put some pep in your step!" That lovely token is from the Dr. Phil quote generator, and honestly sounds just like the random, nonspecific, and nonsensical stuff that he says. You just went there too, didn't you? LOL.

I know that everyone should have the right to air out their latest crackpot idea or opinion, but for Oprah to give them credence really frustrates me, because people believe her and her opinion. Often she doesn't feel the need to include science or empirical evidence, or heck even a warning. Dr. Oz supports the show by saying that people should not take Oprah's experts advice without consulting a doctor, but some people really don't have any sense. It's unfortunate but true. This is a case that everyone (even celebrities) should have the freedom to say what they want, but it still frustrates me when people get hurt or sick because of it. I am really glad that Newsweek wrote this article, so people might think about Oprah and her claims a little more critically.

What do you think?

Kosova, W. & Wingert, P. (2009, June 9). Why health advice on 'Oprah' could make you sick. Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/id/200025

MangyDog. (2009). Dr. Phil quote generator. Retrieved from http://www.genfun.net/drphil.htm

Obama is kind of awesome.

Hey guys! Just reading the transcript of the Obama/Cairo speech, and I am so impressed with his eloquence and intellegence. In one part he calls the denying of the Holocaust "ignorant" and "hateful." It makes me think of some posts that we have previously had about the right to express ideas, and what defines censorship. Should Holocaust deniers hold shelf space when many people have proven their views to be wrong? I have actually thought a lot about this, and I have come to somewhat of a conclusion. Although we are entrusted with providing all sorts of ideas, we are also required to verify that they are factual. For instance, neo-nazi and other hate groups are based on blatant un-truths. I remember an assignment I had for an undergraduate class to evaluate websites. One was martinlutherking.org. Sounds like it could be authentic. When you go there, though, it claims that Rosa Parks was a prostitue, "according to" Time magazine, and MLK was hosting an orgy in his hotel the night before he was shot (per the website, Newsweek broke that "story"). Both "facts" were referenced, but are also blatant lies. When you look at the webmaster, you can see that the site is hosted by "Stormfront," and clicking on that link takes you to a neo-nazi website. That assignment was a very powerful lesson to not take everything at face value, especially if it is different from conventional wisdom. Consider the source and check references. Just because other people have different opinions, it doesn't mean that they are truthful or correct. Librarians still need to make sure the information that is in the collection is accurate.

On the other hand, books are even more tricky. Another classmate mentioned a book by a historian, David Irving, titled Hitler's War. If he was actually a reputable historian and his research was valid, I think materials like that would have a place; however, I was thinking about this in context of what President Obama had said and did a little digging. Other historians have since proved that his research included blantant misrepresentations and gross exaggerations. Other historians who have seen his work have declared him a denier and unearthed his ties to anti-semetic groups. I guess I had to simmer over this, to try to articulate my thoughts on censorship versus inaccuracy. As for Mein Kampf, however, I do think it has a place in the context of the discussion, where people can read Hitler's own words and form their own opinions about his intentions. Thank you for letting me veer a little off course. Back to why Obama is my favorite President ...

This is a very small portion of his speech, but it was really thoughtful in the context of this class:

"I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere ... governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them (emphasis mine).

And I'm cheering! Woohoo, way to remember what this country is all about! Go President! The whole speech is about understanding and respecting other people's religious and cultural identities. I love it that it is in context with humanity as a whole, that decisions on the part of one people affect the globe, for example, genocide in Darfur or nuclear testing in Iran. Tolerance and respect are the only ways to end senseless violence, or as he calls, "a stain on our collective conscience." Ok, so Obama is so much more eloquent than I can ever be, but I really respect him and his principles, so I had to talk about it today.

PS. West Bend, WI voted to keep books on the shelves, so the firing move didn't pay off. Plus there was a pro-intellectual freedom group formed in response, called West Bend Parents for Free Speech, so there's even more of a silver lining (Behm, 2009). Glad it worked out.

Behm, D. (2009, June 2). Library board rejects restrictions. JSOnline. Retrieved from http://www.jsonline.com/news/ozwash/46772872.html

Obama, B.H. (2009, June 5). Obama Egypt speech. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/obama-egypt-speech-video_n_211216.html

Stormfront. (2009). Martin Luther King, Jr.: A true historical examination. Stormfront. Retrieved from http://www.martinlutherking.org/