Now that you have given your answers from last week's question, look at this report which gives the opinion of a noted person on the same topic: Salman Rushdie author of satanic verses, speaking on the BBC news (Monday 17th Sept 2012) said that "writers should be able to write anything they want...no restrictions"
Recent photos released of the British royal family have surfaced in which the privacy of certain family members was breached. Click here for a news report link. The family is seeking to ban further release of the photos, which contradicts the views of the previous report.
A more serious issue is highlighted in the video below. Deadly protests are occurring in the middle east against an anti islam film made in the USA, yet it is becoming increasingly difficult to ban this film. Here are snippets of this highly offensive film. (NB: To the right hand side of the video you can 'x' off the overlays to see the video clearly)
Comment on newspaper articles that have been published, in light of the photos of Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge. References, citations would be advantageous. Also comment on his statement especially in light of the events occurring in the middle east due to the anti islam youtube video that was made.
NB: Once you have made your comment the a notification will be sent to my system. If you do not see you comment published, do not be alarmed, it will appear sometime afterwards.
- Word limit 250 - 300 words
- Word limit 250 - 300 words
- References should be made using The Chicago Manual of Style
Salman Rushdie said "My view was and is that nothing is off limits" in relevance to his book which was banned and may not be published. The power of freedom of speech should have limitations on what can be written and viewed over the television. For example a rape case cannot be publically shown. In this case the issue was his book. It seemed as an insult against his religion but I agree that writers need to be braver as long as it exposes the truth behind a topic in a non-threatening way. The documentary should have been aired. It is educating the public about Islam in ways unknown to the viewers.
ReplyDeletePaparazzi exist for the purpose of getting the ‘inside scope’ of celebrities. Although the duke and duchess of Cambridge are normal people they have an image to uphold as royals not only to their country but the world and should have to be considered an exception. Those pictures with a bad headline “The queen is nude!” can bash the image of a future queen and may be the early start for the public not respecting her. Permission should be obtained before a publication because it IS an invasion of privacy.
The Muhammad movie, to me, was supposed to someone’s interpretation of how Islam was and it is somehow linked to Christianity. Many people are confused by the interpretation of it and have taken an offence, hence the arguments. The mixture of both religions don’t 100% portray the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ since its two religions involved. More importantly is that this movie was a way of freedom of expression. The film makers did not consider the effects of a film that attacks religions. People may have been less offended if they thought it was labeled a comedy movie.
References:
(BBC News,Entertainment & Arts 2012)
(BBC News,UK 2012)
(You Tube,FULL HD-Muhammad Movie Trailer- Innocence Of Muslims 2012)
Beena Ramkissoon;
810003839.
Everyone is entitled to their personal privacy, Royalty or not. The average ‘Joe’ would stir not even a whisper from the public, be published in magazines or be the cause of a lawsuit. Regular people pose in the nude practically every day. They are rarely chastised for it. Celebrities however seem to always be open to scrutiny by the general public.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, some individuals seem to use the phrase ‘by any means necessary’ as their personal mantra. They will trample, stomp and hurt anyone as a means to an end. What the royal couple does on their time, in their own space is their business. They too have a right to personal privacy and the enjoyment of their freedom. The taking of those photos are intrusive, and publishing of them was deplorable, especially since Kate was on private property. The photographs seem to have been used as a publicity stunt by the magazine to gain world recognition. They saw an opportunity and took it, failing to consider its possible repercussions.
It is possible that the Closer magazine recognized the attention sun newspapers were given after the controversy of Prince Harry’s nude photos in a hotel room. According to Mark Steven while speaking with Bloombery news, “The photographs of Middleton couldn’t have been taken unless the photographer was on the private grounds of the estate, meaning a law was most likely broken” - Mark Stephens a media lawyer in London who has worked on privacy cases involving the royal family. “A criminal offense has been committed in order to obtain the photograph,” Stephens said. “It is my understanding that trespassing in France as in England is a criminal offense.”
The royal couple has won their case and one can hope that a lesson or two has been learnt from the incident.
Refrences
Larson, Erik. Kate Photos Test Royal Resolve After Nude Harry Shots. In Bloomberg news. September 17, 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-17/kate-photos-test-royal-resolve-after-news-corp-nude-harry-shots.html. (Accessed 19 Sept, 2012)
Prince Harry Naked Photos During Vegas Rager. In TMZ celebrity news website. 21 August 2012. http://www.tmz.com/2012/08/21/prince-harry-naked-photos-nude-vegas-hotel-party/. (Accessed 19 Sept, 2012).
No Privacy for Royals: What Will Prince Harry Say About Kate Middleton Naked Photos? In San Francisco Luxury Living.18 September 2012. http://sfluxe.com/2012/09/18/no-privacy-for-royals-what-will-prince-harry-say-about-kate-middleton-naked-photos-photos/. (Accessed 19 Sept, 2012)
(300 words)
Annisa Phillip
810003225
Everyone is entitled to their personal privacy, Royalty or not. The average ‘Joe’ would stir not even a whisper from the public, be published in magazines or be the cause of a lawsuit. Regular people pose in the nude practically every day. They are rarely chastised for it. Celebrities however seem to always be open to scrutiny by the general public.
DeleteAdditionally, some individuals seem to use the phrase ‘by any means necessary’ as their personal mantra. They will trample, stomp and hurt anyone as a means to an end. What the royal couple does on their time, in their own space is their business. They too have a right to personal privacy and the enjoyment of their freedom. The taking of those photos are intrusive, and publishing of them was deplorable, especially since Kate was on private property. The photographs seem to have been used as a publicity stunt by the magazine to gain world recognition. They saw an opportunity and took it, failing to consider its possible repercussions.
It is possible that the Closer magazine recognized the attention sun newspapers were given after the controversy of Prince Harry’s nude photos in a hotel room.
The royal couple has won their case and one can hope that a lesson or two has been learnt from the incident.
The movie appears to be a blatant disrespect to the beliefs of Muslims and possibly Christians and Jews as well. Its intention may not have been to criticize but as we learn in Communication, know you audience and secondary audience.
Refrences
Larson, Erik. Kate Photos Test Royal Resolve After Nude Harry Shots. In Bloomberg news. September 17, 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-17/kate-photos-test-royal-resolve-after-news-corp-nude-harry-shots.html. (Accessed 19 Sept, 2012)
Prince Harry Naked Photos During Vegas Rager. In TMZ celebrity news website. 21 August 2012. http://www.tmz.com/2012/08/21/prince-harry-naked-photos-nude-vegas-hotel-party/. (Accessed 19 Sept, 2012).
No Privacy for Royals: What Will Prince Harry Say About Kate Middleton Naked Photos? In San Francisco Luxury Living.18 September 2012. http://sfluxe.com/2012/09/18/no-privacy-for-royals-what-will-prince-harry-say-about-kate-middleton-naked-photos-photos/. (Accessed 19 Sept, 2012)
(258 words)
Annisa Phillip
810003225
Communication is the process where the one person is expressing his or her ideologies. (definecommunication.net n.d.) In a writers' point of view it is the ability to express one thoughts and ideas via the form of writing. Just like other countries, the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago protects the right of "freedom of religion, and freedom of thought and expression." Therefore one must agree with Mr. Salman Rushdie statement that "writers should be able to write anything they want." However there are some restrictions, in the essence of being an effective communicator and by extension an effective writer. That is, "there are five factors which influence the sender in any communication he/she transmits; they are communications skills, attitudes, knowledge, position in the social system, and culture." (Wingenbach n.d.) These are the same factors that influence the receiver. Mr. Salman Rushdie’s book, the Satanic Verses is about two men, Gibreel Fasishta and Saladin Chamcha, who have survived the fall from an exploding plane. Rushdie’s narrative weaves as easily through modern Bombay and London as through ancient cities of sand, taking the reader into shared dreams, mad pilgrimages, and the violent birth of a new religion. This new religion is the Muslim faith. This book appeals to the reader in one main characteristic previously outlined, which is culture.
ReplyDeleteCulture influences the effectiveness of the communicator’s ability to transmit messages. This factor focuses on the communicator values, mores, and beliefs, as can it control how the message is transmitted. This also influences the receiver’s ability of interpreting Mr. Rushdie was too insensitive to his readers. I believe he did not take in to account that readers interpret his novel in many ways, mostly insulting and blasphemous. The Muslims see his novel this way because Gibreel had hallucinations about the life of the prophet Muhammed. Muhammed allegedly encountered some verses whispered to him, to be part of the Quran, but were later recanted, because apparently the devil tricked Muhammed, and that these verses were not from Allah but from Shaitan (aka Satan). These verses happened to be very important, as it is the basis of the Islamic faith. If these verses made their way into the Islamic teaching, then Islam would not be as we know it right now. Instead of being a monotheistic Abrahamic faith, it would be a polytheistic one, with three goddesses in addition to Allah. (Bookrags.com n.d.) These verses happened to be very important, as it is the basis of the Islamic faith. If these verses made their way into the Islamic teaching, then Islam would not be as we know it right now. Instead of being a monotheistic Abrahamic faith, it would be a polytheistic one, with three goddesses in addition to Allah. Now obviously this provokes the Muslim society as Mr. Rushdie was blinded by knowing his audience, and their beliefs and values. In this case he as we say he “shared too much information.” Yes, he is right about writers should write freely. However, he should have emphasize somewhere in the book that, this is all his imagination and his views to the topic.
(Accessed 21,September, 2012)
(520 words)
Reference
Bookrags.com. n.d. http://www.bookrags.com/The_Satanic_Verses.
definecommunication.net. Define Communication. n.d. definecommunication.net.
Wingenbach, Gary J. Agricultural Communications and Journalism. n.d. http://agcj.tamu.edu/howto/Communication.htm.
811005940
Brandon Murphy
I personally believe that the case pertaining to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge portrays the great double standards in the world today. Individuals are treated a certain way because of their status in society which is opposite to the equality that society seeks to attain. According to the U.S. privacy rights the royal family privacy was breached since and individual should be able to seclude and reveal information about themselves selectively.
ReplyDeleteThe argument for indecent exposure cannot be upheld since Chateau d’ Autet was told to be a very remote and private location. However paparazzi still attained the photos by placing themselves in a strategic location. Paparazzi are described as freelance photographers who doggedly pursue celebrities to take candid pictures for sale to magazines and newspapers. Society’s fascination of the celebrity life is the main reason paparazzi are so intrusive since the more vulgar the information/ photos the more the paparazzi would be paid. So as I stated before I believe that the photographer was intrusive and wrong but the situation was blown out of proportion because of the duchess status.
On the other hand the anti-Islam YouTube video does not describe privacy issues but the respect for other religions and beliefs. The YouTube video portrayed a blatant disrespect to the Islam faith. One believes that despite individuals’ beliefs persons should not critique a religion especially in such a manner as this could lead to other problems such as war.
Hence one can conclude that these two situations seek to convey individuals respect for each other in two different scenarios. We can clearly see that society has not reached the point where everyone is treated equally and respected.
Samuel Hytmiah
811000554
The issue at hand is a French magazine releasing nude photographs of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Some people might argue that the publishing of nude photographs in today’s society is not a big deal. Alfonso Signorini, in an editorial for an Italian magazine makes several statements that try to justify reasons for wanting to release the pictures of the royal couple. He says that the decision to print the images is “normal and up to date with the times.” He also goes says that, “The fact that these are the future rulers of England makes the article more interesting and topical.” That second statement is nothing more than a rationalization to degrade the Duchess. She is the one who is going to receive the backlash from the public and the royal family as well. The Italian magazine Chi published their prints with the title, “The Queen is Nude.” The Duchess is always subject to scrutiny and criticism in the public eye because she is not of royal blood and that element alone makes her more interesting. The royal couple was unaware of these snapshots being taken and to publicize such without their knowledge is absolutely a breach of their privacy. The magazines that have released or are intent on releasing the couple’s photographs are solely doing so to boost the sales of their respective magazines.
ReplyDeleteThe film “Innocence of Muslims” in my opinion is demeaning to the Islamic faith but it is meant to be looked at from a political point of view. The fact that it is inciting violence is no fault of the director or producers involved. People have freedom of speech and are entitled to their opinions. It is not the first controversial film to be made and it certainly will not be the last.
REFERENCES:
1)“Kate and William to make criminal complaint over topless shots,” 16th September, 2012. (Accessed 21st September, 2012).
2)“Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images,” 17th September, 2012. (Accessed 21st September, 2012).
3)You Tube, FULL HD-Muhammad Movie Trailer- Innocence Of Muslims 2012.
Ivana Parsotan
810003896
Being in control of the public's view of people of a higher caliber, is something desired by all media house. Their goal is to alter the idea that the public has into what they want them to see.
ReplyDeleteWhen given the opportunity, the magazine 'Closer' printed the pictures of Lady Catherine. Scandal, is their idea of catching the public's attention, and as result has lured them into questioning the Duke and the Duchess. I believe that even though the media should be allowed to print as they please, they should take into consideration that there are times they should not. This occasion is one such time, where Prince William and his wife Lady Catherine were on a 'PRIVATE' holiday and did not need to be exposed of any wrong doing. They were simply enjoying themselves.
Salman Rushdie is also a victim of the media. As a writer, he is an artist in his own right. Therefore, he should be able to feel comfortable and confident when releasing his book. Instead due to the public's view that his book should not be printed because of its content, he was forced into hiding. The fact that it is out of the norm to print materials such as "The Satanic Verses" made him a fatality in the media. Though I may not agree with his choice of writing, I believe that everyone should be given the right to publish their own work.
The anti-Islam movie based on the Middle East is provocative and may have a negative impact on people who are ignorant of Islam. It already has proven to be a disliked by people of the region. I believe that when making such films you should be aware that religious biases may cause a huge uproar.
Joanna Bhagwath
810001554
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19670527
http://www.npr.org/2012/09/18/161172489/becoming-anton-or-how-rushdie-survived-a-fatwa
ReplyDeletePopularity and fame comes with a price. It puts you in the eye of people around you. You are constantly under scrutiny for some indiscretion. The royal family is not above this same invasion of privacy, especially the future king and queen of England. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were subjected to breech in privacy by photos of a nude Duchess coming to light. The royal family has responded by taking lawful actions against the publishing magazines. But critics say that this portrait of Kate makes her more relatable as more and more “common” people are posing naked all the time, thus making her seem a little less idealistic. But is it really responsible to defend the actions of these invaders of privacy by referring to what celebrities are choosing to do? There is a line between choice and having your privacy taken from you. How can you debate that a breech in privacy can equal a celebrity who offers up her nudity for money or 15 more minutes of fame to that of a newly-wed couple in the privacy of a chateau in France, without her knowledge or permission? The argument that she is just a woman under extraordinary circumstances can be seen from several view points. She has a right to her privacy and her actions against the photographs should represent a woman that will stand by a future King. She needs to present herself with dignity in light of speculation, so that in time when she takes up her role she can be seen with the same reverence of queens of past.
No Privacy for Royals: What Will Prince Harry Say About Kate Middleton Naked Photos? In San Francisco Luxury Living.18 September 2012. http://sfluxe.com/2012/09/18/no-privacy-for-royals-what-will-prince-harry-say-about-kate-middleton-naked-photos-photos/. (Accessed 19 Sept, 2012
NELISHA HOSEIN
809001830
In my opinion prince’s Harry incident with the nude pictures was totally blown out of proportion. The prince was not in the public eye, he was in his suite in the hotel with his “friends”. That was never meant for the public. If he was not a prince would he have been given so much attention? I think not. The duchess she was also in her own private home when the paparazzi took the photos of her. Everyone deserves their privacy. This also shows that because of your status you should be treated differently. Why preach equality for all and simple things like private moments for different people are made so public and they are frowned on and judged as compared to if it had happen to a normal simpleton, it would never stir up such a fuss. And further more the duchess who took the duchess photo had to on the private ground which also goes to show that these media personnel would go to any extend to obtain their material even break the law of the land.
ReplyDeleteThe Muhammad movie was very insulting to the Muslims and the Christians community. It was made in someone's interpretation of how Islam was born. I do not think it should have been publically shown because it can cause great up roar and riot in many Middle East countries that are not stable when it comes to sensitive issue as such. This is an example of when the media personnel should not have used by any means necessary to get a point across.
References;
1) http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-09-18/people/33903789_1_william-and-kate-prince-harry-duchess
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM
3) http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/sun_says/4502239/Prince-Harry-Vegas-Pictures-The-Sun-publishes-photos-of-naked-Prince.ht
MAHESHAWARIE MAHARJ
810001384
The almighty dollar. What power it has. An article on page A42 of the Trinidad and Tobago Guardian newspaper dated Monday 17th September, 2012 titled “Italian magazine plans 26-page special on topless Kate photos” gave insight to the media frenzy whose core is images of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, the former Kate Middleton.
ReplyDeleteOne is to wonder just how far the press would go in order to sell their publications. The spectacle all started when photos of the Duchess were taken while vacationing with her husband Prince William at a private chateau. The motive behind publishing the photos? Alfonso Signorini, Editor in Chief at Italian magazine Chi claims: “the fact that we are dealing with the future British monarchs makes it certainly more interesting and in line with a modern conception of the monarchy.”
The article exposes both sides of the story where the Prince’s camp has put the wheels in motion to take legal action against those wishing to make the photos more public. Prince William’s office rebuts: “any such publication would serve no purpose other than to cause further, entirely unjustifiable upset to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, who were enjoying time alone together in the privacy of a relative’s home.”
This news story is just one in long line of other exposés published covering stories of the bitter affair between the media and the private life of public figures. There is an insatiable fascination with what goes on behind closed doors. Maybe it is just human nature. That ever growing desire to have what is so seemingly elusive. One thing is for certain. If ever the opportunity to turn the tables ever presents itself, those who once stood behind the lens would not be as understanding.
References
“Italian magazine plans 26-page special on topless Kate photos.” Trinidad and Tobago Guardian. Monday 17th September, 2012. A42.
Darion Fraser
809004236
Paparazzi exist and their job entails getting the story before someone else does. However, in my opinion taking topless photos of the Duchess is a clear indication of invading one's privacy. No one person would take a topless photo of an ordinary person and put it on the front cover of their magazine. According to a statement made by Delphine Pando " topless photographs were no longer considered shocking in modern society". While this statement may apply to some individuals, it doesn't apply to all. The Duchess of Cambridge is just like any other woman. She like any other woman deserves to enjoy some privacy with her husband. This entire situation is a perfect example of the media using any means necessary to advertise their magazine.
ReplyDeleteThe Muhammad movie seems to be very insulting to both the Muslim and Cristian community. The "Innocence of Muslims" video was not the first video ever created and it surely won't be the last. Whilst some may argue that the video was created as a joke others may argue that it can cause an uproar or even riot. People need to take into consideration that society consist of people of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds and freedom of speech may not always apply. In the case of this video it would be dangerous to inter-religon harmony. Majority of the actors in this video were caucasian, which could suggest that the video was made in the USA. This may be the reason for an uproar in society because of the on going war between the USA and countries in the Middle East.
References:
1)FULL HD- Muhammed Movie Trailor- Innocence of Muslims
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RagKWM8ldk&feature=player_embedded#!
2)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879
Shivani Sinanan
810001322
It all comes down to freedom of the press. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Those topless photos of the Duchess are degrading to the royal family but the magazines have every right to publish them. The duchess would not have been in this position had she chosen to keep her top on. It’s simple as that. The fact that the royal family wants to ban further release of the photos is understandable, since it puts the royal family in a negative light. This sort of scandal can taint the reputation the royal family is expected to upkeep. But it is entirely up to the magazines whether they want to refrain from publishing any more photos.
ReplyDeleteAnother issue which seems to take this “freedom of the press’ to its limits, is the recent release of the trailer “Innocence of Muslims”. The Muslims in Egypt, Lebanon, Libya etc. are outraged and protesting this film. It is easy to see why the Muslims are upset about this film as it basically showcases the ignorance of the Americans who made the film. But seeking to ban this is being ridiculous. If this is banned then ‘freedom of the press” would be for nothing. To be upset for the release of this film is one thing, but to start riots which resulted in the death of American citizens including an Ambassador in Libya is taking it too far. They are calling all Americans ignorant because of this film. Then what does that make them? They generalize a whole country based on some low budget film made by a few Americans.
Nathan Maharaj
810002242
References:
Henry Cohen “Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment”( Congressional Research Service-2009)
“Innocence of Muslims” Youtube video Trailer-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVcPskB0T3g&feature=related
Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images- BBC News UK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164)
I do agree that some one’s body parts, such as their “breasts” and “bottom” should be kept private and so I have no objection with the French Privacy laws. However, the duchess should have done better to not sun bathe half naked out in the open, even on private proper. After all, she knows that she is in fact royalty, who would throughout her life be paid a lot of attention too. Also, she should have known and become familiar with the several technological advancements in today’s world that would allow her to be photographed from that distance, given her vantage as the duchess. This would have lend to her prior consideration of the ramifications of going out in the open to sun bathe half naked before it reached the media. In addition, I believe that the photographer has the right to take pictures of anything within his surroundings that lend themselves to be seen. I believe that if she was indoors when the picture was taken that this would be a different matter.
ReplyDeleteAlso, anyone would be undoubtedly interested in taking any possible photographs or videos of celebrities as this type of news sells easily. The media always presents stories behind incidents where famous people have personal problems, relationship issues or otherwise. This is nothing new and so the “Closer” should not be held liable as it was just reporting new information or news that was sourced. The headline, “the Queen is Nude” was off appropriate use, since the queen was naked. Therefore, the freedom of press is acknowledged here. This is in harmony with the statement that Salman Rushdie made, “The only way of living in a free society is to feel that you have the right to say and do stuff” so that every free person is entitled to his own opinion and the suppression of one’s opinion is a breach of freedom, regardless of the consequences that freedom brings.
Therefore, I also do believe that persons should be free to employ the use of video as a means to entertain. However, I do not agree with the use of the contents in the anti-Islamic video, seemingly created with the purpose to entertain. It is plain to see that the video is offensive to the religion. Communication and the use of video as a means to communicate, in this instance, should not be used to offend some while entertaining others. This can lead to uproar and violence with Muslims throughout the world which in turn would impact on mankind in its entirety.
References:
BBC. Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images. 17 September 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164 (accessed September 22, 2012).
—. Salman Rushdie: Satanic Verses 'would not be published today'. 17 September 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879 (accessed September 22, 2012).
Jenelle Nicome
810002151
The current issue is of the duke and the duchess in Solomon Islands, where apparently a paparazzi took topless pictures of the Kate. For her being part of the royalty family this can be seen as a disrespect to both her and the royal family and this type of media publicity can have negative effects.Privacy no longer seems to exists for those who are prominent in society aka celebrities, it has been seen for so many of them such as,Lindsey Lohan, Charlie Sheen, Micheal Jackson and now "Kate" just to name a few.
ReplyDeleteI must agree that Kate knows that even in the most private venues surrounded by security, the paparazzi hunts them down for that one picture to sell to magazines. In this case the nude pictures have been sold to the French magazine "Closer". They publicized this scandal,thereby exposing the privacy of Kate without her authority. It's understandable that if any magazine got hold of such source they would advertise this to get their the interest of readers, thus gaining profits regardless of how important that person is in society's eyes.
In relation to the Anti Islamic video, it can be/it is used for entertainment, However I dislike the use of this video as it comes across as making mockery of the Muslims and the Muslim society. I can see how this video can start mayhem to those who created such a disrespectful film.
References:
BBC. Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images. 17 September 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164 (accessed September 22, 2012).
—. Salman Rushdie: Satanic Verses 'would not be published today'. 17 September 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879 (accessed September 22, 2012).
Krystal John
811000432
Photos of Prince William and Kate Middleton sunbathing on a terrace in a private villa in Province were published by the Closer and Chi magazine. The pictures clearly display Kate Middleton’s bare chest. Consequently, the royal couple’s lawyer response was to file a lawsuit against the magazine for invasion of privacy. However, intimate and personal images of celebrities are often circulated and the Duchess is no exception. The reputation of the media builds on the scandals involving the rich and famous. Personally, I believe the freedom of the press should not entitle the paparazzi to infringe on people’s rights to privacy and solitude. On another note, Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, who is highly regarded by the masses, is largely responsible for this incident. Prior knowledge to the threatening tendencies of the paparazzi, she should not have been so naive to stand outside nude if she did not want to be seen nude. She is a human being but belonging to royalty, she has to be more responsible and cautious in her actions as the world scrutinizes her every movement.
ReplyDeleteThe anti-Islamic video made in the United States is a mockery of the prophet Muhammad and the Islamic faith. Hilary Clinton states, “It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.” The more controversial issue than the publication of the offensive video is the actual outcome. Muslims have been protesting and killing innocent people in the name of religion and in the name of God. I think this sort of backlash should be taken into consideration before granting complete freedom of expression at the expense of other peoples’ lives.
References:
“Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images,” 17th September, 2012. (Accessed 22nd September, 2012)
‘The Queen is Naked’: Italian Magazine Flouts Impending Lawsuit, Publishes More Topless Photos of Kate Middleton [NSFW] , 17th September, 2012. (Accessed 22nd September, 2012)
You Tube, FULL HD-Muhammad Movie Trailer-Innocence Of Muslims 2012
You Tube, Hillary Clinton calls anti-Muslim film, Innocence of Muslims 'disgusting and reprehensible' 13th September, 2012
Crystal Mc Comie
811000887
The video posted on YouTube (“As of September 13, 2012, the video, FULL HD – Muhammad Movie Trailer – Innocence Of Muslims, uploaded by MuhammadMovie”), displayed mockery of the Muslim religion. This was clearly done by those who obviously have no respect for other beliefs. The making of such a video would not tarnish or uplift the Muslim religion in any way, as their values remain unchanged. As seen in the video where, Christians were persecuted for their faith by the Muslims, this also targeted the Christian community. In addition, due to the fact that there are many religions worldwide it is not logical to deliberately offend others.
ReplyDeleteThe duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton is most distraught due to pictures unlawfully taken of her, which were topless. Because she is royal this act has spiraled into a scandal that has everyone talking, whereas, if she was an ordinary person it would draw little or no attention to the public. Thus, whether she is famous such acts should be treated as a criminal offence as no permission was granted to do so. She is a woman none the less and has rights as everyone else. As such, no one, male or female deserves to have unwanted nude photographs of them worldwide for public viewing.
Salman Rushdie or Joseph Anton as he was known for years as he was forced into hiding, as his life was under threat, as his book “Satanic Verses” caused an uproar worldwide. His book he claims would not be published in today’s society as it is not accepted, as it was banned in some countries. Furthermore, everyone is entitled to freedom of speech and expression. Hence, everyone has opinions therefore conflict would always arise.
Phebe Esther Ramayah
811000694
In today’s world, persons of such high status as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are just 2 of the many people that the media and paparazzi try to create scandals about. In this case the Duchess of Cambridge being the person in the ‘hot seat’ as she was caught sun bathing nude. I would think that she would have had the knowledge to know that in being so respected and known that the media would always be around. Although the couple was photographed on their private property I would expect them to know better. But it was wrong in the sense of invading their privacy as they are also just like each and every one of us and should be allowed to live there life as they wish.
ReplyDeleteThe magazine, Chi, Closer’s Italian sister magazine published the photos of the royal couple with the title,” the Queen is Nude!” This being arrogant and disrespectful to the royal couple but also is an example of the freedom of the press and media to advertise as they like but was a truth statement as the duchess was actually topless.
In other news concerning the anti Islam film, many see this film to be insultive. In any type of communication certain factors should be taken into consideration and one in particular being religion. The makers of this film clearly did not consider the reactions of Muslims to the film. This could lead to the Muslim community rebelling and protesting against it, but shows the freedom of opinion. Nevertheless videos like this should be seriously dealt with as in can later on lead to discrimnation and even as small as it may look could spark a war between different religions.
References:
1)”Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images.” 17th September, 2012. (Accessed September 22nd, 2012).
2) YouTube, FULL HD-Muhammad Movie Trailer- Innocence of Muslims 2012.
Ramiz R.S. Rajack
811001005
I agree with you 100% that that the video can spark a war between religious. I like how you see the seriousness of this form of discrimination.There is the possibility that September 11 can show itself again. Just pray it doesn't.
Delete811003072
KERON FLOYD
Entitlements to privacy or not, persons associated with media would go to extreames to get whatever necessary scopes they can to get 'the next big story'. After all it is what their job's are comprised of. Therefore in the case of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, 'The' Royal Family would have eventually caused some form of recognition toward the source that is in this case the magazine.
ReplyDeleteThe representative of the Closer magazine, Delphine Pando stated that "topless photographs were no longer considered shocking in modern society". However they must have know that the photos would have caused some sort of stir, after all they showed that "the queen was naked."This headline was bound to cause questioning , confusion as to why and how, and disgrace to the family.The physicality of the human body in its most exposed form is flashed on different forms of media whenever and wherever without causing such an uproar as the incident of the Royal Family. Why? one may ask and this can therefore be due to something called prominence. This is the state of being important of famous in society. It is due to the fact that they are important / famous to society, that would cause person to be interested in the affairs of their lives.
However this is not how it ought to be, after all they are people too and there are certain limits to which one must not cross, and this was obviously one such incident. The couple as reported was on private property thus the breech of their privacy had to be dealt with accordingly. The legal actions taken would therefore be agreed upon due to the breech of privacy of the family.
Salman Rushdie said "Some of them seemed to accept the free speech argument and understood if they had the right to say what they felt, it was wrong to prevent people who felt differently from having their say." This can be agreed upon however his area of augment choosen was one that was sure to cause as he stated "the banning of his book in many countries and the subsequent threats on his life." Rushdie holds strongly to his views however it has landed him to have his name called for death sentence in riots against his view. This therefore shows that topic opinionated persons must deal with the consequences in the event that they insult groups or individuals in society. Yes one has freedom of speech, however there are limits to what you can say about individual/groups and they beliefs.
Similarly "Innocence of Muslims" the trailer is definitely disrespecting Muslims people and Islam. It is the view of the director who is indeed entitled to his own views however he must be able to deal with the possible controversy's that would most definitely arise.
Amanda Ragoonanan
811000855
"The only way of living in a free society is to feel that you have the right to say and do stuff." These were the words of Salman Rushdie. Yes, everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and everyone has the right to freedom of expression. However, these rights carry special duties and responsibilities. Certain restrictions must be made upon these rights since morals and ethics is of great concern.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to the British royal family, many seem to legitimise publication because they are of people who are already in the public eye. Everyone has right to their privacy and that should not be invaded whether their status. Paparazzi are photojournalists who specialize in candid photography of celebrities, politicians, and other prominent people (Valdes, 2006). They tend to be independent contractors, unaffiliated with a mainstream media organization. The mentality and captivation of the society is the main reason why paparazzi have no restrictions in their job. Paparazzi sell their photos to the highest bidder depending on the quality, subject and situation, photos can go for anywhere between a few hundred dollars to several thousand dollars (Valdes, 2006). Therefore, as mentioned before, it was immoral of what was done to the Duchess despite her status of fame.
The anti-Islamic film made “Innocence of Muslims” is a ridicule and mockery to the beliefs of the Islamic religion. This is another example of freedom of expression and opinions without restrictions being made. One does not realize the effects and consequences it can have toward society. Because of this anti-American attacks have occurred and innocent people are losing their lives.
In conclusion, restrictions should be made despite the fact of freedom of speech and expression in which everyone has the right to since morals and ethics should be taken into consideration.
References:
Valdes, R. 2006. “How Paparazzi Work.” 28 August 2006. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Yyx_7fo9P3oJ:photoravlik.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-paparazzi-work.html+why+do+paparazzi+take+pictures&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=tt (Accessed: 22 September 2012)
Sharmila Ganpat
809002681
I completely agree with your view that restrictions should be put in place for writers, photographers etc. I also like the fact that you mentioned ethics and morals. I think that even though there is freedom of speech and expression , it should have some form of decency in that it complies with good ethics and morals. In doing so, it may heavily reduce the negative responses from the general public.
DeleteAmanda Rampersad
809100063
‘’The Queen is nude!” based on the evidence presented in the article I highly agree with some of the views. You will agree, as an international star one must always be prepared for the camera and be very conscious of his or her actions. I believe this case is just as familiar as the kim kardashian pictures, the Prince Harry pictures and many other famous start who have experience the unpleasant feeling of their pictures taken without any consent. Belonging to the Royal family means you are no different considering fame and publicity.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do understand how unpleasant Catherine must have felt to be called royal with her Royal ‘’boobs’’ being exposed all over the worlds, doesn’t seems too royal after all; in the event where the hotel offered them one hundred percent seclusion I do understand their concern and the first to blame should be the hotel. Considering the fact that all British magazines refuse to published the photos shows great respect for their Royal leaders but also shows how far they are willing to go in order to inform their general public of the current issues with hard-core evidence, however I do applaud the French magazines for their actions.
After viewing and analysing the video for the fifth time, personally I think the video starts off preposterous but ended with a the very strong message; Preposterous considering the line which stated, ‘’ the two year old son who father died six years before his birth’’. What stimulated my taught was the part played by the old woman who stated, how can a God who claims to love his people can instruct there leaders their leaders to kill, murder, perform robberies to the same people without protecting the people it surely does not show love.
Reference
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/24/prince-harry-naked-pictures-sun
http://necolebitchie.com/2012/07/19/ray-j-wants-kim-to-remember-her-past/
Kerry Jones
ID#811002090
Salman Rushdie’s statement, “writers should be able to write anything they want, no restrictions” is a common thought amongst most writers, photographers etc. A writer is one who expresses himself through words however; one has to be mindful of the content as well as the consequences. With regards to Salman Rushdie, he chose to write a novel in which magical elements blend in with the real world. The controversy stems from his references to Quranic verses in the novel which were deemed “blasphemous” by the Jewish and Muslim communities (Walzer, 1989).Naturally, everyone is entitled to their opinion however, ethics and morals should be upheld in their publications.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to Kate Middleton being photographed topless, she is not the first or the last celebrity to be photographed in this manner however; it does not give someone the right to publish such photos. According to the National Post, the royal family is suing for a breach of privacy which in my opinion is justified. Photographers need to know there limits in what can be photographed and published. In the case of the photographer who took those pictures, the legalities to follow from his actions might cost him more than he got paid. Therefore, it just goes to show if ethics, morals and good sense of judgement had prevailed, the situation would have been different.
The topic of Islam is one of the the most controversial topics since the 2001 terrorists attacks in the USA. This film entitled Innocence of Muslims is a mockery of Islam and Islamic communities. The person who made this movie clearly had no sense of respect and did not think of the consequences that followed. As a result of this movie, riots in Libya and Egypt have caused the loss of innocent lives.
As a result of these articles, I strongly believe that there should be restrictions imposed on media and the messages in which they intend to relay.
Reference:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879
Walzer, Michael. "THE SINS OF SALMAN." New Republic; Vol. 200 Issue 15, p13 April 10th 1989
Amanda Rampersad
809100063
Evidently it’s a dog eat dog world out there! I believe that the professional photo shots, the development of the films and the publishing of the topless clips of Duchess Kate Middleton were invasive and uncalled for. The Closer magazine should be fined for their inappropriate actions. Personal opinions should not be permitted to be publicized without respecting the privacy boundaries of others or being sensitive to religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteAs Carol Ruth Weber noted in an Examiner article on September 17, 2012., though court action is presently being up taken by the Royal family against the Closer, released photos are still being used by other media networks to make profits. In support of this Katie Kindelan, in an article of ABC News September 19, 2012 stated that the Swedish magazine, “Se & Hor” was the fourth network to release the unconsented photos. This followed its twin magazine “Se & Hoer” in Denmark.
When personal information leaks and is then introduced to the world via the internet it no longer is private. It now belongs to society because now anyone can access it and use it. For in the case of the Duchess, unfortunately, her unauthorized photos are now a marketing product of self-ambitious publishing companies. Some will say her privacy has become exploited.
Similar to the problems faced in the Kate Middleton issue, the creation of this anti-Islamic film entitled “Innocence of Muslims” by an American director, has stirred up disaster! The movie is very biased and perceptive and has caused more than a bad reputation. Jeffrey Brown, in a PBS News report on September 21, 2012 has accused the movie of causing a spike in anti-American violence in Pakistan, as innocent men are being killed during riots.
The ripple effects of unrestricted opinions and false perceptions being allowed to air, is leading to the destruction of esteemed reputations and the fall of political-national relationships between countries. So then really can the freedom to publish any article anywhere in any fashion be justified?
REFERENCES
Brown, Jeffery. “Anger Over Drone Strikes, Anti - Islam Film, Provokes Deadly Protests in Pakistan.” PBS News, September 21,2012. Accessed September 19,2012. www.pbs.org
Kindelan, Katie. “More Kate Middleton Topless Photos Reportedly Published.” ABC News, September 19,2012. Accessed September 19, 2012. www. abcnews.go.com
Weber, Carol. R. “Kate Middleton Topless Scandal goes Global.” Examiner, September 17, 2012. Accessed September 19, 2012. www.examiner.com
Donalee Pierre
810002489
Once again I come to my initial view. There must be some line where the line must be drawn, but how would one know where to draw the line. No matter the situation, once you are famous enough and in the public’s eye, these paparazzi people will go to great extents to get the information on their victim. They people give light to “whatever means necessary” because seemingly, it is a part of their work criteria. This is just the paparazzi workers job and the media look to these of scandals to build on. However, “the royal couple” is still entitled to their privacy. Although she should not be so naïve, and she should really know better but she still is human and sometimes all they probably want to do is let go and relax. However, it funny how if Kate Middleton, if she was just another ordinary person, this wouldn’t have been a problem, but since she is now royalty, someone of stature and popularity, the photos have generated quite the uproar.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the anti-Islamic video made in the United States, it just out rightly made a mockery out of the Muslim faith. It is quite discriminated and it goes to show how the people have absolutely no respect for other peoples’ faith and beliefs associated with it. Although everyone is entitled to their own views, this just goes too far. What gives them the right to disregard the peoples’ beliefs and go do, something like this? Clearly it would offend others. What good would this do for anyone? The people, who made this video, really didn’t take the time to think about the consequences of their actions, and when the Muslims start to act out against them, they choose to be the victim. Nothing about this video is healthy. These people just are careless.
It is hard to be objective, in such a subjective society. I believe one needs be more objective to really understand Salman Rushdie and his book and not be so emotional about it. The man thinks this is the greatest book he has ever written but the contents of the book maybe deplorable to the next man. This is just society is made up. As much people don’t like it, there is this thing called freedom of speech which grants the man that chance to bring out his book. Whether it be morally right or wrong.
Shani Woodsley
811001191
Newspaper articles from the Telegraph, the Sun, published articles about Kate Middleton topless with headlines such as the royal boobs, the duchess of Cambridge’s topless, the naked truth are some of the headlines these major news houses of London published.
ReplyDeleteAll of the articles and news clips associated with this issue showed great bias toward the legal situation that ensued from this affair.
The journalist and photographers associated and also the ones without any relativeness to the matter opposed the actions by the royal couple. These journalist and media personnel argued on their rights on the freedom of press
These media personnel feel it’s their right to publish and air whatever stories they believe in without consideration on other and their feeling toward the situation
The author Salman Rushdie believes that, ‘nothing is off limits’ giving himself the feeling that anything that he or writers believe in they should express it without consideration of the persons or the situation that can be provoked by such actions.
In the YouTube video of the movie the innocence of Muslim’s the writer of such paid no respect to the millions of persons that follow the Muslim religion
By giving persons in the media industry the privilege to write or to report stories in which ever manner they like is a serious cause for concern. Actions of such persons can have serious complication on sensitive issues but also their work would only be a representation of their own belief and not entirely from their workplace or media houses
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/search/?queryText=kate+middleton
http://www.thesun.co.uk/search/newSearchAction.do?querystring=kate+middleton&submit=+Search+&view=internal&pubName=sol&p=sun&bl=on&navigators=&offset=0&sortby=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164
808011448
glen ramcharitar
As you stated, that "media personnel feel it’s their right to publish and air whatever stories they believe in without consideration on other and their feeling toward the situation" I have to completely agree with you on this. They should consider the fact that morals and ethics are of great importance and they do not have the right to abuse it despite the right of freedom of expression.
DeleteSharmila Ganpat
809002681
Over the past few years it seems that there are no restrictions on what the media reports today. Taken from the a BBC report Delphine Pando a representative of the Closer magazine spoke about this issue concerning the photos taking of the Duchess of Cambridge as not shocking in today’s generation. This shows that he thinks that today this is socially acceptable with the cost of privacy and what a magazine is allowed to publish has no longer chains of restrictions attached to them. This is why more rules should be applied to the media because what they report can directly affect a person’s life.
ReplyDeleteAn article taking from the ABC new stated that the royal family is to sue the magazine for the photos in the hope that they don’t not become published to the public. The magazine stands on its moral grounds that it’s their responsibility and duty to bring the news to the people whether good or bad but the personal life of somebody should not be public news and it should be respected. Many media companies may not consider how the news they are reporting is affecting the person all they are concerned about is attracting people to buy their product.
Taken from the dailymail it reports that the judge has banned the pictures from being published but the magazine had already sold 500,000 copies this shows that the media has no restrictions on what they can show. This is a serious issue that needs to be addressed with strict laws being created and enforced.
http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/world/royal-family-plans-to-sue-magazine-publisher-for-nude-pictures-of-the-duchess-of-cambridg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203999/Kate-Middleton-Closer-photos-BANNED-Is-hollow-victory-Duchess-
811003509
Chris Selman
There have been many instances in which the media took advantage of their freedom. In September, 2012 this has only created preventable drama.
ReplyDeleteThe controversial “Innocence of Muslims” should not have been negative. It shows no absolute truce of the religion as this is the feedback shown by the uproar created. This shows the media has little knowledge on what they present to the public. It only tells us not to believe every side of their story. The producer has clearly expressed his freedom with disregard of actual Muslims. He should have had restrictions, not to make such a mockery of a Religion. Its effect has only been chaotic!
In my opinion celebrities should be given the space to lead a free life. We are all humans and we all appreciate space and freedom. These famous individuals are always in the public’s eyes. Now shouldn’t there be lawful measures taken to allow them privacy? Although I’m sure the publicity in most cases is only rewarding to them. ‘Ultimately, one way to prevent the paparazzi from hounding people who wish to be left alone is to pass new legislation, or get legal precedent set, that grants all persons the legal right to how and where his or her likeness can be used. The only reason a paparazzo would camp out in a tree in frigid weather for days at a time to capture one picture of a celebrity with her newborn baby is for money paid out by media outlets.’ This only indicates this issue is only due to the media. The Royal family should be granted justice!
Laws and restrictions should be re-enforced or made to prevent controversial messages from being sent out by the media. They should not be allowed to abuse their connection with the public.
[298 words]
Referencing:
The PAPARAZZI Reform Initiative, 2012. Legal. (22nd September, 2012)
Nandini Maharaj
807004698
Whilst I fully understand the position held by Kate and her relevance to society being the Dutchess of Cambridge, I must highlight the marketing strategy used by publishers to get quick sales. “The Queen is naked.” Being in the public eyes as much and Will and Kate are, makes them highly subject to invasion of privacy by paparazzi and other members in society. They have always been in the spotlight just like other celebrities and reality is, this sort of abuse would never cease in the modern world we live in. Yes it is unfortunate that her body was revealed in the way it was, but looking on from the perspective of magazine publishers, sex scandals, gossip and “bacchanal” sells especially when it is someone famous.
ReplyDeleteThe editor of Chi Italian gossip magazine, Alphonso Semorini, stated that Italian laws permitted the printing of the topless photographs of Kate and even though the public respect the dignity of the couple their privacy was not violated because the photos were taken in an open, public space in the street. British publisher Max Clifford contradicted these claims by explaining that the couple needed to take a stance or make a statement by suing persons responsible because if the situation died down then photographers would think they can get away with anything. He also pleaded with publishers to allow the Royal family some level of privacy as the scandal has created some upset.
Both perspectives are correct in my opinion, however, in the field of advertising consumer tastes and preferences matter. As such, this topic has earned its “newsworthiness” and magazines abroad would definitely continue to publish and make money out of it. It has already become viral on the worldwide net and as saddened as the Royal family may be, the situation cannot be reversed.
Secondly, the creation of the U.S. film mocking the Islamic faith has created a lot of protesting and social upheaval in the Middle East eg. suicide bombings, murders, bon fires and vehicular accidents. Personally, the U.S. filmmakers must have known that the reactions to this short film would have instigated rivalry to the extent to which it is at this point making the relations between the U.S. and Muslims in the Middle East even worse. Some may question if this is a continuation of the occurrences of 9/11. In my opinion, it is because the U.S. and the Middle East have been at war ever since. I believe that this film should be banned because disrespect against religion of any kind is wrong and judging by the reactions of the Muslims; this is surely the beginning of another disastrous war between the two parties.
References:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/technology-news/have-you-looked-for-kate-photos-duchess-topless-shots-spark-interest-of-australians-20120918-263u1.html
http://www.showbizspy.com/article/252016/kate-middleton-closer-photos-taken-by-a-british-photographer-on-the-orders-of-french-magazine-report-says.html?pid=4812
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2012/sep/14/kate-saddened-topless-photos-video
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/19/danish-magazine-topless-kate-photos
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/18/anti-islam-film-afghan-group.html?cmp=rss
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/17/anti-islam-muhammad-film-violence.html
SHANIECE MITCHELL
811000364
Mass media controls our perception and shapes our opinions on issues that affect us directly or indirectly. The Muhammed Movie trailer was an offensive insult to a religious icon in the Islamic faith. The video contradicts everything the religion stands for and believes in, in the words of The US Secretary Hilary Clinton the video was “disgusting and reprehensible it appears to have a deeply cynical principle to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.” The ignorance of this video has caused riots and unrest that has led to more than a dozen deaths across the Muslim society. So where exactly should we draw the line for freedom of speech and free expression? How many innocent people must suffer or lose their lives because of ignorant behavior?
ReplyDeleteSir Salman Rushdie believes that free expression is being attacked by religious extremism and that we are in a difficult place because there is a lot of fear and nervousness around. Mr. Rushdie who has also offended the Muslim society further stated the fact a documentary can be pulled because of its consequences is proof of nervousness and fear. On the contrary I believe that religion is one of sacredness and not to be exploited or abused and treated in such a manner that shows absolutely no regard or respect, a line must be drawn between freedom of speech and downright ignorance as it violates the rights of individuals.
Though the Duchess and Duke of Cambridge scenario has no direct link on the issues earlier discussed it does however further impress upon the point earlier stated. Regardless of their status in society I do believe that they were entitled to some level of privacy and it was breeched by the publishing of the photos.
References:
Sczalai George. "Innocence of Muslims' Protests: Movie Theatre in Pakistan Set On Fire". September 21 2012. Accessed September 22nd 2012. www.hollywoodreporter.com
"Hilary Clinton Calls Anti Muslim Film,Innocence of Muslims disgusting and rephensive". September 13 2012. Accessed September 22nd. www.youtube.com
Shanice Murray
410001400
Salman Rushdie author of satanic verses, speaking on the BBC news saying that "writers should be able to write anything they want, no restriction". A writer is a person who produces nonfictional writing of literacy art, such as novels, short stories. poetry, plays or essays and is especially someone who writes professionally. Salman Rushdie chose to write a novel which stems from his references to Islamic verses which were deemed "blasphemous" by the Jewish and Muslim communities. He said "I insist on the right of freedom of expression" and he thinks that writers should have the freedom to write what they want. In relevance to his book which was banned and may not be published, he said "My views was and is that nothing is off limits".
ReplyDeleteWith respect to the British loyal family, everyone is entitled to there personal privacy. However the Duchess being a woman who holds in her own right the sovereignity or little of a duchy should have been a little more respectful knowing that she is one of the most important and well known person around the world.The Italian magazine Chi published their prints with the title, "The Queen is Nude".The magazines that have been released or are intent on releasing the couple's photographs are soley doing so to boost sales of their respective magazines. In my opinion it was wrong for her to appear nude which was proven to be true even though it was at a private place since the media are all over trying to get that one shot that would get to the public attention so that they can make tons money.
Further more I agree with Krystal John in her comment in relation to the Anti Islamic video, it can be/it is used for entertainment, However I dislike the use of this video as it comes across as making mockery of the Muslims and the Muslim society. I can see how this video can start mayhem to those who created such a disrespectful film. I also strongly support the opinion given by Amanda Rampersad pertaining to the video where she said "The topic of Islam is one of the the most controversial topics since the 2001 terrorists attacks in the USA. This film entitled Innocence of Muslims is a mockery of Islam and Islamic communities. The person who made this movie clearly had no sense of respect and did not think of the consequences that followed. As a result of this movie, riots in Libya and Egypt have caused the loss of innocent lives".
References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writer
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/salman-rushdie-speaks-about-his-time-in-hiding-and-his-new-book-a-857034.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164
KEIRAN BRIDGLAL
810001787
Communication is defined as 'the imparting or exchanging of information by speaking, writing or using some other medium. (Oxford Dictionary).
ReplyDeleteSalman Rushdie says that 'my view was and is that nothing is off limits'. I personally agree with him on this point because honestly nothing is off limits for us but because of this we have to know how to use it and we must take into consideration the level of advantage we take over it.
We all have freedom of speech , we are supposed to be free to say what we want when we want but if we take into consideration people's feelings, emotions and reactions to certain things we say or do then we would realize that we cannot say or do as we like without someone somewhere being offended.
The book 'Satanic Verses' consists of a frame narrative, using elements of magical realism. The Muslim community argues that Rushdie used 'blasphemous references' and that he misused freedom of speech but if we consider what this means then we will know that he was doing just that, he was using his right to freedom of speech which we are all entitled. Not because some people became offended means that his freedom to say as he wants or in this case write as he wants has been limited or reduced in anyway.
In the case of the nude pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge, a big deal was made only because one she is a famous figure in society and two because she is royalty in British society and the future ruler of that country. I feel like at the end of the day she is still human and only because of who she is a big fiasco was made. Her fame put her in that position for if she was just a regular person this would not have happened, again we see the issue of freedom in this case freedom of the press.
In the movie the 'Innocence of Muslims' we see again a freedom of expression. I think that people interpreted the film in a wrong way and took offence but religion is a sensitive topic and one must be aware and careful when addressing and expressing thoughts or actions on religion and I feel like the film makers did not do this.
References:
Def. of Communication (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/communication)
The Satanic Verses
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses), (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879)
BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164)
Vijaya Singh
811002001
In today’s society mass media plays a major role in the spreading of information worldwide. The mass media can be both good and bad at times as it tends to share useful news around the globe and downgrading images or stories about someone at times. The mass media are all those media technologies that are intended to reach a large audience by mass communication, whether television, radio, advertising, movies, internet, newspapers, magazines and so forth.
ReplyDeleteSome of these publishers will do anything to get breath taking articles for the headline of their magazines or newspapers. One of the most recent publish article was the photos of the Duchess of Cambridge where she was topless in France on a private holiday with her husband, Prince Williams. These pictures were published by Dublin based paper called the Irish Daily Star. These photos were required to be banned by the royal couple and they should be since the photographer invaded their privacy and snapped the pictures. The pictures are also embarrassing pictures for a woman of such significance in society and can destroy her character.
Also occurring in society today, being spread by the mass media, an American film producer is making a mockery of the Muslim religion with the film he produced called the Innocence of Muslims. The film was created in the United States by an American and it causing deadly protest in the Middle East against the anti-Islam film. The film should be banned as it only display a mockery of the Muslim religion and broadcast there religious views in a completely opposite way. It should also be banned due to the lots of blood shed by the people of Libya who blew up the US embassy in Libya because of the film.
It can be concluded that mass media can cause a lot of uproar in society due to the graphical film an images produced to the members of a society.
References:
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/The-Role-and-Influence-of-Mass-Media.topicArticleId-26957,articleId-26946.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mohammed+movie+trailer+
Dareem Moore
811003089
I agree with Salman Rushdie that ‘writers and publishers have to be braver’ they need to take risks in order establish different views in society. A writer should be able to express himself or concepts openly without any fear. His book Satanic Verses provides varying concepts of migration and some critics mentioned that it was about the author’s dilemmas. Rushdie himself said that the book was not about Islam however, conservative Muslims condemned the book accusing it of blasphemy and issued a calling for his death. But the book has been given credit in the United Kingdom where people welcomed the perspectiveof Rushdie. The book also sparked many riots and resulted in the death of persons associated with the book as it was accused of abusing’ freedom of speech’.
ReplyDeletePrivacy is something that everyone is entitled to, from the normal man on the street to the celebrities. As such I totally disagreed with the revealing photos of the Duchess of Cambridge being exposed to the public. However, it was not sensible to be sun bathing nude on a terrace close to a road that was accessible to the public. This was taken by many magazines as the new scandal to publish as it involved someone of high social status in society. This photo, although it has been argued that ‘it’s not shocking in modern society’ and it makes her ‘more likable and less distant’ doesn’t reflect well on her character to the viewing public.
The Muhammad Movie clip sought to highlight the issue of violent attacks of the Muslims on Christians. It showed someone’s perception of Islam and how it is thought to be the superior religion with all other religions being inferior. This is seen when Muhammad said that all those that didn’t follow Islam had to face extortion or death. It’s a total mockery of the religion and what it stands for. This is seen when Muhammad, Muslims’ sacred prophet is displayed as an ignorant bastard.
References:
The Guardian, ‘Not even Leveson can protect Kate's privacy in Provence’, September 21st,2012 , http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/16/kate-paparazzi-duchess-cambridge-privacy
BBC News, ‘Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images’ ,September 19th 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164
Wikipedia , ‘Innocence of Muslims’ September 21st 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims
Morissa Rodney
811000467
Press intrusion into peoples’ private life has again caused quite a controversy world wide. Nude photos of the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton, have been exposed to the public in two well known Italian magazines, Closer and their sister magazine Chi. This has caused an uproar within the Royal family, where they are now fighting for an injunction to have the photos banned and gain the name of the photographer who possess the original version.
ReplyDeleteIn one view it is disappointing to witness the Duchess image being tarnished and sensationalized by the media. However, living in the 21st century has allowed for different technological advances, to be used as a medium for gaining celebrity’s most personal photos. Therefore everyone, royalty or not, should not do anything compromising in public, since it can prevent a further conflict and exposure. I do believe that it is not right to breach anyone’s privacy and that objectifying a person, royalty or not, should not be allowed.
In relation to the movie trailer, Innocence of Muslims, it has also instigated a great deal of conflict amongst religious groups in different parts of the world. In my opinion, this movie seeks to make a mockery of the Prophet Muhammad and portray Muslims and the Holy Quran in a negative view.
Although Mr Salman Rushdie stated in his views that “nothing is off limits,” I believe that some things should be. Journalists believe in freedom of speech, however, they should also take into consideration the consequences of their opinionated views. I believe that deterring the video is the sensible action to be taken. Plus, responsibility should be taken for the tragic events that occurred in the Middle East due to this video.
Rupert Sawyer. 2012. Topless Kate Middleton: why Channel 8’s empire publicized a royal boob. Guardian News and Media Ltd. Date accessed: 23/09/12. Accessed from URL: www.guardian.co.uk
BBC. 2012. Kate topless pictures: Royal seeks to ban Closer images. News UK. Date accessed: 23/09/12. Accessed from URL: www.bbc.co.uk
Nesha Mangroo
809001431
‘The Queen is naked’ says Closer magazine. A promotion for scandal and sales! The Chi magazine printed a special edition which featured more than twenty pages of the nude royal (Kate) while sunbathing in Solomon’s Islands. I agree that she should be prepared for both negative and positive comments from various media houses and that the slightest mishap becomes extravagant because of her status in society but this occurrence can negatively affect her and her family’s image. We expect the royal family to be perfect and have decorum; however, according to a representative from Closer Magazine, we live in the century where topless girls are the norm and that Kate will become more “likeable”. Also, according to Huff Post Style, they say’ these pictures are not degrading but are full of joy’ (Jade Walker). My opinion is that royalty or not, we are all still humans and have the zeal to partake in the same activities as the regular, everyday individual and we should be allowed to do it privately. We must therefore respect one another’s privacy and each other’s opinion, royalty or not.
ReplyDeleteReflecting on the movie trailer, we can deduce that this movie is obnoxiously disrespectful to the Muslim community. It makes a mockery of the prophet Muhammed along with the Quran and says that Islam is inferior to the Christian faith. ‘Nothing is off limits; you can talk about what you want, in any way you want’ (Salman Rushdie). I totally disagree with this statement because then we can say or do anything that may become disrespectful to another. This film has been the cause of killings and uproar in Libya and other parts of the world. Nothing is ever off limits; we should be respectful of each other and relay our messages in a way not to offend the receiver(s).
Bibliography
BBC News. 17 September 2012. 23 September 2012 .
Jade Walker. Huff Post Style. 23 September 2012. 23 September 2012 .
Ornella Sohun
808000547.
With a better suited title “The Queen was stalked and expose”, The Royal family reputation is falling when nude photos were taken of Kate Middleton the Duchess of Cambridge and the future queen. Will this damage her image when she becomes queen? Will the expectation of a queen be upheld? The royal couple is a public figure and therefore always in the public’s eye. This relationship can be mutualistic or parasitic it works both ways the media /paparazzi needs these public figure and the public figure need the media. However the media crossed the line with spying and the French magazine closer for releasing the photos to the public. Kate has the right to sue over the photo and everyone has their right as far as privacy is concerned. What the couple lawyer said that the couple could not have known they were being photographed, adding it would only have been possible to see them with a long lens. With that being said the right to sue the close magazine was an appropriate decision by the Royals. Even thought I had agreed to the media having the opportunity to publish everything that they wanted, just keeping within the laws and in this case the law was broken.
ReplyDelete‘Hatred ’is what my opinion is on the anti Islam YouTube video ,this movie has one main purpose and that is to create a riot and an increase in the terrorism and wars in the Middle East. When the Muslims react to such an situations with violence they are stereotype as terrorist ,but ask yourself if someone is contradicting your faith and everything you believe in, how would that bring any peace? Sam Bacile has to know what exactly what was being done and his target audience, and this is the Muslim people .
“Royals to take legal action over topless Kate pics ,”Graham Winch, Friday September 14th 2012
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/09/14/could-royals-sue-kate-middletons-nude-photos
“Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images,” last updated 17th September 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164
FULL HD - Muhammad Movie Trailer - Innocence Of Muslims -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RagKWM8ldk&feature=player_embedded
Free Syrian Army 'move command centre inside Syria'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19686938
Christopher Nathaniel
811000806
It has been seen time and time again that today’s society has taken the power to which mass media holds for granted. The increase in technological advances has sparked the boom of social media networks, publicity and the voice of the ‘free press’, making the wide spread of information easier and more available to everyone’s finger tips. This has also been seen to have resulted in more and more persons voicing their opinions openly via internet social networks. British- Indian novelist, Sir Salman Rushdie has once again been spotted creating headlines due to the release of his new autobiography ‘Joseph Anton: A memoir’ which gives an insight to his life while in hiding after the publishing of his controversial book, ‘The Satanic Verses’ . The controversy of the book resulted in a fatwa issued to him by the supreme leader of Iran in 1989 and thus Rushdie’s head was most desirable by many in the Islamic world. The events followed after the release of Rushdie’s controversial book has shown that writing and expression of one’s opinions is not as free as we would like to think it is, in fact there are supposed restrictions associated with it. The illusion of being a free writer is heightened by extensive blogging and use of social networks but for writers like Rushdie and even Dan Brown author of another controversial novel, ‘The Da Vinci Code’, the price paid for their freedom of speech and expression of views is a heavy one. I do agree with Rushdie in that “the only way of living in a free society is to feel that you have the right to say and do stuff," and that writers should be able to write anything they want without restrictions. However the way in which many have reacted to their views have suggested otherwise.
ReplyDelete‘The Satanic Verses’ and ‘The Da Vinci Code’ have both been scrutinized as being blasphemous, heretic and an insult to certain religious beliefs. What can be worse than a controversial book being published? How about a viral internet, cheaply made anti- Islamic video involving the mockery of the Prophet Muhammed. Without a doubt this video has sparked uproars and even killings in the Islamic world which goes to show an abuse of the use of media. The writer and director of the video have claimed that it is not a “religious movie” but a “political” one and it highlights his view of Islam as a “hateful religion”. In my view, sending a political message by slandering a major religious group belief is extremely distasteful despite me being one for the promotion of freedom of speech. The expression of one’s views is encouraged but the manner in which it is done is another important point especially when the internet is without boundaries. A book may not reach all persons since not everyone may favour reading but a ‘youtube’ video on the other hand can reach far more persons and of various ages.
Another abuse of the media power was the release of naked photos of the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton, just a few weeks after the naked photo release of Prince Harry’s wild Las Vegas party nights. The once secret activates done by the royal family has now not been so secret with the increase in paparazzi and celebrity blogs resulted in the total invasion of privacy of the royal family. Yes controversial headlines sell a lot more especially since the ‘royals’ have been hush hush about their everyday lives for years and more gossip readers are desperate for an insight. The release of topless photos of the future queen however also shows how brutal the effects of media abuse can be. It can also easily tarnish a respectable reputation even though the effects are not fatal (as the anti-islamic video).
References:
ABCNews. Katie Kindelan:"More Kate Middleton Topless Photos Reportedly Published". Date assessed 19th September, 2012. http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/kate-middleton-topless-photos-reportedly-published/story?id=17273174#.UF8dGY2PVdw
Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie. Page last modified 21st September, 2012.
Sinead Briggs
620022234
Marshall McLuhan provides an understanding of the world of media as it relates to the privacy of celebrity lives, he says that “publication is a self – invasion of privacy.” This statement defines the point at which an individual’s private life becomes property of the public.
ReplyDeleteSimply because privacy is suppose to supply an individual with the ability to “seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby revealing themselves selectively. The issue of Kate Middleton’s sunbath achieving the featured article of “The Closer” has invaded her privacy. The duchess of Cambridge, however, needs to take into consideration that “there is no private life which has not been determined by a wider public life,” in the words of George Eliot.
Therefore the dozen of shots stands to give a determination of their marriage to the eye of the public as it relates to the revealing of whom they are and what they share to the people. Once she understand this she will also understand the cycle as Johnny Deep puts it; in that no matter how “you use your money to buy privacy because during most of your life you aren’t allowed to be normal,” your life will always be available for other to scrutinize.
However the issues of the protest against the anti-Islam film "Innocence of Muslims,” occurring in the Middle East has to be placed at a much higher level of importance in comparison to that of leaked photos of the duchess in the nude.
According to the “The Independent;” there has been a report of 15 killed in Pakistan, 12 in Karachi … and “hundreds injured in fresh protests across Pakistan today as the anger over an anti-Muslim film refused to abate.” This protest against this anti-Islam film started as a demonstration of their expression of objection through actions to elevate their stand point on the particular event of the film’s production has lead to the loss of lives. Hence actions should be taken in order to increase the ability towards the banning of this kind of films, to avoid this world having to lose people.
References
National Post. Royals suing for ‘grotesque’ breach of privacy after French magazine published topless photos of Kate. 14 September 2012. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/14/royals-suing-over-topless-kate-photos/ (accessed September 22, 2012).
The Independent. Deadly protest erupt in Pakistan over anti-Islam film. 21 September 2012. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/deadly-protests-erupt-in-pakistan-over-antiislam-film-8162772.html (accessed September 22, 2012).
BrainyQuote. Privacy Quotes. 2001-2012. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/privacy.html (accessed September 22, 2012).
Yeshantai Thompson
810004022
“Freedom of Speech & privacy!” Recent events have called into question the ethical implications of this notion. One’s right to freedom of speech is the foundation and hallmark of many western societies; however, should this freedom be at the expense of another. According to Dictionary.com freedom of speech is “the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc.”
ReplyDeleteThe highly offensive, amateur movie “The Innocence of Muslims” has sparked worldwide outrage and violent clashes from the Muslim community. Recently in Karachi, Pakistan Muslims due to the fallout from the film burned five cinemas and six people were killed in the clashes. Additionally, the ambassador to Libya was killed in an attack on the US embassy. These unfortunate events call into question the rights of the producer of the film. In my opinion the producer was in his right to make such a film; it was a reflection on his views on Islam, however, he crossed an ethical boundary since it was evident that this type of film would have incited a negative reaction from the Islamic community. To me this film illustrates his ignorance of the religion; however, the reaction from the Muslim community also was their right but compounded the situation. This film was clearly amateur and may not have gotten the level of attention that it has if the reaction from the Muslim community was more peaceful.
In addition the issue of privacy have always plagued modern society. Celebrities tend to be the constant victims of this issue. Most recently was the situation of the topless photos published of the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton. The problem is that celebrities live their lives in the public eye but there should be certain ethical and legal boundaries that should not be crossed. I believe that Kate had the right to sunbathe in privacy without the fear of fallout.
In conclusion ethical boundaries need to play an essential role in the issues of Freedom of Speech and a person’s Privacy. There should be a balance between one’s ability to express yourself and ethics.
References
Alexandra Petri, Kate Middleton’s topless picture, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/kate-middletona-topless-picturesblog.html
Robert mackey & Liman Stack, Obscure film mocking Muslim Prophet Spartks anti-U.S. Protest in Egypt and Libya, 2012
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/obscure-film-mocking-muslim-prophet-sparks-anti-u-s-protests-in-egypt-and-libya/
Aisha Chowdhry, Insults to Islam ignite violence in Pakistan, 15 killed, 2012
http://news.yahoo.com/egypts-mufti-urges-muslims-endure-insults-peacefully-054427311.html
Cristal Bassaw
04734327
In recent times there have been many debates on acts relating to the freedom of the press. One such is the Free Flow Information Act. Freedom is defined as the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. While the media plays an important role in the society especially today with such timely information, this statement that writers should be able to write anything they want without restrictions can surface dangerous connotations when such high levels of liberty is given to groups of people.
ReplyDeleteNo individual or group should be given this degree of freedom which allows free expression of their personal views and actions openly in society without some level of restrictions. The American journalism review notes that the society is too free and questions whether we are willing to trade some personal freedom for greater personal security. If no restrictions were placed on our social media boundaries and personal security will be threatened.
The need to collect these stories by some writers and reports can often times pose danger to persons, when their main intentions is receiving high ratings and reviews. Some have known to go to such lengths as invasion of privacy unlawful acts and impeding of one’s personal beliefs to sell a story. In a society where freedom and liberty supposed to given to all, one sector cannot be given more than others. When one can single handedly express their right to freedom and do not consider the other person’s right, then freedom cannot be respected.
References:
Ken Paulson, “Too Free” American Journalism Review (2009) accessed September 22, 2012, http://www.ajr.org
Webster dictionary, www.dictionary.com
Suzanne Moore, “A world with too much freedom is better than one with not enough”. The Guardian. July 2011. Accessed September 22, 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/01/suzanne-moore-privacy-hacking-social-media
Carter wood, “Too much freedom of the press”, Forbes Magazine (June 2008) accessed September 22, 2012 http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0630/032.html
Shirlan Rameau
811005616
The issue of the nude photos of the British royals being published brings up an old debate of ‘freedom of the press’ versus the ‘privacy of celebrities”. Let’s face fact, this has happened before to many celebrities and will happen again if proper laws aren’t put in place to protect the privacy of celebrities without dampening with the freedom of the press. Many are of the view that because nude photos are a norm in our society, then this should not be such a big deal and the action taken by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge was too strict, but one fact seems to evade these people’s mind, they are not just any celebrities, they are royals. Time changes and society changes but the manner in which the royal family of Britain tries to maintain the respect and loyalty of their citizens has remained the same. It’s like a class seeing nude pictures of their teacher. Do you think the teacher would have the same respect of his/her students as they did before? I think not, therefore even as other articles on this matter are trying to ‘back up’ the French magazine’s mistake, it should be realised that even in today’s society, such action is wrong.
ReplyDeleteSir Salman Rusdie was quoted saying, “Some of them seemed to accept the free speech argument and understood if they had the right to say what they felt, it was wrong to prevent people who felt differently from having their say” The truth is that situations like this will always occur when you have a group of people that feel strongly about something. Just as his book is critical of Islam, there will be other books critical of popular religions such as Roman Catholic and Buddhism. They will always be people that respect the opinion of others to disagree with their beliefs, as there will always be people that think if you criticize what they believe in, you should be killed. It has happened in every religion since ‘before Christ’ and unless people can be brainwashed into being peaceful, it would happen again, no matter how brave publishers are.
Leanna Sutherland
807004484
Media houses are known at times to be violators of human rights. The recent publication of topless photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge by popular magazines and newspaper articles and the airing of a very anti-Islamic film on YouTube titled ‘Innocence of Muslims’ are totally unprofessional communication etiquettes. Media houses must learn to respect people’s privacy and religion.
ReplyDeleteAccording to reports topless photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge were first published in Closer magazine, Daily Stars newspaper and Chi magazine, respectively. Reports have indicated at the time, Catherine and Prince Williams were unknowingly photographed at the French chateau. No individual should have their privacy invaded by any media house despite their social status. Also, in consideration of the victims, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, this incident could be seen as a malicious act that is aim to change the way which the public view these influential individuals. Nevertheless, this was a very irresponsible act by such magazines and newspaper articles and should be punished accordingly to the law of France for the breach of privacy.
On the other hand, airing an anti-Islamic film in light of previous and current political climate of the Middle East was very irresponsible. However, this film could be seen as one that is very war provoking and malicious in its intent. The film seems to be purposely made in the United States of America (USA) for the aim of dishonouring the revere Prophet Muhammad of the Islamic community in order to provoke further tension between USA and the Muslims of the Middle East by a very unscrupulous film producer. Films which depict religious matter should not be produced carelessly because these are sensitive issues that have potential to ignite wars which could cause many innocent lives to be lost.
References:
Associated Press. 2012. “Irish newspaper publishes topless Kate Middleton pictures, Italian magazine plans to follow suit.” Accessed September 22, 2012. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/09/15/berlusconi-owned-magazine-to-publish-topless-kate-middleton-pictures/.
British Broadcasting Corporation. 2012. “Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images.” Accessed September 22, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164.
David Quamina
811000845
"Privacy" is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as the state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion. This privacy was broken when the English photographer based in France seemingly gained access via a pact with the Chateau security on the royal couple's grounds and shot nude photos of the Duchess Kate Middleton. Should one's privacy celebrity or not be left to the scrutiny of the public? I say no. The nude photos Kate has appeared in magazines and newspaper all over Europe and on the internet and sites worldwide striking varied public opinions. The Danish magazine Se & Hoer has decided to run a spread consisting of 70 pictures of Kate topless. The editor and chief of that magazine wants to show the entertainment fans in Denmark “what these photos are all about,” according to Hollywood Hills. This will have William fuming and it won’t do much for his disdain for the paparazzi.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to the anti-Muslim film aired; are we so insensitive to each other's preferences, views and value system that we break the code of respect just because we can. Closer: French magazine editor Laurence Pieau reports "I won't hide the fact that there are more intimate pictures that exist that we haven't published and will not publish. What! Sounds to me like this is a threat to the royal family to back off and drop the lawsuit or else, are these people for real- seems like blackmail of the highest order. This is why laws exist and while freedom of the press and freedom of speech is encouraged there still needs to be boundaries because opportunistic predators like these still exists.
References:
“Kate Middleton's topless pictures point to betrayal of trusted staff,” Hollywood Hills, Daily News and Analysis, accessed September 23, 2012, http://www.examiner.com/article/kate-middleton-s-topless-pictures-point-to-betrayal-of-trusted-staff
“Kate Middleton and Prince William: More 'intimate' pictures in editor's hands (Video),” TMZ, accessed September 23, 2012, http://www.examiner.com/article/kate-middleton-and-prince-william-more-intimate-pictures-editor-s-hands
Words: 278.
Ronald Williams
ID #: 810005195
ReplyDeletePrivacy is a fundamental human right. Photos of Prince William and Kate Middleton sunbathing on a balcony in a private villa in Province were published. The scenes captured were intimate and personal and had no place on the front page of the magazine. The royal family was breached since individual should be able to withdraw and reveal information about themselves selectively. The royal couple’s lawyer response was to file a lawsuit against the magazine for invasion of privacy.
Also, most lawyers seem to agree that under strict French law, the pictures represented an undisputed breach of privacy. However, intimate and personal images of celebrities are often circulated and the Duchess is no exception. The reputation of the media builds the scandals involving the rich and famous. The freedom of the press should not entitle the paparazzi to infringe on people’s rights to privacy and isolation.
The anti-Islamic video made in the United States is about a mockery of the prophet Muhammed and the Islamic Faith. The video appears to depict Islam as a religion of violence and hate, and its Prophet Muhammad as a foolish and power- hungry man. The contents were used inappropriately in the anti-Islamic video. The referneces to Muhammed’s alleged affairs with woman, his greed and violence would clearly be insulting in any context. The main purpose of this video was to entertain its audience. Should a video be used to entertain some, while making a mockery of others? This can lead to violence with Muslims throughout the world, which in turn would create a negative impact on the religion.
Referneces:
1. “Google Prince William and Kate,’’ http:// www. bbc.co.uk/news/world-east- 19606155
2. ‘’Google anti-Islamic video,’’ http:// www.vancouversun.com/
Geselle Leacock
ID# 811100490
DeletePrivacy is a fundamental human right. Photos of Prince William and Kate Middleton sunbathing on a balcony in a private villa in Province were published. The scenes captured were intimate and personal and had no place on the front page of the magazine. The royal family was breached since individual should be able to withdraw and reveal information about themselves selectively. The royal couple’s lawyer response was to file a lawsuit against the magazine for invasion of privacy.
Also, most lawyers seem to agree that under strict French law, the pictures represented an undisputed breach of privacy. However, intimate and personal images of celebrities are often circulated and the Duchess is no exception. The reputation of the media builds the scandals involving the rich and famous. The freedom of the press should not entitle the paparazzi to infringe on people’s rights to privacy and isolation.
On the other hand, the anti-Islamic video made in the United States is about a mockery of the prophet Muhammed and the Islamic Faith. The video appears to depict Islam as a religion of violence and hate, and its Prophet Muhammad as a foolish and power- hungry man. The contents were used inappropriately in the anti-Islamic video. The referneces to Muhammed’s alleged affairs with woman, his greed and violence would clearly be insulting in any context. The main purpose of this video was to entertain its audience. Should a video be used to entertain some, while making a mockery of others? This can lead to violence with Muslims throughout the world, which in turn would create a negative impact on the religion.
Referneces:
1. “Google Prince William and Kate,’’ http:// www. bbc.co.uk/news/world-east- 19606155
2. ‘’Google anti-Islamic video,’’ http:// www.vancouversun.com/
Geselle Leacock
ID#: 811100490
"What is freedom of expression? Without freedom to offend, it ceases to exist" Salman Rushdie. It is important that people are able to express themselves freely in a society that upholds freedom and democracy. However, people should also consider an ethical code, and values, in determining whether or not they have taken something too far; put themselves in the shoes of their viewers. I say this in light of two recent events that have caused controversy among various countries. Semi nude pictures of Kate Middleton, secretly taken, have surfaced. A London newspaper, 'The Daily Star' commented that a woman of her stature should have known better than to expose herself like that. In another magazine, 'Celebuzz' one author, Henningsen, said"our readers love to follow the lives of the royals, and they want a scoop" He also went on to say that the pictures were "fair game" since she knew she was in the public eye. Although I somewhat agree with him, because she should have been more aware especially since she is a "celebrity", as I mentioned previously, boundaries are important. Kate's intent was not to be seen by the public, especially considering she believed her privacy was protected. Privacy is crucial to everyone and this is clearly an exploitation on her part. The significance of these pictures were also heightened due to the fact that she is loyalty..."famous", and the public, whether we want to admit it or not, is interested in scandal.
ReplyDeleteOn to a more sensitive topic, an amateur "anti-islamic" video comically depicting the prophet Muhammed has gone viral. It has sparked major outrage in the Muslim community resulting in numerous violent protests. Although the makers of the video have every right to express their views, their ignorance of the Muslim faith was evident and they should have therefore educated themselves before making the video. The protesters also have every right to express their anger as they see fit. However the excessive violence should have not been necessary.
This all links back to my original comments. People need to understand the importance of other people's views to ensure that they do no overstep any boundaries.
References
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/freedom_of_expression.html (accessed 23/09/2012)
www.dailystar.co.uk/news/ (accessed 22/09/2012)
Daniel Boettcher BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19612351 (accessed 22/09/2012)
http://www.celebuzz.com/2012-09-14/kate-middleton-nude-photo-scandal-london-tabloids-declare-prince-william-wont-let-kate-suffer-like-my-mother-gallery/ (accessed 23/09/2012)
Summer Gervais
8100003843
Salman Rushdie who was interviewed on GPS by Fareed Zakaria, said that if one has a strong sense of belief they should be able to shrug off criticism. Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, the Egyptian-born American producer of this highly insulting film, who was within his rights to create a video to express his belief should have been careful when creating this film knowing the history between the US and the Middle East, which lead to the attacks on many US embassies in Muslim countries leading to the death of the US ambassador to Libya. Although Muslims were also within their rights to demonstrate their outrage, they should know that one man’s actions are not the same for the entire nation and violence should not have been used because it can further stereotype Muslims as terrorists. Professor Rosenthal at Chapman's University Law School said'...we treat what most of us would refer to as hate speech as constitutionally protected speech...' but Khalid Amayreh, a prominent Islamist blogger claimed that the Prophet to be more important than the US constitution. This could be argued on the basis of system of government in which the US is a secular country whereas Middle Eastern countries are Islamic which uses Sharia Law as its constitution.
ReplyDeleteThere is a right to privacy whether a person is famous or not but unfortunately there is no law to protect someone's privacy. Celebrities know whatever they do would always be watched by the public. In the last few weeks, the British Royal Family has been rocked by the release of nude photos of Prince Harry followed by pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge topless. This is a simple invasion of one's privacy but pictures like those sell newspapers and therefore it would be published despite Kate's disapproval although she was free to sunbathe topless because she was at a private residence.
However, some media houses have no or very little ethics and therefore some sort of legislation should be adopted by many governments to protect the rights of privacy.
References:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879
Trinidad Express Newspapers,'Free Speech and religion clash over anti-Muslim film' Date:19/09/2012
GPS by Fareed Zakaria. Date aired:23/09/2012
Deepika Rajani, Kate Middleton And Prince William Should Appeal For Privacy On TV Following Topless Photo Scandal, 2012
http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/88547/Kate-Middleton-And-Prince-William-Should-Appeal-For-Privacy-On-TV-Following-Topless-Photo-Scandal
Kendell Assue
809000589
Care and Due Consideration
ReplyDeleteWhile I may sympathize with Kate’s situation I think people in the public domain sign up for a certain level of personal invasion when they pick up their roles. Despite this personal view I think that paparazzi take the whole ‘following the lives of stars and media personnel’ to a whole new level. It is even sadder for persons born into celebrity such as the children of movie stars and princes; they unlike some of their parents did not choose that lifestyle and as such should be afforded some privacy especially while still growing up. I agree with Prince William and The Duchess of Cambridge’s decision to sue although their victory at the French courts is a shallow one as the pictures are already out in the public domain and once an image gets online it will follow you for the rest of your life.
People need to be more conscious of how their actions affect others. While it might be financially profitable or even humorous to take and sell such pictures or make a video which openly blasphemes someone’s religion the repercussions can be far reaching such as the deaths of twelve people in an afghan blast reportedly a reprisal for an anti- Islamic film published on youtube. The film The Innocence of Muslims has sparked rage within Islam communities throughout the world and has brought into question the validity of the protection afforded to Americans by the first amendment of the US constitution. Whether or not legal protection is afforded people should care enough for others to first consider the consequences of their words and actions, for many times the person guilty of misconduct is not the one to suffer as a result.
Bibliography
Chayes, Sarah. 'Innocence of Muslims' may fail free-speech test. 9 22, 2012. http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120923/OPINION04/309230030/-Innocence-Muslims-may-fail-free-speech-test?nclick_check=1 (accessed 9 23, 2012).
World, CBC News. Anti-Islam film reportedly prompts deadly Afghan blast. 9 18, 2012. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/18/anti-islam-film-afghan-group.html?cmp=rss (accessed 9 23, 2012).
Shallon Roberta Jessop
809000504
While it is true that Islam is similar to the faith of Christianity, and the words “FEAR GOD” appear as many times in the study books, Bible and the Quran, it is not only unfair, as described by the aged lady in the video clip but also not of godly beings to destroy the things that he created. The people and their acts of violence are racially intended as it denatures not only a group of people, but an entire region, namely the Middle East. The video show examples or discrimination and attempts to send negative messages to viewers about Islam and its purpose. Based on personal experience, Islam is based on accepting god’s message in your everyday life and being good to your brothers and sisters, and in no form or fashion is the true meaning of Islam truly demonstrated here.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, to the writing of Sir Salman Rushdie, where his expressions or words are banned, these are the things to be analyzed. Instead of the wrong acts of movies and other types of media that scars a society as whole, isolate the elements that lead towards theses mishaps and find solutions that can properly show publicly and to another nations how criticism is dealt with. The media has no intentions of letting advertisers and other people interested in broadcasting on their network injure their reputation, however making documentary on events like these can raise their bars and award them credential for interested stake holders. This leads to the other topic based on reputation.
A personal view on the privacy of the Royals, where everyone deserves some time to be alone, nude pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge would not hurt her position in the UK, this can very well encourage more interest in the royal family in these modern times since the days of kings and queens seem medieval. The publishing of private pictures of the soon to be queen would of seemed professional about 20 years ago, but if were to take away all that science and technology gave us in 20 years we would definitely see ourselves failing globally. As a result, Duchess Kate can be more cautious next time she exposes herself without the view of a camera, but it generated interest and in the future may lead to better communication to the outer world through media.
DEON M-J- YEARWOOD
811000450
It is easy to agree with the statement “……nothing is off limits” (Rushdie 2012), because everybody including writers express themselves with freedom of speech, but at the same time, some topics are very sensitive. If you’re going to write or make a video about sensitive topics such as race, religion, etc. at least do your proper research to ensure that you don’t condemn or offend anyone in the process! It is very simple. How would you feel if something you truly believe and have faith in (as in the anti-Islam video) was being condemned and published for the world to see? “If you look at the way in which free expression is being attacked by religious extremism, the things of which these people are accused is always the same - its blasphemy, heresy, insult, offence ……”(Rushdie 2012), if this is so then why is it still being written, spoken and published in such a manner that attracts attacks?
ReplyDeleteAs far as the topless photos of the Duchess are concerned, anyone would want privacy on a holiday and the Duke and Duchess are no different. It is totally agreeable that the couple should not be photographed when not in public (Trinidad Express 2012, 26). People may agree with the statements made by O’Kane of Irish Daily Star that “the duchess is no different to any other celeb pics we would get in, for example Rihanna or Lady Gaga” (Trinidad Express 2012, 26) and Laurence Pieau of Closer’s Magazine “…they show a young woman sunbathing like millions of other women on beaches”( Trinidad Guardian 2012, A24), however people should have respect for the couples privacy and it is not like any other celebrity photos because celebrities showcase themselves in skimpy clothing to almost nothing in videos, etc. Do you see the Duchess doing any of that to be classified as “any other celebrity”?
References:
BBC News Entertainment & Arts. 2012. “Salman Rushdie: Satanic verses ‘would not be published today.’” Accessed September 21, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879
BBC News Middle East. 2012. “Q&A: Anti-Islam Film” Accessed September 21, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19606155
2012. “Royal Family faces multinational battle to contain spread of topless princess photos.” Trinidad Express, September 16.
2012. “Topless Kate pictures Duke and Duchess sue French Magazine.” Trinidad Guardian, September 15.
Priya .L. Beharry
Delete809004198
It is easy to agree with the statement “……nothing is off limits” (Rushdie 2012), because everybody including writers express themselves with freedom of speech, but at the same time, some topics are very sensitive. If you’re going to write or make a video about sensitive topics such as race, religion, etc. at least do your proper research to ensure that you don’t condemn or offend anyone in the process! It is very simple. How would you feel if something you truly believe and have faith in (as in the anti-Islam video) was being condemned and published for the world to see? “If you look at the way in which free expression is being attacked by religious extremism, the things of which these people are accused is always the same - its blasphemy, heresy, insult, offence ……”(Rushdie 2012), if this is so then why is it still being written, spoken and published in such a manner that attracts attacks?
ReplyDeleteAs far as the topless photos of the Duchess are concerned, anyone would want privacy on a holiday and the Duke and Duchess are no different. It is totally agreeable that the couple should not be photographed when not in public (Trinidad Express 2012, 26). People may agree with the statements made by O’Kane of Irish Daily Star that “the duchess is no different to any other celeb pics we would get in, for example Rihanna or Lady Gaga” (Trinidad Express 2012, 26) and Laurence Pieau of Closer’s Magazine “…they show a young woman sunbathing like millions of other women on beaches”( Trinidad Guardian 2012, A24), however people should have respect for the couples privacy and it is not like any other celebrity photos because celebrities showcase themselves in skimpy clothing to almost nothing in videos, etc. Do you see the Duchess doing any of that to be classified as “any other celebrity”?
References:
BBC News Entertainment & Arts. 2012. “Salman Rushdie: Satanic verses ‘would not be published today.’” Accessed September 21, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879
BBC News Middle East. 2012. “Q&A: Anti-Islam Film” Accessed September 21, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19606155
2012. “Royal Family faces multinational battle to contain spread of topless princess photos.” Trinidad Express, September 16.
2012. “Topless Kate pictures Duke and Duchess sue French Magazine.” Trinidad Guardian, September 15.
PRIYA.L. BEHARRY
809004198
In response to the Royal couple and the nude topless pictures of the duchess presented by Italian and French magazines and Irish tabloids, it is indeed an infringement on their privacy and reputation, especially for a couple who both hold high international reputations and diplomacy. Some may argue that the posting of nude pictures may not be a big deal when it comes to modern times and society but it can be argued that it is definitely an infringement on the privacy of that person. Privacy is defined as the quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others, it’s a clear indication that their privacy was breached and a crime was committed .Delphine Phando, representing French magazine Closer said that topless nude pictures is no longer considered shocking to modern society, judging French culture it is not, for other societies, consideration should be taken and given special thought before a 20 page nude special edition is published.
ReplyDelete“Fear and nervousness”, the words used by Sir Salman Rushdie about his novel Satanic Verses can only give an indication of what his novel entails. Freedom of speech is ideal especially when it comes to a person’s views, the author having to hide for nine years of his life can only show that many people are living in fear for having to express themselves, this shows us the culture of their society. Is this one of the reasons why his novel cannot be published? Because a lot of us are living in fear?. The answer only lies within, but I do support the fact that publishers should be braver in circumstances like these as they are the connection between the views and thoughts of people and the rest of the world.
References
1) Kate topless photos: Closer ‘ has broken French privacy laws’, accessed Friday 14th September 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/14/kate-middleton-topless-photos-privacy-laws.
2) Experts: French privacy laws “toothless”, last modified 14th Sept, 2012, http://www.thelocal.fr/page/view/experts-french-privacy-laws-toothless.
3) “I insist on the right to freedom of expression”, last modified 09/22/2012, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/salman-rushdie-speaks-about-his-time-in-hiding-and-his-new-book-a-857034.html
AMIT MAHARAJ
807004063
Communication is that process where messages are transferred between the sender and receiver which can initiate behavioural changes by the receiver.
ReplyDeleteOne of the more popular interests today is the `Kate Middleton`s nude photo scandal`. Photographs surfing the net of kate being topless have initiated an uproar by the public. Kate is seen as a public figure by us, the audience and so her entire life becomes a victim of critics just like the other celebrities among us. I`m sure that the publishers of the Closer magazine saw this as an opportunity for higher publicity since the public would automatically take interest to such a topic as this is human nature.
However, in the same way that everyone is entitled to their opinion, we are all also entitled to our privacy. I think that such a photo is a breach of her privacy and that she as well as anyone is allowed to do as they please, as long as it is legal. The publishing staff of the magazine should have gotten consent to publish such an article. I think all nude photos or other materials that invade a person`s privacy is wrong unless the person upload it themselves or gives the consent to do so.
The US made film about the prophet Muhammed, had posed as an insult to the muslim community where the minister of Pakistan has expressed his diapprovement of such a film ( BBC News. < www.bbc.co.uk >. 2012.). One of the steps in communication; analyzing the audience, is to prevent misunderstandings of your message. I hate to say, but to me it seems that the makers of the film had not fully/carefully analysed their audience since the film was intended for worldwide viewing. Hence, this led to the muslim community taking offence about their religion.
References:
1. Perez Hilton. Kate Middleton`s `absolutely gutted` over topless photos?. 19th September, 2012. < http:// perezhilton.com > . 23th September, 2012.
2. BBC News Asia. Anti-Islam film. Pakistan minister`s bounty condemned. 23th September, 2012. < www.bbc.co.uk >. 23th September, 2012.
Communication is that process where messages are transferred between the sender and receiver which can initiate behavioural changes by the receiver.
DeleteOne of the more popular interests today is the `Kate Middleton`s nude photo scandal`. Photographs surfing the net of kate being topless have initiated an uproar by the public. Kate is seen as a public figure by us, the audience and so her entire life becomes a victim of critics just like the other celebrities among us. I`m sure that the publishers of the Closer magazine saw this as an opportunity for higher publicity since the public would automatically take interest to such a topic as this is human nature.
However, in the same way that everyone is entitled to their opinion, we are all also entitled to our privacy. I think that such a photo is a breach of her privacy and that she as well as anyone is allowed to do as they please, as long as it is legal. The publishing staff of the magazine should have gotten consent to publish such an article. I think all nude photos or other materials that invade a person`s privacy is wrong unless the person upload it themselves or gives the consent to do so.
The US made film about the prophet Muhammed, had posed as an insult to the muslim community where the minister of Pakistan has expressed his diapprovement of such a film ( BBC News. < www.bbc.co.uk >. 2012.). One of the steps in communication; analyzing the audience, is to prevent misunderstandings of your message. I hate to say, but to me it seems that the makers of the film had not fully/carefully analysed their audience since the film was intended for worldwide viewing. Hence, this led to the muslim community taking offence about their religion.
Shavana Rajkumar
811001352
References:
1. Perez Hilton. Kate Middleton`s `absolutely gutted` over topless photos?. 19th September, 2012. < http:// perezhilton.com > . 23th September, 2012.
2. BBC News Asia. Anti-Islam film. Pakistan minister`s bounty condemned. 23th September, 2012. < www.bbc.co.uk >. 23th September, 2012.
The article where nude photos of the Duchess of Cambridge were taken out and published is a clear example that the media and paparazzi is seen using any means necessary to advertise. Previously I disagreed on advertisers using any means necessary and clearly all the articles are based on advertisers using any means necessary to publish anything on the front cover of their magazine. I fully agree with the way in which Prince William and Duchess of Cambridge are handling the situation. I also agree with Mr. Hamelle, the lawyer representing them, when he says that the scenes captured were intimate and personal and had no place on the front page of a magazine. Another thing that he said was that the couple was not aware that they were being photographed and stated that it would have been only possible to see them with a long lens. This clearly indicates that those photos were taken out against their privacy and should not be published on magazines.
ReplyDeleteThe anti-Islamic movie that was made is very much insulting and offensive to those of Islamic faith. The “Innocence of Muslims” video is seen to have caused recent riots and violence in the Middle East against the film which is allegedly made in the USA. The persons who made this film were very discourteous to other persons that have a different cultural and ethnic background opposed to theirs. Freedom of expression should not be used to degrade, humiliate or make a mockery of others religion. Religion in itself is very scared and one should not make a joke out of it, which is why freedom of expression should have its boundaries.
Amelia Gonowrie 811001043
References:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RagKWM8ldk&feature=player_embedded#t=0s
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164
The Satanic Verses, the controversial book by Salman Rushdie is overly insulting to the Muslims of the world and to the religion of Islam. The author claims the book to be fiction but, to Muslims, the book is not a work of fiction, as it portrays Prophet Muhammad, as an evil man, a liar, and one, who is sexual in nature, which is absolutely false according to the Muslims. This book is so derogatory that Muslims around the world are against both Rushdie and his book. “If Rushdie really did not intend to insult the Muslims, then why did he indirectly mention that this book would be controversial, and many people, mainly Muslims, would be against it? This novel contains many remarks which offend the religion Islam and the Qur’an. The Prophet is one of the most respected men, and when Rushdie implements his own beliefs about the Prophet, it becomes very devious and contemptuous to the Muslims at large. Therefore, I do not believe with the author when he said that "writers should be able to write anything they want...no restrictions" on the BBC news (Monday 17th Sept 2012). This is due to the fact that ones writing should not be offensive to any religion. Additionally, when writing, an author’s intention should not be to insult anyone by any means.
ReplyDeleteReferences
BBC NEWS, Entertainment and Arts. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879 Sunday, September 23, 2012
BBC NEWS, India, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16705648 Sunday, September 23, 2012
The Satanic Verses http://islamicentre.org/articles/rush.htm Sunday, September 23, 2012
The Royals are like any other people in today’s society in that they too deserve some means of privacy in their personal lives. Therefore, I totally agree with the Duchess when she made her criminal complaint against the photographer who took topless photos of her in the infringement of their privacy. It is considered an invasion because they both had no initiatives that the photos were being taken of them in the privacy of their husband to wife moment which they entirely deserve without any harassments or rude and incongruous intrusions. The photos had no right to be taken and furthermore, to be published in the magazines.
References
The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2012/sep/14/kate-topless-photographs-editor-video Sunday, 23 September 2012
BBC News UK http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164 Sunday, 23 September 2012
The Muhammad movie trailer poses a mockery and an insult to the Muslim religion as it portrays their prophet Muhammad as a negative leader. It demonstrates that he is a liar, cruel, murderer, he kills, is unfair to people, steals, and is the complete opposite of what he should really be and mean to the Muslims in reality. The clip conveys a complete disrespect to the Muslim faith. Despite ones views of another’s religion, one should not disrepute someone else’s faith as this could result in catastrophic chaos.
References
You Tube, Full HD Muhammad Movie Trailer, “Innocence of Muslims” – 2012 middle east against an anti islam film Sunday, 23 September 2012
SHANYSE TAYLOR
811000107
Scandal amongst the famous has been an ongoing issue for many years. Being a woman of high esteem and royalty, Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge should have known better than to sunbathe topless, even in a private chateau. In these modern times paparazzi has the technology to capture pictures that may seem impossible to the “victims” knowledge. Being royalty Kate should have never bared herself in such matter because after all she would always be in the limelight of the public. The implication is that if paparazzi are on public property and cannot engage in their special activities without obstructing others who are using it for its primary purpose then they are violating rights. (Mosher. W, 2009) In light of this statement since photographs were on “public property” when taking the pictures they had their rights to the pictures taken, however since it was an obstruction to persons, they were violating rights.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Paparazzi Reform Initiative, that only reason a paparazzo would camp out in a tree in frigid weather for days at a time to capture one picture of a celebrity is for money paid out by media outlets. In turn media outlets get their money from advertisers and the advertisers get their money from consumers. It is commonly argued by the media that the ravenous appetite of the public for celebrity photos is what drives the expanding tabloid and paparazzi industry; so the public are to blame.
Another controversial battle is the one of the anti-Islamic film entitled “Innocence of Muslims” on you-tube has been causing quite a stir in a negative way. This film is very biased and created anger in the Muslim community resulting in riots and killings. The persons creating the film had rights to do so; however they should have been more educated in knowing that such a film would cause this reaction and outbreak. Google, who owns rights to you-tube, has been requested to remove the video. In response to the matter you-tube issued a statement saying 'We work hard to create a community everyone can enjoy and which also enables people to express different opinions. This can be a challenge because what's OK in one country can be offensive elsewhere.”
In light of all this it all comes down to persons having rights to their property once it is not offensive, misleading or ruins a person’s reputation.
References:
"Google REJECTS White House request to take down anti-Islam video that sparked world-wide protests | Mail Online." Home | Mail Online. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203762/Google-REJECTS-White-House-request-anti-Islam-video-sparked-world-wide-protests.html?ito=feeds-newsxml (accessed September 22, 2012).
Mosher, Steven W.. "Paparazzi and Public Property | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty." The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/paparazzi-and-public-property/ (accessed September 22, 2012)
"The PAPARAZZI Reform Initiative - Legal." The PAPARAZZI Reform Initiative - Paparazzi Laws and News. http://www.paparazzi-reform.org/legal/ (accessed September 22, 2012).
Rebecca F.R. Sukal
809001960
The public is easily agitated when there is a leaking of nude photos of any celebrity or well-known personality, whether it is a deliberate or stolen photo. Thus, one can only imagine how big an issue it becomes when the personality is none other than the future queen of the Commonwealth. The photos were shot by a single, still unknown photographer. Most of the online articles published on the topic are only comments though, with companies fearing legal action; the initial French Magazine to post the photos, ‘The Closer’, has been dealt with a lawsuit by none other than the Prince himself.
ReplyDeleteThe most common argument is related to the privacy of the Princess; ‘Does the behaviour of the shooter violate the law? Does the publication’s?’ (Paul Fahri, 2012). It is discussed that while it may be said that the photographer may have indeed taken and released the pictures without any consent, while trespassing on the private French estate , courts are reluctant to silence newsworthy speech even if the speech has the effect of disturbing someone. Here, there is a conflict of freedom of speech versus the privacy of someone.
However, Cecilia Rodriguez argues that during the summer in Europe, it is most common for women to be seen topless at beaches, ‘So why the big deal about Kate’s breasts?’ (Rodriguez, 2012). Is it due to the lawsuit against the magazine? Is it simply because she is a member of the British monarchy? In my opinion, ‘The Closer’ published the photos because they saw it in the best interest of the company; a controversial posting will attract a greater number of viewers. Unfortunately, they did not anticipate retaliation from the British family.
The film “Innocence of Muslims” appears to belittle the Muslim society. Freedom of speech is important, especially when one takes note that this is neither the first nor last film to spark religious controversy. However, in terms of making an opinion public on must consider the response of the widespread public. In a society with a lot of extremist though, it definitely is not the cleverest of moves.
Fahri, Paul. “New Kate Middleton Photos Published in Italian Magazine”. 17/09/2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/new-kate-middleton-topless-photos-to-be-published-in-italian-magazine/2012/09/17/1f626306-00f9-11e2-b257-e1c2b3548a4a_story.html (23/09/2012).
Rodriguez, Cecilia. “Should We Be Scared of Kate Middleton’s Naked Breasts”. 21/09/2012
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ceciliarodriguez/2012/09/21/should-we-be-scared-of-kate-middletons-naked-breasts/ (23/09/2012).
Mikhel Pitman-Gilkes
809004264
I do not believe the two stories listed this week should be paired. Prince William and the Duchess is more of an issue of privacy and integrity while the issue of the controversial anti-Islamic film is an issue of gross disrespect.
ReplyDeleteIf the photos were taken from the distance and direction shown by BBC, the couple may have thought they had privacy (BBC 2012). The nameless the photographer must have known that he/she was invading their privacy. If the couple wanted the public to see them exposed then they would have done so in a more public place such as a beach. Statements indicating that such photos are no longer shocking and make the Duchess more “likable” are poor excuses (BBC 2012). It is normal for a married couple to be nude around each other however in our customs they do not do so publicly.
The anti-Islamic film seems to be made to intently disrespect Islam. More reasonable forms of protests could have been made such as comments on YouTube and airing international television and radio programmes to make people aware of Islamic views instead of putting themselves and others in danger (theguardian 2012). The quality and low budget of the video and alone should have been taken into consideration. Just because a very few made an anti Islamic film, it doesn’t mean that it represents America’s view of Islam.
The photographer should have known he was invading the privacy of the Prince and Duchess when he had to resort to a telephoto lens to get the photos. The film is disrespectful however as intellectual beings we should know that the views of a few do not reflect the views of everyone.
References
BBC.“Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images.” Last modified September 17, 2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164.
Theguardian.“Protests over anti-Muslim film continue with scores hurt in Bangladesh.” Last modified September 22, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/22/protests-anti-muslim-film.
Neisha Ramroop
809003874
Privacy, according to the Chambers Pocket Dictionary, is “the freedom from intrusion by the public , especially as a right.” It is a right of all citizens and by extension, humans to have privacy, regardless of their social standings, religion, age etc. the situation that Duke and Duchess of Cambridge suffered was an example of the disregard of that right. According to the U.S. privacy rights the royal family privacy was breached as they were just enjoying the sometime at the Chateau in a very secluded area, which gave them every right to do whatever they wanted( once it wasn’t illegal) and that includes being naked.
ReplyDeleteThe paparazzi, which are freelances photographers that capture candid pictures of celebrities in order to sell to magazines, were just doing what they by definition are, and is socially acceptable to do. Everything is for the money. For magazines to sell, a certain amount of morals get trampled, laws get broken; hey, sensationalism sells. “The Queen is Nude.” Says the Italian magazine, yup, I'm sure when she’s bathing too. People love a story. However, it was in the royal’s couple’s right to fight for their rights and that’s what they did. “so, sue me!” Dam right they will, royally too!
As for the video on Muslims and Christians alike, it could be taken as insulting, some take it as educational. I think, with anything you do, you bound to offend some people. It’s the age of things now. Youtube did say, “ Broadcast yourself” it never said,” DO it responsibly.”
(256words)
809003139
Arielle Seerattan
REFERENCES:
1)“Kate and William to make criminal complaint over topless shots,” 16th September, 2012. (Accessed 23rd September, 2012).
2) chambers pocket dictionary, Chambers HArrsp Publishers Ltd 2001
This film was certainly no mistake, but a direct attack and a bullet into the hearts of all Muslims. Was the information pretested? Neutrally speaking, it is the most ridiculous, disrespectful, immoral and controversial film in the history of religious discrimination.
ReplyDeleteSince most people in the world belong to a religious organization, I want you to consider the film was directed to your religion. Imagine someone using your God’s name without any regard, referencing your holy book with false statements, comparing your God to a child molester, describing your God as a bastard (Mohammed the bastard) and concluding that your God is gay. Will you not become outraged and full of anger?
Therefore on the evidence from the film, I am not surprise of the actions taken by the Islamic faith. In extension, the president of the U.S.A should apologize to the Islamic faith or else I believe a war will be on the horizon.
On the other hand, the Royals are dealing and resolving their issues in a peaceful and lawful way. Though anger and emotional discomfort are aroused, the approach taken by the Royals are well defined, controlled and emotionally satisfactory in my eyes.
Although, Kate will always be remembered in history for her topless photos, the world should also recall her innocence, decent and professional response. It was an obvious invasion of privacy and this sought of action should not reoccur. Therefore, I hope the law takes its due course in bringing to justice the miscreants that breached the Royals privacy. It reinforces, that the law against such offence should be severe.
Frankly, in both cases that were discussed, the mass media/technology proved to be a lethal weapon. Hereby, special attention should be placed in the field, as the entire human population can benefit or be harmed. Religious discrimination and privacy invasion are to issues which need addressing, as they are issues that drives individuals to take action in the way they sees it fit. However, religious discrimination is painful and disrespectful.
References:
•"Royals want to send a warning,” Daily Express, September 19,2012,33.
•“Al Qaeda: Step up attacks,” Daily Express, September19, 2012, 33.
•“Al Qaeda calls for more attacks on embassies,” Sunday Express, September16, 2012, 25.
•“Royal family faces multinational battle,” Sunday Express, September16, 2012, 2 6.
•“Topless photos ruling: 1st battle in privacy war,” Trinidad and Tobago Newsday, September19, 2012, 24.
•“Anti-Islam film sparks protests in Muslim world: Outrage,” Trinidad and Tobago Newsday,September15,2012, 3.
•“William, Kate weigh suit over topless pics,” Trinidad and Tobago Newsday, September15, 2012, 33.
KERON FLOYD
811003072
Based on Arille Seerattan comments based on the film, I diagree with her views because as a consequence of such films there will always be deadly protest. Therefore world peace will never be achieved if it continues.I choose Peace instead of War.But your opinion is still valid.
ReplyDeleteKERON FLOYD
811003072
Just as culture is relative to time and place in terms of its interpretation, so too is information. Mr Rushdie would have known that his personal views would not be embraced by all, but he still had the courage to voice his views. From his comment,"writers should be able to write anything they want..no restrictions," it can be said that Mr Rushdie knew his rights as a writer and was willing to step on the sensitive corn which is Islam, to get his message out there.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to the Kate Middleton issue, I have no sympathy. She should have come to the realization that due to her new acquired status, she is no longer the person formally known as Kate Middleton. As a member of the Royal Family she should carry about herself in a manner befitting of such office.Also she should have been sensitive to the existence of "paparazzi" who prey on unsuspecting celebrities.
Aaron Fullerton
811100636
References:
BBC News Entertainment & Arts. 2012. “Salman Rushdie: Satanic verses ‘would not be published today.’” Accessed September 21, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879
2012. “Royal Family faces multinational battle to contain spread of topless princess photos.” Trinidad Express, September 16.
2012. “Topless Kate pictures Duke and Duchess sue French Magazine.” Trinidad Guardian, September 15.
Freedom of speech is often a very controversial matter. With regards to the pressing issue of Kate Middleton’s topless photos, they are pressing charges against the magazines that have published the photos. The magazines claim that the photos are modern and up to date as it is not out of the norm for a woman to be seen topless. Persons believe that the rash decision to press charges is simply because they believe they are ‘above’. "It is nothing new to us to publish nude photos of celebrities on holiday," said Carina Lofkvist, the chief editor of the Swedish magazine. At this point it seems that certain people are treated differently simply because of their status in society. It is argued that if it were an ‘ordinary’ person such great heights would not and could not be taken but the case is based solely on the matter of privacy and intimacy that was violated.
ReplyDeleteSalmon Rushdie’s book ‘The Satanic Verses’, published in September 1988 has been under scrutiny. The book which was a simple view of Islam religion critically in his own point of view has caused the author to go into hiding. The book was not meant to target the people belonging to the particular religion but instead to inform and shed some light of the practices and rites of the said religion. On the other hand, the anti-Islamic YouTube video made in the United States was just flat out a ridicule of the Islamic faith and the prophet Muhammed. The main purpose of the video was initially for entertainment but at the expense of others.
Everyone has the freedom of speech but some abuse that privilege in order to entertain and amuse themselves at the expense of others.
References
• “Swedish magazine publishes Duchess Kate’s topless photos.” accessed September 23rd , 2012, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-57515980-10391698/swedish-magazine-publishes-duchess-kates-topless-photos/
• BBC News. “Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban closer images.” Last modified September 17th, 2012, accessed September 23rd, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164
Kishalla Floyd
811000301
Every human being is entitled to communicating their beliefs and opinions, whether it is in the best interest of others or not. "Writers should be able to write anything they want.... no restrictions," says Sir Salman Rushdie. It is the communicator's decision whether he or she wishes to communicate information that may harm anyone. Although it may not be ethical, persons may still do so. This is perpetuated by the example of the paparazzi distributing the images of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge by any means necessary with no regard to the effect on the couple, just for their own benefit and fame. This can be seen by the Irish representatives stating that the Duchess is not the future Queen of Ireland, so it does not offend them.
ReplyDeleteHowever it is also the right of persons being affected by the information, to try to prevent the information from severely affecting their wellbeing or image. Therefore, in the efforts to preserve the decency and dignity of the royal couple, their lawyers are not wrong for attempting to cease the publication of their private photos by any means necessary. The Duke and Duchess are the faces of the rule of the United Kingdom and really should be treated with respect, which is why they must have taken such drastic measures to preserve their image and maintain their respect and dignity.
Similarly, the Muslim rulers sought to protect their people from offensive publications by ceasing the publication of the blasphemous "Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie and protests against the discriminating "anti islam film" made in the USA. Sir Rushdie is not wrong in stating that persons should be able to write and distribute any information that they want, but persons are also entitled to protecting themselves against discrimination and also preserving their private lives.
According to the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 suggests that everyone has a right to respect for private and family life, whereas Article 10 suggests that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. Article 14 seeks to prohibit the act of discrimination when "enjoying the rights and freedoms set forth" in this convention. The fight can be fought both ways and the offending parties should really be sensitive to others' wellbeing and good nature. However, the selfish nature of humans will always be perpetuated in instances like these and such controversies will always arise.
References:
1. Dina Rickman, Kate Middleton Topless Photos Published In The Irish Daily Star(The Huffington Post, 15/9/2012)
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/15/kate-middleton-topless-photos-published-irish-daily-star_n_1886371.html
2. The European Court of Human Rights, The European Convention on Human Rights(2010), Articles 8, 10 and 14.
http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/CONVENTION_ENG_WEB.pdf
3. BBC News, Salman Rushdie: Satanic Verses 'would not be published today', (bbc.co.uk, 17/09/2012)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879
LEANDRA RAMOO
811003474
Firstly, in my point of view, the Duchess of Cambridge and Prince William should be well aware of their status as royalty and should therefore know that they are and would forever be under the microscope by the public. They should have been more mindful as to where they should be scantily dress. However the plans made by the royal family to sue the French magazine that published these photos cannot be seen as unjust as France (where the photos where taken) has harsh laws on privacy. The French magazine was still willing to take the risk as sales may greatly outweigh sanctions by the law.
ReplyDeleteThe depicted video of Muhammed should be seen as ignorant and exaggerated. Perhaps the videos' main intent was to entertain its audience, but the makers should have anticipated this reaction from the Muslim community especially knowing the recent relationship between the US and the Muslin world. Muslims worldwide should know that these are not the views expressed by all non Muslims around the world, and were just a select few who were irresponsible. At the same time, all religions has been ridiculed or mocked in some state or fashion in the past, and would continue to be in the future. Religious groups need to stay faithful in what they believe in and not act out negatively.
References:
"Google privacy laws in France," http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/14/kate-middleton-topless-photos-privacy-laws
"Google the royal family on nude pictures," http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/world/royal-family-plans-to-sue-magazine-publisher-for-nude-pictures-of-the-duchess-of-cambridge
Alexnader Skerritt
810000850
The pictures taken of Kate the Duchess of Cambridge is a breach of privacy. No matter your status in society or political affiliation, privacy is a human right necessary for ensuring personal security and the ability to be free from surveillance and to respect the sanctity of one's body.But is this a justified action by the Closer to publish such pictures? The pictures taken of the Duchess by the Closer clearly indicates how the "paparazzi" will go to any lengths to sell magazines. Even tho the Duchess is seen as a celebrity, and seemingly private matters is subjected to public scrutiny, what is the limit to which information about her personal life is disclosed?
ReplyDeleteThe Universal declaration of Human Rights,says, "We - all human beings must be free and able to express ourselves, and to receive and impart information and ideas, regardless of frontiers." Does this entitle us to abuse freedom of expression and speech? Many have made such a mockery of the opportunity offered, they subject others to listen to their rantings,or view their actions, without first recognizing the consequences. The anti-islamic film made has shown how little others regard cultural and religious beliefs foreign to their own."Every man has a right to utter what he thinks the truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it" (George Orwell, violence tho is not always the answer.
Shane Tennia
807002418
References
http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/principles/index.php
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pgol-pged/piatp-pfefvp/course1/mod1/mod1-2-eng.asp
“The only way of living in a free society is to feel that you have the right to say and do stuff”, Salman Rushdie. I agree with his statement but you have to consider the repercussion associated with your actions. You can’t go around publishing individuals that are HIV positive or rape victims as they would be discriminated against and looked at differently. This was the issue with his book, which was banned and may not be published as it was an insult to his religion. I also agree with his statement ‘publishers need to be braver’, this is needed in order to get stories across to the public that are usually hidden. Once these stories come of in a non threatening way and do not discriminate against anyone.
ReplyDeleteWhether it is that you are either a celebrity, royal or ordinary individual, we are all human beings and deserve a level of privacy. The photographer that took the duchess photo was wrong for publishing it as both the duke and duchess was on private property. The article entitled: “The Queen is Nude!”Can ruin the image of the future queen as the public may not hold respect for her since both her and the duke has an image to uphold as being royals not only in their country but worldwide. Hence the photographer was intrusive and wrong for publishing the photo and should have respected the duchess privacy. The situation would have been different if it was an ordinary personas no one would have paid much attention to the situation. The situation only stirred up because of the status of the duchess. As I mentioned before we all deserve our own privacy.
The video entitled “Innocence of Muslims” which was made in the United States portrays mockery to the Islamic and Christian society as well as to Prophet Muhammed. Although it shows freedom of expression, the makers of such films should take into account that there are different cultural and ethnic background and the consequences that follows when producing films based on religion. Films that are biased towards religions tend to cause uproar in society.
References:
“Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images,” 17th Sptember, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164 (Accessed 23rd September, 2012).
Youtube, Full HD-Muhammad Movie Trailer- Innocence Of Muslims 2012.
Salman Rushdie: Satanic Verses ‘would not be published today’. 17th September 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879 (Accessed 23rd September, 2012).
Nazirah Padarath
809005015
The film in question is titled "Innocence of Muslims", a thoroughly negative cinematic treatment of Islam's prophet Muhammad.
ReplyDeleteViewing of the film trailer on Youtube clearly shows how Muslims could be offended and it had been linked to protests that continue to rage across the middle east. According to actress Cindy Lee Garcia,
"I think we need to take it (the film) off because it will continue to cause more problems," she said. "I think it's demoralizing, degrading." After an attempt to take down the video from You Tube, it proved futile as Garcia does have a claim against the filmmaker but not against Google. Cindy Cohen a legal director stated,
"The law protects Google here because they aren't the producers of the film," Cohen said. "You don't want a situation where the host is responsible for the content. Then nobody would ever be a host."
I agree with Mrs Garcia as it arouses too much ethical issues on a public forum. Many people view thousands of videos on You tube. YouTube has blocked users in Saudi Arabia, Libya and Egypt from viewing the clip, as well as Indonesia and India, because it violates laws in those countries. Directors should have been careful in choosing an appropriate medium. It could have possibly avoided or lessen the scandal surrounding it. Even though the topic of religion is highly controversial and could still stir debates no matter what medium, choosing an effective one could have reached out to only a small mass.
Kate is also one of the world’s most photographed women. During the many years she dated Prince William, paparazzi camped outside her London apartment and followed her and her siblings around town. This mainly being the reason why photos of her topless was taken. Media interest in the couple has only grown. 'That’s why it’s reasonable to ask what is a fair expectation of privacy' Even if Kate is not putting herself out there, she well knows that photographers follow her and William. Is this freedom ? To have people always crowding you every neck and corner ? we know that their off-duty moments are of even greater interest to billions. But no one who isnt posing naked for a photo should not be published. It is disrespectful and demeaning.
Shikshamani Dubay
810000221
REFERENCES
"Kate Middleton topless photos raise privacy, security questions," 15th September, 2012.
"Judge: Anti-Islam Film Clip Can Stay Online, Despite Actress Cindy Lee Garcia's Request," 21st September, 2012.
“Communication is the act of conveying information for the purpose of creating a shared understanding.”
ReplyDeleteHumans use many ways to convey their message to the audience whether it may be writing a book, taking pictures for an article or making a movie.
Salman Rushdie chose the medium of writing a book to convey his message to the wider world. The Issue is that the Muslim community does not want this book to be published. They believe that it is blasphemous and at a point in time called for his death. Simiarly they take action by sending death threats to bookstores that wanted to sell those books. Now the question is who is the audience? It is most obvious that the audience is not pleased with this book. Then are writers not subjected to have a freedom of expression?
This brings me to another issue where a movie was made about the Prophet Muhammad called ‘Innocence of Muslims’. It is an Anti- Islam film and was created at a target audience out of utter Ignorance, Disrespect, Mockery and Insult to Islam. This in turn resulted in attacks and riots in Libya because the intended audience (Muslims) was not pleased. In this case there should not be an issue where freedom of expression is concerned. The writer was not considerate of the feelings of Islamic people.
The final issue is that of Prince William and the Duchess where a writer took nude pictures of the Duchess and published it. This is a definite view that their privacy was violated. It was taken without their permission when they were vacationing. There’s no freedom of expression here because of the writer’s lack of consideration and respect for Prince William and his wife.
In the end, ‘freedom of expression’ is abused!!
KADIENNE HENRY
811000072
REFERENCES
“What is Communication? The Definition of communication,” communication studies The #1 Resource for the Communication Field, http://www.communicationstudies.com/what-is-communication
The “Innocence of Muslims” trailer posted on YouTube is cannot be considered satire and definitely isn’t a legitimate documentary so it is quite understandable why it would cause such uproar in Muslim states. All it seems to do is portray Islam's Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in an abhorrent manner. The video and its portrayal are the personal views of the American film makers which they are entitled to, however offensive they may be in accordance with The First Amendment to the United States Constitution; it states “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Using the same freedom of speech logic the Muslim community has every right to be perturbed.
ReplyDelete"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." — Malcolm X. That quote is the summation of my thoughts when reading some of the articles about the 'Innocence of Muslims' issue. Little to nothing about the film is ever really mentioned but the discord caused by it is continuously publicized, painting the ever stereotypical picture of "Those petty, violent Muslims being violent and petty again." What is not shown by the media is the true character of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and how it contrasts to the one portrayed in the Innocence of Muslims trailer. Also hardly any mention of the already high political tension in the Middle East brought on by what is known as the Arab spring.
"The public wants real and raw and that's what we give em'. Let me tell you something, my friends, we're the last of the real hunters."- Rex Harper (Paparazzi 2004). Paparazzi abuse the freedom of press rights allowed to them and disregarding the privacy of their quarry. It is unfortunate that the royal image was tainted by the Duchess of Cambridge’s Topless photos but Prince Harry did it first in his night out with Olympian Ryan Lochte. Lawsuits can be filed fines and compensation can be paid but as public figures the royal family should expect that these things could happen. Also they no longer rule the world and as such cannot expect the pictures leaked onto the internet to be taken down so easily. For now they should be happy that topless photos no longer cause the shock in this modern society and hope that it doesn't have the same effect on Kate Middleton as it did Princess Diana."
Chauffeur and Paparazzi to blame for Diana death, jury finds | UK news | guardian.co.uk ." Latest US news, world news, sport and comment from the Guardian | guardiannews.com | The Guardian . http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/07/diana.monarchy (accessed September 23, 2012).
"BBC News - Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images." BBC - Homepage. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164 (accessed September 23, 2012).
"BBC News - Three arrests in Birmingham's Bullring protest." BBC - Homepage. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-19685541 (accessed September 23, 2012).
Joshi, Shashank. "BBC News - Film protests: What explains the anger?." BBC - Homepage. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19609951 (accessed September 23, 2012).
Kean Moses
808012038
Everyone has a right to their privacy especially those who are expected to set an example. A lot of people especially the young ones look up to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and as such their image should be portrayed with utmost respect. Children and teenagers look at the Duchess as a model and have intentions of becoming her one day but when her image is portrayed in this manner then mixed messages will be sent to those who respect her and as such their thoughts will be distorted. Privacy of celebrities should not be exploited as they to have a right to their own personal space.
ReplyDeleteExpression of one’s views should not be forbidden but at the same time one should take into consideration the effects their comments may have on others in society. “The film’s 52 year old writer, director and producer, Sam Bacile, said that he wanted to showcase his view of Islam as a hateful religion.” All he did was blatantly express his views of the Islam faith but I guess he did not take into consideration the effects that it would have on the Muslim community. A lot of Muslims were offended by this video and as such reacted negatively. In my view, the video came across as being demoralizing and degrading of the Islam faith.
I do agree with Sir Salman Rushdie when he said that writers and publishers should be braver but at the same time they need to take into account the ethical aspects when exploiting a particular issue.
REFERENCES:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RagKWM8ldk&feature=player_embedded
KRYSTAL A. RAMNARACE
809004073
What a world we live in! no matter the state of current events, the mass media will always have ways of stimulating interest of the world's population, whether it be negative or positive. It is recognised that through most mass media(internet, television, magazines) attack the insecurities and emotions of people in order to capture any attention by any means possible. An example of this can be drawn by author Salman Rushdie.
ReplyDeleteIn a nutshell, Rushdie stressed that authors should "more braver" when publishing books that may be controversial. In contrast, just by the name of the book made by Rushdie, "Satanic Verses" seems very interesting yet controversial in the view of religious audiences such as christianity.
Secondly, religious audiences deal with certain media attention in bizarre of circumstances. The typical example is that of the muslim video "Innocence of Muslims". The internet media sprayed deadly bait for the audience of Libya which resulted in violent consequences and even deaths. In contrast, in getting interest by any means necessary, disregarding consequenses, is a big risk! especially to the worldy audiences. The producer adds more fuel to fire by declaring Islam is a hateful religion but later said that it was a political movie. This just stirs controversy.
And finally, The controversy of privacy and the media. The main disadvantage of the mass media is that privacy is invaded and 60% or more of the time, they escape charges. The duke and the duchess, no matter how high they are in the ranks, are humans too. If their privacy is invaded, they feel even more public and viewers & readers feast themselves to more gossip by reporters. In my honest opinion i believe that the media has no right to go far with the Duke & the Duchess' private life, only if they decide to allow it, simple as that.
In closing, i must say that the mass media has the largest audience of communication but it is how they use it that is most effective to reach all audiences. Most media breach and go beyond themselves to get more public attention than competitors and money as illustrated by the above examples made. Take time to wonder, do the media care about people, or care about themselves and their self interest ?
References:
http://www.thenewstribe.com/2012/09/19/spread-of-kate-photos-banned-as-royal-couple-head-home/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy
Shimon Joseph
811001529
According to Ken Sunshine, a publicist, privacy of a celebrity’s personal lives are not something taken into consideration by paparazzi because it is their “full-time job to get the most embarrassing photo they can”…”You're dealing with very personal parts of people's lives, where I think there ought to be some right to privacy at some level.” The same could be said for the Prince and Princess’s vacation photos. There is a limit to the kinds of pictures one should take especially if they are in the field of journalism which requires work ethics and morals. However in today’s society, reporters and photographers are merely concerned about profit rather than the reputation of celebs. The images taken of the royal couple were merely intimate and innocent. Kate’s privacy should not have been violated regardless of social status; she has rights as a human whose private life should not have been violated. Being the Duchess of England respect should have been shown to her by publishing houses. Thus, their lawyers have every right to take rigorous actions to cease the publication of the magazines because their privacy has been broadcasted for the world.
ReplyDeleteMass media can destroy a person’s identity or even a nation at large. “Innocence of Muslims” created havoc in several Muslim nations because of its negative portrayal of Prophet Muhammad. In light of Satanic Verses, Rushdie states that people should express themselves freely in a society. Nine years in hiding tells us the sensitivity of the topics in his novel, thus, if his book may come across negatively, why take the risk to publish it? Free expression of certain issues entails a lot of danger as seen with film “Innocence of Muslims”. Rushdie should take into deliberation, such effects because writers’ views are directly connected to its audiences.
References:
BBC News Entertainment and Arts. “Salman Rushdie: Satanic Verses 'would not be published today'”. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879. (accessed September 19,2012).
BBC News UK. “Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images”. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164. (accessed September 18,2012).
CCN Entertainment. “Why paparazzi are wrong” http://articles.cnn.com/2006-05-09/entertainment/sunshine.access_1_paparazzi-car-chases-celebrities?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ. (accessed September 19,2012).
Youtube.com. “ Full-HD- Muhammad Movie Trailer- Innocence of Muslims” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RagKWM8ldk&feature=player_embedded (accessed September 19,2012).
Name: Whitney Katwaroo
I.D: 810001472
The Royals highlight their philanthropic causes while some aspects of the media focus on their private and personal life. There is the adage that persons in public life have no private life. Some celebrities use the opportunity to tweet, blog, text and post all aspects of their lives. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulation (2012) note that the best selling magazines( print or digital)are those that deal with scandals relating to public persons. There is an apparent incessant need of the public to know what is going on the lives of persons of a certain stature. This feeds into the grab for pictures and stories relating to any of these people. It should be noted that the Duchess did not pose for these pictures and was taken during an intensely intimate and private moment from 800m away. This case highlights the need for greater ethics and principles in the reporting of the media. The media is an integral forum for the dissemination of crucial information. While the media may have access to the public persona they cannot have access to a person's private parts. The question is what is the need for these pictures to be published. The Italian editor states that they wanted to present the idea of a modern monarchy (guardian.co.uk). The only discernible reason is that sex and scandal sells. The Royal Couple were forced to fight for their right of privacy in a court of law. Simple ethics and human consideration should have prevented such a matter. This issue decries the basic human right to life, liberty and security of person granted to any person regardless of stature or creed (UN Charter 1948).
ReplyDeleteLaura Rajaram
809002156
"Innocence of Muslims", is a highly controversial film by its nature. It attacks the beliefs and ideologies of the Islam faith and is regarded as highly offensive by followers of this religion. Is this grounds to ban this film however? Where do we draw the line on what is supposed to be freedom of speech and freedom of the press? I believe that discretion should always be used especially in what goes into the mass media. A film criticizing a religion is not unheard of in our society but I believe there is a right way to do things. It should be fact based and not over sensationalized like I think the aforementioned film is. It is our duty as communicators to be respectful of different cultures and beliefs and consider all possible ramifications of the messages we portray.
ReplyDeleteOn that note, messages we portray should also be respectful of people's right to privacy. The topless photos of the duchess Kate Middleton are clearly a breach of her privacy. However I believe in equal rights across the board despite status or influence. These type of photos are the norm in nowadays tabloids, it is not unchartered territory. A clampdown on media invasion of persons' privacy should be enforced. In the case of the Duke and Duchess, no special treatment should be awarded despite their stature. Irresponsible journalism is a problem in society that needs to be addressed but no one author or publisher editor should be victimized because they were "brave" enough to do what has become the accepted norm on high profile celebrities.
Cy Sarjeant
809002229
Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie “my view was and is and should be off limits” is the freedom that should be given to the media. I do agree with this view but within the limits, the media should not infringe upon another person’s right to privacy. Is taking topless photos of someone on their private residence when they are not aware of it wrong? Well the laws of France certainly do see this as a breach of the right to privacy, be it Royal or average citizen. Being a royal does bring you under the scrutiny of the public eye but as every other human being you are entitle to the right of privacy, but you just may have to fight a little harder to exercise this right but I guess it comes with the title of Duchess of Cambridge.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Innocence Muslim video, if the purpose of this video was to invoke uproar within the Islamic world it did just its job. The sender of this message could not fain innocence in the response invoked, because the response to a cartoon character of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) was seen when published in France. That publication could be viewed as a pre-test of this type of message on 2.1 billion people of the world, the Muslim population. This now goes back to the topic of analyzing the audience which in this case consist of Muslims and non-Muslims. Also if you were to take into consideration the differences between the Western world and the Eastern world you would realise the Islamic World follows the Sharia, which is laws based upon the teachings of the Quran ( the Holy book) and the Sunnah (the teaching and sayings of the prophet upon whom be peace).
Does freedom of expression give a person the ticket to disrespect a person and ridicule a person’s religious beliefs? Does freedom of the press allow for a photographer to infringe upon a person’s privacy? So in exercising our right we need to take care not to step on the rights of our fellow human beings.
1)BBC NEWS Entertainment & Arts : “Salman Rushdie: Satanic Verses 'would not be published today'”
Last modified 17th September 2012
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879
2)BBC News UK : Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images
Lasted modified 17th September 2012
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164
3)The Origins of Islamic Law Constitutional Rights Foundation
Accessed 13th September 2012
http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/the-origins-of-islamic-law.html
Faadia Faria Mohammed
807000641
According to the Australian Human Right’s Commission, human rights are defined as a set of moral and legal guidelines that promote and protect recognition of our values, our identity and ability to ensure an adequate standard of living. There are fourteen articles of human rights some of them are: freedom of expression, prohibition of discrimination, freedom of thought, conscience and religion and finally the right to respect for private and family life.
ReplyDeleteSir Salman Rushdie quoted saying, “my view was and nothing is off limits” as he backs up his opinions on his book called “Satanic Verses”. In his interview, he told the interviewers that he believes people should have the right to express their opinions freely. In my opinion, the quote is too general and can be consider as militant because there are censorship protocols that prohibit individuals from communicating messages which may be considered harmful, defamatory, sensitive or lacking morel decency. Furthermore, he is breaking one of the human rights acts which deal with the prohibition of discrimination as he insults his Islamic community in the said book which was banned.
In addition, the United States of America made an inappropriate video called “Innocence of Muslims” which insulted Muslims and their religious beliefs and those who believed in a higher power. Persons were highly offended by the heinous comments and the imaginaries portrayed in the video which incensed the Muslims who cast a negative view of some Americans.
On the contrary in today’s society we take privacy very seriously as we treasure our privacy amidst our status, royalty or commoner. It was wrong for the global tabloids to post inappropriate pictures of Prince William and Kate. Prudence should still dictate that we be modest in all or deliberation on public.
References
1. Human rights http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/documents/digitalasset/dg_070456.pdf Friday 21st September 2012
2. Human rights definition http://www.hreoc.gov.au/education/hr_explained/1_defining.html retrieved Friday 21st September 2012
3. Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship retrieved Friday 21st September 2012
4. Larson, Erik. Kate Photos Test Royal Resolve After Nude Harry Shots. In Bloomberg news. September 17, 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-17/kate-photos-test-royal-resolve-after-news-corp-nude-harry-shots.html. (Accessed 21st Sept, 2012)
5. Prince Harry Naked Photos During Vegas Rager. In TMZ celebrity news website. 21 August 2012. http://www.tmz.com/2012/08/21/prince-harry-naked-photos-nude-vegas-hotel-party/. (Accessed 21st Sept, 2012).
6. No Privacy for Royals: What Will Prince Harry Say About Kate Middleton Naked Photos? In San Francisco Luxury Living.18 September 2012. http://sfluxe.com/2012/09/18/no-privacy-for-royals-what-will-prince-harry-say-about-kate-middleton-naked-photos-photos/. (Accessed 21st Sept, 2012)
7. You Tube,FULL HD-Muhammad Movie Trailer- Innocence Of Muslims 2012)
Kerri Puckerin
811100631
Mass media is one of the main source of communication intended to send messages to a large audience through radio, television, magazines and other forms.
ReplyDeleteReligion acts as the opium of a people. It gives people a sense of belonging and acts an initiative for them to feel close with a supreme in this case the book written by Salman Rushdie is very offensive to the Muslim community as it offend them an would cause for them to react. In his point of view freeness of writers should be taken into consideration as if there is freedom of writing then there would be democracy according to sociologists. Then if there is pro-democracy there will be humans development. In his book it impacts badly on that group as he himself stated that it was a controversial to the people.
religion gives answers to answers that cannot be answered such as the the video of the middle east they described the killing of men women an children by describing it to Jericho an Christ stating to break it down killing all children an men and women. Religion affects people in all forms and this way in the middles east both religion were affected and being synchronised. The video is the right of the media to express there point of view and urge for free press.
Paparazzi is used to show live and direct pictures taken from the unknown. In this case the pictures of the Dutch shows paparazzi and this shows entertainment and excitement for persons as that is their purpose. There job is for this purpose so they should bot get angry at the press.
REFERENCE
Associated Press. 2012. “Irish newspaper publishes topless Kate Middleton pictures, Italian magazine plans to follow suit.” Accessed September 22, 2012. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/09/15/berlusconi-owned-magazine-to-publish-topless-kate-middleton-pictures/.
British Broadcasting Corporation. 2012. “Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images.” Accessed September 22, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164.
Newsday, September19, 2012, 24.
•“Anti-Islam film sparks protests in Muslim world: Outrage,” Trinidad and Tobago Newsday,September15,2012, 3.
•“William, Kate weigh suit over topless pics,” Trinidad and Tobago Newsday, September15, 2012, 33.
Harlambos and Holbon
7th edition Collins
Lizanda Gookool
811002650
In my opinion the nude photos that was taken of the Duchess was an invasion of her privacy because she was on her own private property.My concern is not only about the photographs,but the fact that instead of a photographer with a camera with a telescopic lens,it could have been a sniper with a rifle with telescopic sights. Where were the protection officers?.I agree with Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge's decision to sue (according to Helen Warrell and Robert Budden) the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on Friday issued legal proceedings against the publishers of French magazine Closer for breach of privacy following the publication of topless paparazzi photographs of the duchess.Some may argue that the posting of nude pictures may not be a big deal when it comes to modern times and society but it can be argued that it is definitely an infringement on the privacy of that person. The reason why paparazzi would go to such extent to get that picture I assume is for money by media outlets. But they have to take into consideration the person feeling and the negative impact it can especially for a princess and soon to be queen.
ReplyDeleteIn the anti-Islamic film innocence of Muslims the video display an insult and mockery of the Muslim religion. The video can lead to Muslim community taking offence about their religion.The film is seen to have caused recent riots and violence in the Middle East against the film.The persons who made this film clearly had no respect for other religion.
REFERENCES
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
BBC News..2012
)“Kate and William to make criminal complaint over topless shots,” 16th September, 2012. (Accessed 21st September, 2012).
EARLE JOHN
809003547
This photo scandal concerning the future king and queen of England is a tad bit ironic. Ironic in the sense that everyone deserves their privacy regardless of status you should be treated equally and deserve your rights. However, being the prince of has its cons, one of them being you are always the centre of attention whether you’re looking for it or not. In my opinion, Prince Harry and the Duchess Katie were in privacy and out of the public’s sight. According to Brad Thor, ‘Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend people’ which describes the invasion of privacy of the royal couple by the still unknown photographer or photographers. However, paparazzi exist only to find the out the “dirty” and to advertise it to the public although there methods may be taboo.
ReplyDeleteThe Muhammad film was someone’s interpretation of how Islam was formed. The anti-Islam posted on YouTube video does not describe privacy issues but the respect for other religions and beliefs. The video portrayed disrespect to the Islam fate. Despite having an opinion on an issue the method which you choose to express the issue can have tremendous consequences on the public. Therefore, one must be careful to how they pick their methods of communicating or expressing “freedom of speech “to the public because we can clearly see that there the world has not developed in a way where serious issues can be discussed in a humane manner. An example can be made out of Salman Rushdie whom was banished for his book Satanic verses which was seen as disrespect to the Islamic faith.
• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-09-18/people/33903789_1_william-and-kate-prince-harry-duchess
• You Tube,FULL HD-Muhammad Movie Trailer- Innocence Of Muslims 2012)
•http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/freedom_of_speech_2.html#Tp2GyeY3gI2zDW4c.99
• Salman Rushdie: Satanic Verses 'would not be published today'. 17 September 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879
Keon Forde
811004162
267 words
I personally find this scandal with the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton is very interesting. I am one to strongly enforce that everyone has a right to privacy no matter if they are royal or just an "ordinary" individual but in today's society people value the lives of royalties higher than those of other normal citizens therefore this scandal will be a big headline worldwide. According to Mr. Hennigsen on his website said, "Our readers love to follow the lives of the royals and they want scoops. I am therefore incredibly proud that we have obtained the rights to provide the topless pictures of Britain's future queen." He is right because nudity sells. Everyone is so caught up in the personal lives of royalty and forgets what’s really important. At the end of the day the photographer and the magazine’s chief editor should not be arrested or shun upon for publishing these pictures because that is there job to give people what they want to see. The Duchess should have been more careful and aware of the things she was doing since a similar issue occurred with nude pictures of Prince Harry. On the other hand if a “normal” person is caught in the nude within their private property there will not even be a murmur of it but because it is royalty it makes it way into many newspapers world. The point I am trying to make is that at the end of the day the duchess is a person and every person deserves a right of privacy. Thomas Rousineau , who specializes in privacy law, said that the French magazine Closer had undoubtedly broken the country’s privacy laws by publishing the photos of the duchess, he also stated that, the castle is not a street it is a private place and they are intimate photos. There is a double standard with this issue because everyone is entitled to their privacy and also everyone has a job to do.
ReplyDeleteNow when it comes to the anti- Islamic video on youtube it is not the fact of privacy of Muslims but the issue of having respect and understanding of their religion. This video showed a high level of disrespect towards the Muslim faith. Religion is not meant to be taken as a joke because every religion has their own beliefs and if this was done to the Christian or any other religion they would have been just as furious. On the other hand with the Muslims killing the U.S ambassador that is just not acceptable because no matter in what religion taking someone’s life is just not right, they are just proving that they are murderous people. This incident just shows the society has not fully accepted each other’s religion and has not understood equality
BBC News - Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images." BBC - Homepage. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164 (accessed September 23, 2012).
1)“Kate and William to make criminal complaint over topless shots,” 16th September, 2012. (Accessed 21st September, 2012).
Darielle Hamilton
811003701
I do not agree with all of your statements. He cannot be right for committing such an act! How would you feel if unauthorized photos of you circled the media and you could do almost nothing about it?
DeleteFreedom of expression if not understood can be poorly misused. It is supposed to be used as an instrument of truth, democratic self-government and human dignity. it should not be used to demise or undermine groups or individuals as is often seen in today’s society.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Salman Rushdie, author of “Satanic Verses,” to some extent that “nothing is off limits” when it comes to writing. Authors can write on any topic of their choice “sensitive” or not to society (there are no laws against this). However, this does not mean that their actions will not have consequences such as banning of their books as in Rushdie’s case.
For many years there have been complaints of the paparazzi and their unscrupulous behaviour. There ought to be laws regulating their work! How would you feel if there were unauthorized half naked photos of you circulating in the media and there was nothing that you could do about it? This is exactly what is happening to the duchess of Cambridge, Kate Williams. If such laws were implemented, then they would have never reached the Closer Magazine!
Filmmaking has been taken to another level and is now used as a palate to paint horrid pictures of individuals and groups. This relates to the Muhammed movie, indeed an insult to the Muslim (Islamic) community which degrades their profit. I am not Muslim and I too feel upset! Those involved (producers and actors) should be suspended from their professions and the filmed be banned!
Freedom of expression does not mean bluntly disrespecting groups or individuals. It should not be used as a weapon to abuse or harm other groups and in order to curb such occurrences, laws should be implemented. In the absence of the law, the voice of the people takes favour!
References:
Jacob Weinrib, What is the Purpose of Freedom of Expression? Toronto: NA,2009.
N’yasha Cabrera
811000731
“The Queen is Naked!” (Quoted from Italian magazine, Chi). With a headline like that, do you blame consumers for purchasing that particular magazine? No, of course not. Advertisers know how to capture their readers’ attention. They know the lengths they are willing to go for a “juicy” story to make their magazine the best seller. This is the one of the latest controversy that is making headlines in BBC and CNN today. Do I think it is an invasion of the privacy of the Royals? Yes it is!
ReplyDeleteFirstly, being the Duchess of Cambridge and a young woman in today’s society it is very hard to cope with such a tragic mishap. Everyone has the right to their privacy. Yes some may argue that being at such a high rank they are expected to be aware of the paparazzi anywhere they go. However, vacationing at a private beach should draw the line between having total privacy and the paparazzi respecting that legit right of the royals. This is where respect for such personals that hold such high power in today’s world should come into play. The photographer simply didn’t respect the Duchess when he decided to take those photos and then have them published. This goes to show the extent people go to advertise and do business today. I think they should continue fighting this case as it begins to tarnish the character of a young, intelligent, well-respected woman. Prince William, like any ordinary man, have all right to be furious about the photos since its targeting his wife. It is only natural and right for him to stand and fight for the privacy he and his wife has full right too.
One of the most outstanding controversial videos that seem to be rapping the headline of news around the world is the Anti-Islam film. This can be considered to be more of a pressing matter, if or when compared to the nude photos of the Duchess. Personally, that film is unacceptable and whose ever is responsible for making that film should be sued. In any type of business or any form of advertising, there should not be any exception where a mockery of any religion, race or ethnicity be allowed. This film has caused such uproar with all the Muslims around the world. currently, Muslims in Lybia, Pakistan and a few other Muslim oriented countries, Muslims are already taking actions into their own hands where burning of the U.S national flag and sabotaging of US embassies are taking place. Even there is a headline which states "Pakistani minister personally offers reward for anti-Islam filmmaker's death!". Do I blame them for being offended? No! Like everyone else, the right of an individual to create their identity with their religion and to stand up for their rights and fight for what they believe is allowed. Yes they may have taken action in the wrong manner because violence does not solve any problems. The producers of this film should be ashamed to stoop so low to ridicule someone else’s religion without thinking of how it may affect them. They need to think if the tables were turned, how they would feel.
REFERENCES:
1. "Kate Middleton photo scandal: Closer magazine France raided as Denmark and Sweden to print topless pics | Mail Online." Home | Mail Online. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2205467/Kate-Middleton-photo-scandal-Closer-magazine-France-raided-Denmark-Sweden-print-topless-pics.html?ito=feeds-newsxml (accessed September 23, 2012).
2. "Pakistani minister personally offers reward for anti-Islam filmmaker's death - CNN.com." CNN.com International - Breaking, World, Business, Sports, Entertainment and Video News. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/23/world/meast/pakistan-film-bounty/index.html?hpt=wo_c1 (accessed September 23, 2012).
Meera Maraj
809001628
Freedom of expression is the foundation on which all democratic societies are built. In America, for example, freedom of expression allows all ideas to flow freely. However, can there really be true freedom of expression and speech. In a recent a statement issued by YouTube, the company stated that YouTube enables individuals to express different opinions and this is sometimes controversial because what is ok in in one country can be offensive elsewhere. This was issued in relation to the Anti-Islamic Video which is widely available on the web and by extension YouTube. This video has triggered great debate as well as violence since it is considered to portray offensive ideas of Prophet Muhammad.
ReplyDeleteThe making of such video is considered freedom of expression but why all the controversy about the topless photos published of the Duchess of Cambridge? Alfonso Signorini, the director of Closer magazine, defend the publication of the pictures saying that it was normal and in the end, the royals are people too (BBC News, 2012). While they pictures may be considered damaging to the royal family, they are by no means more important than that of any other woman. As the saying goes if Peter pays for Paul, then Paul pays for all. If the Duchess pictures are inappropriate then so should every topless picture of every model that is taken.
If a certain freedom of expression was withheld when making the video, then it would be possible that all the violence would not be happening. And it is the same with the pictures as all this controversy would be avoided. What must be taken into consideration however is that new technologies, such as the internet have promoted freedom of expression and information (Human Rights Education Association, 1996). And it is not just about freedom of expression but the realities of technologies.
References
Freedom of Expression, Human Rights Education Association 1996 http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=408 (Accessed September 20, 2012)
“BBC News- Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images. “BBC Homepage. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164 (Accessed September 20, 2012)
“BBC News- Viewpoints: Anti-Islamic Film and Self-Censorship http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19632673
You Tube, FULL HD-Muhammad Movie Trailer- Innocence Of Muslims 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsIqjg3VkrE (Accessed September 20,2012)
Kervelle Liverpool
808012462
The irish Daily star editor Michael ‘O’ Kane had no right publishing those photographs of the Dutches because I believe that pictures like those, especially nude photos of a person considered very high and respectable in society who is supposed to be the future queen of the united kingdom, should not be broadcasted all over the world.
ReplyDeleteAs Mr Hamelle, the lawyer representing on behalf of Prince Williams and his wife Catherine was rightly saying when he quoted “ the scenes captured were intimate and personal and had no place on the front page of a magazine, seeing that the couple had no idea that photographs of them were being taken.
What Mr. Signorani is saying is that the pictures was not really that explicit and exposing, to cause her spoil her reputation, character and dignity being the ditches of the United Kingdom. But that’s beside the point, whether or not the pictures where not that revealing, unexpected photos were taken of her and it is her right and the right of the royal family to have the pictures removed from the website and protect her name against the scandal that’s being put forward by the media.
I think that the editor Laurance Pieau was quite wrong in his defense by saying that the pictures was not surprising and that the ditches has more revealing photos, not yet published. What does that have to do with the public media, that’s her personal business because the pictures were taken in breach of their privacy.
Commenting on the other article with the Muslims, I think that the video is showing biasness against the Christian religion which I think in my view is very wrong. Although I find the video to be quite comical, it goes to show that no respect is paid to the christen religion. I believe that every religion has their own beliefs and show be allowed to serve whatever god they choose. This videos, shows total disrespect and inconsideration.
BBC News,Entertainment & Arts 2012)
(BBC News,UK 2012)
(You Tube,FULL HD-Muhammad Movie Trailer- Innocence Of Muslims 2012)
“Kate Middleton and Prince William: More 'intimate' pictures in editor's hands (Video),” TMZ, accessed September 23, 2012, http://www.examiner.com/article/kate-middleton-and-prince-william-more-intimate-pictures-editor-s-hands
Esther James
810000658
"My view was and is that nothing is off limits" a statement that may have serious consequences when applied to the realm of media (literacy etc), as Salman Rushdie is finding out. A statement that directly violates the rights of an individual or the constitution of a country that may protect its citizens or is it in agreement with the freedom of expression or the freedom of speech? This is the position that most of the media personnel or those that want to ‘portray’ a certain view (writer, movie director, and reporter) face on a daily basis. Salman Rushdie‘s book The Satanic Verses is his take on Islam but the Islamic community is fully outraged at what is being portrayed in the book. So who is correct, the man with his right to freedom of speech/expression or the people to freedom of religion/movement (with regards to protest action)?
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the “Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images” apparently a nude picture of a famous person is news and the paparazzi ‘have special rules that govern their action’. Maybe Kate wanted a good tan without any tan lines visible. Maybe the photographer had an Olympus SP-810UZ and step up ladder and happened to be pointing it in that general direction. But which really seems to be the more possible scenario and as mentioned above who was correct in their actions?
With regards to the anit-Islamic movie obviously it would not be tolerated by a person that practices/believes in Islam. The same was said for other such films like “The Temptations of Christ”,“Da Vin Chi code” and ‘ National Treasure’. It is to the viewer to understand what is being said and then do their own researches on the matter instead of simply take it for granted.
Certainly there should be strict guidelines and implications for such ‘touchy and gray’ areas when it comes to fore front for any topic that may have contradictions for an individual, group or subject.
Rajendra Kissoon
808000262
The film entitled, 'The Innocence of Muslims' was created and released by Sam Bacile of America. The provocative film sparked a lot of media attention especially among Muslim based groups. The film portrayed Islam's Holy Prophet Muhammad to be an ignorant and intellectually bankrupt individual. In order to salvage the American image, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had to do publicly condemn the film. While it is a personal view/opinion of Islam and in essence Sam Bacile has the right to express himself, he should have been religiously sensitive. Like My mother once told me, 'Never comment on something you don't know.'
ReplyDeletePaparazzi have existed for many years now. Their job description is to report provocative news in the form of pictures. Celebrities tend to forget that paparazzi mainly exist because of them. The incident concerning Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge is very alarming and unfortunate yet it is a perfect example. I will admit that the incident caused a lot of controversy; however WE know that this is only because of their royal background. To make matters worse their response to the incident made it more difficult for them to go forward and for the public to forget.
While the judicial system allows them to fine lawsuits, at the end of the day no one has total control of the media. Therefore it is impossible for every picture to be eradicated from the internet. As well-known public figures they should have known that a private life is very difficult for them to have. Luckily for them, naked pictures are a norm in this society and as such their royal name has not be completely destroyed. Also society constantly generates controversial celebrity moments therefore incidents like these are quickly forgotten.
References
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/innocence-of-muslims-film-permit_n_1903570.html
O'jae Jerome King
811005456
The belief that a writer should be able to write whatever they wish is a bit too extravagent. The fact is that writers publish their pieces for their audience to read and they should be concious of their reader's emotions. A good writer should know their audience and produce pieces of literature of their pleasing. Writing against a religion is a bit harsh and biased to another religion. Writers should be able to give their views on occuring situations but condemning another religion is a bit excessive. To target a religion utilizing a book is a calling for a counter attack with the same or greater force, may come in the form of a mob or strike or even the banning of that material.
ReplyDeleteIn the video, maybe the intention was to cause viewers humour but of course a percentage of the public was offended. I believe that they should be offended because all of their beliefs were taken for granted. For instance, the video followed the story of a man named Mohammed who kills, fornicates and extorts from the people of the nation in the name of the muslim god. In the holy book of the muslim community the figure and name Mohammed is given to a highly praised prophet of god himself. Mohammed in the Qur'an is the equivelant of Jesus Christ of the Christian bible, a man who was sent from god to teach belivers the way of life. Therefore the video was highly offensive to muslims.
As for the published photos of royalty, the issue is not one of offending an entire people but of breech of privacy. The photos were take at the residence of the Duchess which is in fact her private space to expose herself however she pleases. However, for royalty to portray themselves in such manner is a cause for concern. The Duchess as well as the prince should take it upon themselves to be more aware of their sorroundings, they should understand their position and office that they hold. they are public figures and all eyes are on them.
810100150
Keon Cudjoe
When it comes to person’s religion this has always been a controversial topic. In my opinion the anit-islamic film was very disrespectful to the Muslim community. They should not try to send a message like this to the public as persons of Islamic faith can take this very serious and it could lead to a huge explosive out break. Disrespecting someone’s religious beliefs should not be taking place in today’s society, as we should have evolved into a better way of thinking. However the media today loves to play on people’s feelings. Everything done nowadays always has some type of agenda behind it and the general public it blinded by the main argument instead of watching in the background.
ReplyDeleteWith regards towards the Kate Middleton naked photo sandal I think that the photographer was just doing his job because lets be real the media exploits celebrities because people want to see what’s going on in their lives. This is a moneymaking business. The Duchess should know how this industry works and if they wanted their privacy to sunbath then do it in a safer place. Because even her brother took nude photos and it ended up on the Internet. Prince Henry however was having a good time with his friends and they took the photos. How did those pictures get out? I believe in some way they all look for attention because this is the life they lead. With respect to the Royal family it does look bad but I hope they don’t win the case because they were in a public area.
BBC News-Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban closer images. “BBC- Homepage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164 (accessed September 24th, 2012.
You Tube, FULL HD-Muhammad Movie Trailer- Innocence Of Muslims 2012.
Kimberly Bunsee
811001068
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are the Royal Celebrities of the century from an exemplary wedding of the year to now. Within recent times the privacy of the Duke and Duchess has been under heavy public scrutiny and have had the privacy which is a human right for any individual breached. According to the legal dictionary nvasion of privacy n. the intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity that intruded. However, public personages are not protected in most situations, since they have placed themselves already within the public eye, and their activities (even personal and sometimes intimate) are considered newsworthy, i.e. of legitimate public interest. However, an otherwise non-public individual has a right to privacy from: 1) intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs; 2) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; 3) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; 4) appropriation of one's name or picture for personal or commercial advantage.Legal options and invasion of privacy aside, the whole thing boils down to whose rights are bigger. If the pool was in view of a public road, does this mean anyone can take a picture and publish it?
ReplyDeleteOne can argue it is the right of someone to take a picture since it is in full view. But what about the rights of the people whose photograph you are taking? Does someone's right to something stop when it tramples on the rights of others?
The other question is, as a media organisation, does the magazine not have responsibilities? Was it irresponsible of its editors in printing such pictures, whether or not the people in question are celebrities or just your average Joe and Jane?
It used to be that such irresponsibility belonged only to supermarket tabloids, those purveyors of drivel disguised as news.
If irresponsibility is the end product, insensitivity would be the reason. How else would news hitting out at sensitive subjects such as religion get printed?United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a recent speech, called the video "inflammable and despicable". And she is only one of a host of world leaders, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, who have attacked the video and its producers, whoever they are (some media reports have questioned the first statement of origin and funding).
These leaders have also called on Internet media giant Google to remove the videos from YouTube. Yet Google has refused. The same leaders who have condemned the videos and its producers, because public perception is what that entails will have a huge effect in the islam religion
But all these would be moot point if the media would be more responsible. Getting the news out there, freedom of information is a right and winning ratings wars need to be tempered with sensitivity and responsibility, especially in this day and age when information is at one's fingertips.
These two scenarios all lead back to the fact that advertisers are free to publish what ever they want despite who is affected whether it be directly or indirectly
Read more: Drawing the line on privacy - Columnist - New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnist/drawing-the-line-on-privacy-1.144138#ixzz27HdoIkfC
Read more: Drawing the line on privacy - Columnist - New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnist/drawing-the-line-on-privacy-1.144138#ixzz27HdeD87t
Shernelle Deonarine
897006267
Freedom of the press and media is a controversial issue around the world these days as some companies and organisations are publishing stuff that may be inappropriate to a certain type of audience. Freedom of expression is the foundation of all democratic societies which can let ideas flow freely and without bias or subjectivity. YouTube is a great example of this freedom of expression. But sometimes, some topics can draw on the fine line of objectivity and subjectivity.
ReplyDeleteThe video on YouTube named "Innocence of Muslims" have sparked alot of controversity over the past few days especially among the muslim community. This video was made by a man in the US which have recently been in strong bias against the muslim community since the 9/11 incident. This will label the US as an anti-muslim country and can affect trade with middle-eastern countries like Palestine and Israel. Every religion or belief system around the world should be given some level of respect.
For many years there have been complaints of the paparazzi and their unscrupulous behavior. This incident have showed that 'sex sells' especially scandals. I am talking about the published photos of Kate Middleton topless with her husband, Prince William. These photos have sparked many controversity in Europe and around the world. The royal family is quickly taking legal action against the tabloids and magazines that first published the photos.
These photos were spread like wild fire because the topic is a celebrity who is always in the public eye and she is part of the British Royal Family. There are boundaries that are set for the media and legal action is taken if they do not comply to it.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/09/17/topless-photos-princess-kate-spread-across-europe-as-rumors-even-more-intimate/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9544253/Film-maker-behind-anti-Muslim-video-could-be-sent-back-to-jail.html
Ricardo Bahadoorsingh
809001829
Freedom of speech can be defined as the right of people to express their opinions publicly whether written or spoken without any objection from the law or any social entity. However, this is often abused showing no regards for boundaries, courtesy or respect of others. Therefore I disagree with the author, Salman Rushdie statement: "writers should be able to write anything they want...no restrictions."
ReplyDeleteOne example of this abuse is the revealing pictures of Duchess of Cambridge, Kate while in France. The breaching of privacy is always an issue especially when you are in the public eye. Your entire life becomes under microscope, and anything you do or said are analyzed and sometimes even portrayed opposite to what was really meant often leading to problems for the celebrity or the person of interest. We often forget that they are humans too entitled to make mistakes even though they have special privileges. Regardless of status, I believe that one’s personal space should be always respected. To add insult to injury, it was printed on the front page of a French magazine. France has strict laws with respect to privacy yet it was ignored because of the need to have a hot new gossip for people to enjoy. Therefore selling magazine are more meaningful not the sensitivity of the people even if they are royalty.
Another example is the release of the anti-Muslim film which boldly insults the Islamic culture. This film was created in the US which led to the recent riots and the killing of mostly US citizen in the Muslim countries. This is a serious issue people died because others turn their back on simple morals such as respect and empathy. I know we have the right to freedom of speech but we have other rights which should be considered.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-17/kate-photos-test-royal-resolve-after-news-corp-nude-harry-shots.htm
Dictionary.com
Tessa Blackman
810000095
Prince William and the Duchess nudity scandal and the Anti-Islam YouTube video are two very controversial articles that have been published circulating in magazines, newspapers and the Internet. These articles contain material that invades privacy, defames persons and religion, and confronts religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThe paparazzi photos of Prince William and Duchess Kate were considered an invasive of privacy, as they vacationed in the French Château. The photos were use to exploit the a-listed celebrities possibly as a strategy for marketing the magazine. As the pictures were published the Royalty’s Lawyer insisted that the pictured be removed from public view otherwise judicial actions would be taken. European culture accepts the nudity in specific public locations and private locations. However, as a silver lining to grey clouds, Signorini said the series of pictures were "not particularly sensationalistic nor damaging to her dignity" and "surely makes her more likeable" and "less distant from all of us”; which suggested that Signorini believes that a distinguishing line between royalty and the average citizen shrills allowing the Royalty to be more relatable (2012).
The anti-Muslin film has been considered one of the most controversial media to enter the Internet. It has raised an outrage throughout the world with respect to Islam people (Abbot 2012). Religion is a sensitive topic especially with respect to the Muslims that have been attacked heavily by the media for the last decade. Religion has been one aspect of life that can cause wars amongst countries as we have seen with the Crusades and World War I. It is an expected reaction due to the fact that being told what you believe in is wrong. This video should have been deleted from the Internet and the director sent before court to be trialed for civil prejudice as his subjective manner of thinking affected deeply the faith of Muslims.
References
Abbot Sebastian. “Pakistan Protests: Anti-Islam Film Sparks Mass Demonstrations Across The Country”. Accessed September 23rd 2012.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/pakistan-protests-anti-islam-film_n_1903116.html
Schofield Hugh. “Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images”. Accessed September 23rd 2012.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164
Nicoli Rajcoomar
809004023
The two situations set in completely different areas with distinguishable facts but revolve around the same fundamental issue of freedom of expression. In the first there is an issue of the freedom of expression causing much turmoil and massive unrest in particular areas of the Arab world. Secondly we have the freedom of expression causing much embarrassment and disrepute to one’s character and even the throne of one of the power heads of the world. It underlines the potential havoc and discomfiture that can be caused.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, the video causing major uprising in the Middle East was extremely offensive and a complete misrepresentation of the truth of the belief of Muslims. It was even described as “disgusting and reprehensible”1 by Hilary Clinton. Muslims have shown their discontent for the publication of the video and resorted to violence 2.
Sir Rushdie supports the view that no ban should be placed on publishers and they should be come ‘braver’3 . A very sensitive issue such as being critical of one’s religion should be balanced with the potential harmful effects it may have. I completely disagree with Sir Rushdie, that although persons should be entitled freedom of expression it should be balanced against its potential harms also such a right should not be granted absolutely. Although Muslims should resolve issues in a more peaceful manner, the formidable question is whether they have to resort to such action to make their voices be heard.
Furthermore, the issue of the topless duchess has caused stir amongst the world media. There are fundamental questions that need to be asked whether the media should be granted such autonomy as Sir Rushdie pray for, in their exposure of someone’s body and privacy. The Duchess in her private capacity was exposed topless which was a flagrant disregard of her privacy.
Therefore, it is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode in a wave of disaster if persons are allowed to publish without restrictions.
1 Clinton slams anti-Islam video as “disgusting”last modified September 13th 2012
2 Libya Attack Sparks Crisis last modified September 13th 2012,
3 “Salman Rushdie: Satanic Verses 'would not be published today’ ” last modified 17th September 2012,
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879 >
Hana Hosein
810001434
The two situations set in completely different areas with distinguishable facts but revolve around the same fundamental issue of freedom of expression. In the first there is an issue of the freedom of expression causing much turmoil and massive unrest in particular areas of the Arab world. Secondly we have the freedom of expression causing much embarrassment and disrepute to one’s character and even the throne of one of the power heads of the world. It underlines the potential havoc and discomfiture that can be caused.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, the video causing major uprising in the Middle East was extremely offensive and a complete misrepresentation of the truth of the belief of Muslims. It was even described as “disgusting and reprehensible”1 by Hilary Clinton. Muslims have shown their discontent for the publication of the video and resorted to violence 2.
Sir Rushdie supports the view that no ban should be placed on publishers and they should be come ‘braver’3 . A very sensitive issue such as being critical of one’s religion should be balanced with the potential harmful effects it may have. I completely disagree with Sir Rushdie, that although persons should be entitled freedom of expression it should be balanced against its potential harms also such a right should not be granted absolutely. Although Muslims should resolve issues in a more peaceful manner, the formidable question is whether they have to resort to such action to make their voices be heard.
Furthermore, the issue of the topless duchess has caused stir amongst the world media. There are fundamental questions that need to be asked whether the media should be granted such autonomy as Sir Rushdie pray for, in their exposure of someone’s body and privacy. The Duchess in her private capacity was exposed topless which was a flagrant disregard of her privacy.
Therefore, it is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode in a wave of disaster if persons are allowed to publish without restrictions.
1 Clinton slams anti-Islam video as “disgusting”last modified September 13th 2012
2 Libya Attack Sparks Crisis last modified September 13th 2012,
3 “Salman Rushdie: Satanic Verses 'would not be published today’ ” last modified 17th September 2012,
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879 >
Hana Hosein
810001434
A healthy society is built on law and morality without which there would be chaos. Everyone is entitled to their freedom and privacy. There must be equilibrium between both principles and if there isn’t an individual must take accountability for their actions. The Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago granted the rights of privacy and expression to individuals in chapter 1, part 1, 4C and 4I.
ReplyDelete“My view is that nothing is off limits” (Sir Salman Rushdie). Personally I believe that “everything has its limits” and that the quotation made by Sir Salman Rushdie is unjustifiable as no individual should be allowed to abuse their right of freedom of expression. In this particular circumstance he used his right as a tool to conflict with the freedom of privacy of the Islam society in which I presumed to be unethical.
I also believe that the persons responsible for the distribution of the pictures of the duchess while sunbathing were also unethical. Under the Human Rights Act 1998 individuals are granted freedom, two of these are the freedom of expression (Article 10) and freedom of privacy (Article 8). I believe there should be a balance between these two rights and individuals should use their discretion before acting and act on what is moral and reasonable. Kate’s privacy was breached because someone did not use their freedom of expression reasonably and this was both morally and lawfully unacceptable.
The innocence of Muslims YouTube video is very disrespectful to the Muslim faith. The makers of this film used the beliefs and practices of the Muslim faith and made a mockery of it. Again there must be a limitation to what publishers can publish as not to affect the rights of others. Every individual is entitled to their own believe and religious practices as long as they don’t cross their boundaries. It is only fair to portray some ethical value and respect to a society’s religious views.
Everyone has a freedom to act and do whatever they please, however there must be some line between what is lawfully and morally acceptable.
REFERENCES:
BBC News. Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164 (accessed September 23, 2012).
BBC News. Salman Rushdie: Satanic Verses 'would not be published today'. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879 (accessed September 23, 2012).
YouTube. FULL HD - Muhammad Movie Trailer - Innocence Of Muslims. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RagKWM8ldk&feature=player_embedded (accessed September 23, 2012).
Barnett, Hilaire.2011. Constitutional and Administrative Law. Madison Avenue, NY: Routlegge.
REUEL THEROULDE 809004440
This incident with the British royal family is a prime example of why writers should have limits to what they write or post. Privacy, according to the Chambers Pocket Dictionary, is “the freedom from intrusion by the public, especially as a right.” It is a right of all citizens and by extension, humans to have privacy, regardless of their social standings, religion, age etc. Some barriers just should not be crossed, just for the benefit of the sender
ReplyDeleteThis Muhammad film is a ridiculous attempt to make a mockery about the duct ions of the Arabs. Some people and/or people of the media, stir up religious conflict to dominate the attention of their target audience. The world belong to a religious organization, therefore something this offensive can cause riots or violent out breaks, resulting in people getting hurt by other people depending on the way this message is interpreted. Other than the fact that this film was produced by someone in the US, the mockery, intolerance, lack of understanding to the Islamic religion and their prophet Muhammad, has generated a controversial protest due to religious discrimination. Hence, the bombing of the US Embassy and the burning of the US flag.
Krystle Gay
811005894
REFERENCES:
1)“Kate and William to make criminal complaint over topless shots,” 16th September, 2012. (Accessed 21st September, 2012).
2)“Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images,” 17th September, 2012. (Accessed 21st September, 2012).
3)You Tube, FULL HD-Muhammad Movie Trailer- Innocence Of Muslims 2012.
With respect to the nude photos of Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge which have gained much public interest recently, the story and photos have made alot of newspapers sold and alot of viewing of news stations like bbc. Due to the fact that its pictures of royalty, the photographer took advantage of the situation by taking the pictures and selling it to newspapers etc to gain money. The writers etc posted headlines like “ The Queen is Nude” to spark the public’s attention to buy and read their stories. In the views of some people it is a positive thing he has done as the photos are not pornographic but a work of art and alot of persons are not looking at the pictures in a pornographic way. The privacy of the royal couple was completely breached and violated which should not have occured to basically make money and have the royalty living in shame and guilt.
ReplyDeleteIn the film “Innocence of muslims” from my point of view was totally disrespectful and in no way should have happen again to basically make money by making a mockey of someone’s belief. The violence which has arised cannot be fully be blamed on the producer but yet still he is completely wrong and now his life being rewarded for the same thing is expected to gain, money. Alot of innocent lives are being lost for making a disrespectful video public. The article in which Mr. Rushdie wrote was also insensitive and disrespectful for expressing how he really feel which may have been the same situation as the producer of the video. There can be many reasons for there actions but it was wrong.
The both situations are to be looked at carefully and shows good examples of the chaos that can be caused by taking advantage of the use of media/technology and shows of popularity and fame comes with a price. Careful care and attention should be taken by writers, producers, etc when making things public.
References: 1) Ake’s pain SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2012 (http://akespains.blogspot.com/2012/09/gazing-upon-royal-jewels.html)
2) http://www.examiner.com/article/kate-middleton-s-topless-pictures-point-to-betrayal-of-trusted-staff
3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/9560879/Pakistani-minister-offers-bounty-for-death-of-anti-Islam-film-maker.html
4) BBC. Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images. 17 September 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164 (accessed September 22, 2012).
KERON SPRINGER
808014702
It is an absolute breach of privacy to have nude pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge broadcasted globally. If the Duchess willingly posed for the photos then the scenario would have been totally different, in the sense that she would have been atleast partially responsible for the current scandal. However because she was unaware that she was being photographed, that would make the photographer no better than a common "peeping tom." Some may argue that as a famous person one must learn to live constantly in the presence of a camera. There are those that will say that the fans and general public have a right to see all and know all about the people they idolize. Such statements are ludicrous, made by professional marketers who know that there is profit to be made with gossip and scandal. Regardless of your status in life, there are just some things that should remain sacred and the right to privacy should be respected.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the anti-islamic film, it is clear why members of the islamic community around the world are offended. Though it is true that through democracy people have the right to freedom of expression but people are also entitled to freedom of religion and should not have to be subjected to open ridicule because of their religious choices. This one film has led to worldwide retaliation by the islamic community, some of which have been very extreme. The islamic community's anger is justified. However I believe that by performing violent acts it only strengthens the incorrect view of muslims that the film makers attempted to portray. Such an issue needs to be handled diplomatically with as little bloodshed as possible.
Leean Ramdass
809000194
The Duchess Of Cambridge, Kate Middleton, nude photos appearing in the tabloids, may be a tragedy to some but to others it is gossip and entertainment. The media is always there to capture celebrities and people at high stature at all times. This sort of news sells the most. Public loves scandals. Once a person attains a position of high public importance, they are always under the "microscope" of the public. The Duchess should understand that she is a person of high stature and should portray herself in that manner and if there's a need to sunbathe topless, learn to accept the consequences.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to the anti-Islamic video posted on youtube, that is very disrespectful. Religion is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. That video trashes the Islamic Society. All religions should have an equal rights to practice their beliefs and not be judged and/or ridiculed. Just because some terrorist follow Islam, that does not mean that all Islamic people are terrorist.
REFERENCES:
Rebecca English. "Tea and sympathy for Kate as she puts on a brave smile but grim-faced William shows his anger after topless photo outrage", 2012. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203178/Kate-Middleton-topless-photos-Duchess-Cambridge-puts-brave-smile-outrage.html. (Accessed September 23rd, 2012)
Clifford Geertz, "Religion as a Cultural System", 1973. (Accessed September 23rd, 2012)
Talal Asad, "The Construction of Religion as an Anthropological Category", 1982. (Accessed September 23rd, 2012)
Shiva Dupraj
806009095
There should be a freedom of speech, however the movie “Innocence of Muslims” is highly anti Islam and disgraceful in all regard towards Islam as a religion. It degrades the core of the faith and the Prophet Mohammed. It is an outrage in normal human behavior by its followers. Expression of ideas and thoughts should be acceptable, regardless of the distastefulness and uncultured ideology of such a film. However there should be a better way to send across the message that is more respectful to others
ReplyDeleteThe Duke and the duchess of Cambridge are always in the public eye and always photographed. Kate is photographed and talked about daily from where she is to what she’s wearing. When you are constantly in the public eye it is no surprise the media is just waiting for you to slip up. The royal family is expected to conduct themselves in a certain way at all times and when they do something completely out of the norm the media takes the opportunity and seizes it. But as the royal family it should be known what you can and cannot do in public no matter where you are. There is always someone waiting to get “that picture”. There is no doubt about it but who ever took that topless picture of the Duchess of Cambridge made “big money” from it. She should have learnt from her brother in law Harry when nude pictures of him surfaced, that the saying isn’t true when you’re a royal, what happen s in Vegas does not necessarily stay in Vegas.
Tishara Charles
811000923
“Thoughts” are ideas which can generate certain (subtle and real) boundaries and even abolish old boundaries created from old thoughts. CNN (Cable News Network) created a slogan to which society has globally conformed to. It is a slogan used by pioneers in their respective fields in the past, in the present and in the future: “Go Beyond Borders”.
ReplyDeleteYes, there should be freedom of speech but what are the boundaries. The next question is why is there a boundary and to what extent can it be crossed before being considered a nuisance to society.
Salman Rushdie may have stirred up a sensitive topic. In words of Alvin Toffler, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn." For those who consider the anti-Muslim video insulting, are right in their belief but should those who don’t consider it insulting be condemned as the movie-maker? It is not to say Salman Rushdie perpetrated an act knowing he wanted to have a death threat on his life but as a writer, held his freedom of speech. Sensitive topics as race, religion and LGBT need to be addresses carefully.
The issue of the Royal couple is needless to say one of “their privacy” and how society holds them in esteem or disregard. The topless pictures of Kate are harmful to her future given her stature as the duchess and the future queen. Nevertheless, Kate is not to be blamed. She was in the privacy of a remote property sunbathing. Now the question of this is not whether it was right or wrong but that a photographer helped publish the photos without regard for their personal rights. Richard Littlejohn from Mail Online said, “The truth is she’s public property.” Generally celebrities are aware of this and openly consent to this and sometimes disapprove of this. However, this was a peeping show for the paparazzi who invaded a couple’s privacy. Everyone has Human Rights! Including a Duke and Duchess!
There are borders the question for one in the media is what risk is there is sending a message across when it can bring wars or death to a peaceful intention. Or why write or create a message to a dangerous or unstable society. Respect should be there for all. And respect in knowing what one is doing is for the better of all.
Example:
0.You-tube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2OpDp4RWZ4
Reference:
1.BBC. “Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images.” Last modified September 17, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164.
2.Everything Fitabulous. “Is Kate to be blames – I don’t think so.” Last modified September 18, 2012. http://everythingfitabulous.com/2012/09/18/is-kate-to-blame-i-dont-think-so/
3.The Guardian. “Protests over anti-Muslim film continue with scores hurt in Bangladesh.” Last modified September 22, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/22/protests-anti-muslim-film.
4.CNN. “Protests are as mindless as anti-Islam film.” Last modified September 22, 2012. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/20/opinion/shaikh-mideast-protesters/index.html?hpt=hp_c2.
Name: Prahlada Phang ID # (809004130)
In light of recent current events that have flooded the news and newspapers worldwide, the media has brought the need for concern and moral rights to be questioned in certain nations.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Prince Harry having his naked photo released to the media whilst he was out with friends is an intrusion to his privacy. It maybe questionable by one who follows this royal subjects behaviour that such an act maybe well deserved as he is known for not living a "royal life". As he is one who enjoys the partying life with friends. Taking a concise look into this incident, would an ordinary person such as you or me be given so much attention? I highly doubt it.
The same question is to be asked in the incident where the duchess of Cambridge topless photos were shown on papers by a french photographer. Kate and Prince William were in a secluded area. This shows total disregard for their privacy.
The anti-Muslim film has caused a tremendous uproar within the Muslim community. Muslims view it as a form of racism, discrimination and total disrespect towards them. As a result of how these Muslims feel,they express rage and showcase aggressive behaviours. I don't agree with what was portrayed in the film, as it is a fact that all Muslims don't behave in that manner. It was wrong and the morality of these publishers is questionable.
It maybe realistic to think that 'royals' never really experience privacy as a result of their lifestyle, but we also need to be mindful that they to are people and wish to have private moments. Also your point of view of a particular group of people is not the truth and can be offensive to those who don't share a common view.
REFERENCES:
Celebrity
Prince Harry: Naked Photos Surface Online
Welikala J , August 22, 2012.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/08/22/prince-harry-naked-photos-surface-online/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19686703
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879
KECHIEL PAUL
811001426
There are two sides that can be drawn from Sir Salman Rushdie’s statement "writers should be able to write anything they want...no restrictions". Certain things mean different things to different people. People perceive things in different ways. Therefore, it is very important how we express the message and our views, especially on religious persuasions considering the many diverse religions among us. Our message could be misinterpreted and result in conflict. An example is the situation presently occurring in the Middle East due to the anti-Islam video. How we do things and how we say things is critical to our audience because some of the audience could respond positively and some negatively. It is important that what we strike a balance between what the audience accepts and what they don’t accept.
ReplyDeleteWithin certain environments such as the Middle East, Africa and Asia religion is the cornerstone of their governments, society and culture. I agree with Sir Salman on the basis of the premise that if the work being submitted by any writer is fiction, deriving from their own imagination, they should have the complete freedom to write anything they want so long as it’s not a copy of a fellow writer or publisher’s work. I disagree with Sir Salmon concerning work or stories that are non-fiction, that are based on stories that reporters gather through real life interviews with people life stories, bibliographies, covering wars, persecution, oppressive Government regimes, celebrity tabloids or even dissecting religious books and how it relates to people. From this angle certain clauses can be derived from his statement:
1. We must respect others’ religion which was not done in the YouTube video.
2. The way in which the message was imparted desecrated a religious figure important to the Islamic community, in the same way they insulted the Christian figure Jesus in the book entitled Da Vinci Code.
3. Freedom of expression without violating the rights of others and crossing legal and ethical boundaries. It was evident in the story concerning Princess Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. In my question last week in which I stated this concerning the story “This constant breaking of laws by the media, infringement of privacy, and making up of stories by said magazines just to tell a story full of lies. A big example of this is The Leveson Inquiry”.
4. There is the delicate side that certain realities and truth that people don’t want to reveal exists. It may not be that it violates people’s rights, it may be the truth or not, but it facilitates freedom of expression and has allowed writers and reporters to bring to light truths that have been kept hidden for years. One must be careful not to impose on the very freedoms that have allowed us religious expression. It helps to secure a better future as in the case of historical events such as civil war, racism, and abuse, when reported it prevents history from being repeated.
Jovienne Lawrence
01072604
References: My own Thoughts
Topless photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton, have gone viral over the past week. It is reported that the royal couple was on vacation in southern France on a private estate when a reporter with a long lens camera took pictures of the soon to be queen topless whilst she was sunbathing. In response the royal family have issued a court order to stop the publishing of the photos. Kate, being the future Queen and a person of global interest, should have chosen against being topless even if she was on vacation in a private area. They should not have been surprised at the extent to which the media will go to create a scandal especially concerning the royal family. The photographer on the other hand should have respected the couple’s privacy. If they were out in a public area it would have been understood and they could have been blamed but they were far from the public’s viewing eyes.
ReplyDeleteAnother issue plaguing the globe is the creation of the Anti-Islam video created by a US filmmaker who basically makes fun of Islam and portrays Prophet Muhammad as a “fraud, womaniser and child molester”. This video has stirred up protest in Islamic countries in the east. It has reached to the extent of thousands of people including women and children in Islamabad protesting with over 200 people being killed. A Pakistani cabinet minister has even offered to pay the Taliban and al-Qaida forces 60,000 pounds to locate and kill the filmmaker. This I think is a bit extreme. Conflict amongst religions has been a global issue for many years. The right to make such a film is being questioned since it is disrespectful to Muslims across the world.
"Protests over anti-Muslim film continue with scores hurt in Bangladesh." theguardian, September 22, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/22/protests-anti-muslim-film.
"Kate Middleton's Nude Photo Scandal: A Royal Invasion Of Privacy." starpulse, September 23, 2012 http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2012/09/23/kate_middletons_nude_photo_scandal_a_r.
"Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images." BBC News UK, September 17, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164.
Yolanda Persad
810001340
Once again this proves that the media should have it limits to what is being published to the public. They tend to take advantage of the privilege of them being able to have the freedom of speech and get to anything their message across to the public. In United States of America, the First Amendment to the Constitution states that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This freedom in the wrong hands could be very dangerous as it allows for a free pass of the “freedom of speech”. Newt Gingrich told CNN that the U.S. should use this episode to “teach the Muslim world about freedom” — free speech in particular. There are ethical ways by which lessons could be learned without offending parties in the situation. This movie shows to be more offensive than teaching a lesson. All it does is creates noise in the channel by which the message is being transferred too.
ReplyDeleteIn light of the photos of Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge was another strike by freedom of speech of the media. They were able to breach the ethical principles of privacy of the Prince and Duchess. Though they are both public icons, they both deserve privacy like everyone else. According to Mark Steven while speaking with Bloombery news, “The photographs of Middleton couldn’t have been taken unless the photographer was on the private grounds of the estate, meaning a law was most likely broken”. This would have meant that the media personal would have gone through extreme lengths to attain such photos of the Duchess. If the Duchess or Prince were running in the streets naked I would have understand the publicity of their nudity. Instead, they were both behind closed doors away from the public eye. So again where is the ethical and moral values associated with today’s media?
Shaunda Morgan
809000705
References:
"BBC News - Fresh anti-Islam film protests in Muslim countries." BBC - Homepage. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19670527 (accessed September 23, 2012).
“Kate and William to make criminal complaint over topless shots,” 16th September, 2012. (Accessed 21st September, 2012).
During the week of September 9th – 16th, French tabloid “The Closer” published an edition with the cover page bearing topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton and her husband, the Duke of Cambridge, Prince William. The photos were taken by French paparazzi while the couple were enjoying the final day of a vacation trip to a secluded French castle, owned by a member of the British Royal Family. The couple, believing that their privacy was intact perhaps felt the need to indulge in an intimate moment when the paparazzi swept in and eventually published the photos for all to see. Was this an invasion of privacy? It most certainly was, but although they are both royalty, why should they be treated differently from the countless other celebrities who have had nude photos published in the past? Should they be protected again such shame due to their ‘blue blood status’, while the rest of us commoners be embarrassed when our photos become leaked to the public? No. they should be treated just as any ordinary person would be, had nude photos of them surfaced online. I therefore agree with Mr. Rushdie when he says that, “writers should be able to write anything they want.... no restrictions.”
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the controversial anti-Islam, U.S.A. produced film, I again agree with Mr. Rushdie in that writers should be allowed to exercise their right to Freedom of the Press. This film was not the first to be made, highlighting scandals and other flaws in various religions (The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons- both aimed at the Catholic Church) in recent years, but these movies have not sparked anything like the mass violence seen in middle Eastern countries this past week.
Mark Ramjohn
810002415
According to Oxford online dictionaries "Privacy is the state of being free from public attention" The Duke and Duchess were on a vacation in a private residence and their privacy was breached by this unknown photographer. It is clearly seen from the pictures that the photographer had to be a far distance from the residence and thereby not only invading privacy alone but also trespassing too. The paparazzi are taking their jobs to the extreme. Privacy is important to everyone whether they are famous, royal or even the common man and it should therefore be respected by all. I must however commend the couple on the way they are handling the situation: in a rational manner and taking advice from their lawyer.
ReplyDeleteThe viral anti-Islamic video is stirring up a lot of bloodshed in the Middle-East. It should be banned and removed from the media. In my opinion after the 9-11 events, everyone views of Muslims change. We now view and treat Muslims like terrorists. This video is really an attack in disguise against the Muslim community. Whoever made this video should have asked themself/selves, what if a video like this was made about my faith/religion? This video could possibly start a war between religions across the world. People do things without thinking. We live in a fast world, everything is fast (fast food, fast cars) so why should the people who made this movie stop and think about its effect? It has become today’s culture just do whatever you have to do, don’t think about the effects of your actions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/15/kate-topless-photo-italian-magazine
http://www.thelocal.fr/page/view/experts-french-privacy-laws-toothless
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/privacy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RagKWM8ldk&feature=player_embedded
Isaac Lakhan
811001059
According to Melville B.Nimmer , a Professor of Law at the University of California “The first Amendment guarantees freedom of expression, whatever its scope may be claimed not just for news papers and other printed publication, but also for motion pictures, radio and television broadcasting ”. However the Professor also states that alternatively it may be argued that a separate press clause implies that speech via the press is subject to some degree of restraints. These two conflicting views give rise to a very interesting question which is - Are we truly free to express ourselves?
ReplyDeleteThe publication of the topless photos of the Duchess creates a perfect avenue to illustrate the many conflicting inconsistencies that exist within our documented freedoms and rights. However because of the influence the Royals have, their actions to have the photos retracted has resulted in legal implications to the media houses and representatives, whom some would say were simply exercising their freedom of expression as it relates to freedom of the press. Truth is the prominent nature of the Royals is what made the photos newsworthy to begin with as such this incident just shows that we as a society as much as we would like to think it, we are not truly free to express ourselves as we so please.
We can further support these claims by relating them to the views of Sir Salman Rushdie, author of Satanic Verses. He stated “free expression is being attacked by religious extremism”. The publication of the movie Muhammad, depicts a comedic expression of the Islamic believes and as such has triggered Islamic enthuses, who are labeling the movie as insulting, offensive and blasphemous. Such reactions create an atmosphere of fear and intense nervousness within or so called free society. Therefore making it clear that freedom of expression may come with a price and as such we are not truly free to express ourselves as we see fit, because of the fear of offending someone else.
References :
Melville B.Nimmer, “Is Freedom of the Press A Redundancy” What does it add to freedom of speech ;Nimmer,Melville B. 26 Hasting L.J 639 (1974-1975)
“BBC News” ,Last Modified 17th September 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879
Name: Kevon Morgan
Student ID: 05773707
Yes, there is freedom of the press..but does that give them the right to violate someone’s privacy? How far can the envelope be pushed before there is zero discretion in the media? Those photos of the Dutchess topless are a serious violation of her privacy. The magazines should show some respect towards the royal family, in light of the tragic event of the past regarding princess Diana. A French magazine published revealing photos of her and in sheer embarrassment, she drove off hastily and ended up in a fatal car crash. The French apologized and assured them history would not repeat itself, but it seems to have come around full circle. The royal family have every right to sue the magazine company for this invasion of privacy.
ReplyDeleteAnother issue which seems to be taking this freedom of the press to the extreme is the release of the video “innocence of Muslims” which depicts the prophet Muhammed as gay. This is utter disrespect towards the muslim community and it is quite understandable why there are now protests taking place across the Middle East. This video only seems to emphasize the ignorance of the few Americans who made this film, but now this idea will be generalized to America, even to the Western countries.
Ananya Annamunthodo
810002422
The duchess, Kate Middleton is considered in the eyes of the public to be royalty. As such, this behaviour should be reciprocal of her particularly when outdoors, be it privately or publicly. To be a member of the Royal family would only attract attention positively from admirers and negatively from the paparazzi. Kate Middleton should, therefore, always be aware that at any given time in being outdoors there is always the likelihood of the invasion of privacy and unwelcomed paparazzi. On the other hand the paparazzi would go to any length and breadth to capture pictures that would make them and these gossip magazines financially popular. However, strong condemnation must be placed on someone’s invasion of privacy. The line here should be drawn between morality and mischief and therefore, strong judgement and punishment should be meted out to the photographer and the magazine’s editor and by extension the entire company for publishing such underhanded and shoddy behavior in its quest for popularity, fame and low-handed financial attributes. As a result, a respected woman and also her family have been dealt with and unfair nightmare that would remain in their minds and eyes for a very long time.
ReplyDeleteIn the movie “Innocence of Muslims”, it is felt like Muslims are being attacked openly and therefore, seek revenge by killing the girl in the video. Religion, like politics is a very sensitive issue and any negative arguments, films or articles that seek to incite religious anarchy should certainly be discouraged. Respect for each and every religion whether it is liked or not should be the order of the day.
It is felt that the movie was done in order to spite or spark outrage from the Muslim society. The messenger Muhammad is being depicted in this movie as being a low-class person. Muhammad is highly revered in the Muslim community and for him to be shown in that sense is what has caused this discontentment.
References:
"BBC News - Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images." BBC - Homepage. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164 (accessed September 23, 2012).
You Tube, FULL HD-Muhammad Movie Trailer- Innocence Of Muslims
Rayhaan Mohammed
808013362
Clearly the producers of the film do not believe in Islam and believe they can say as they please in the creation of a movie being brought across as disrespectful towards the prophet Muhammad. They believe that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. The Islamic religion in this regard saw otherwise and believes that this was a disgrace and blasphemic towards their religion and that Christians are purposely attacking their religion. In the past more so in the present time people made funny movies, cartoons and drawings even blasphemy comments about Jesus. Cartoons for example South Park where there are countless clips of Jesus where they made fun of him. In contrast Christians at no point rebel or even became violent towards persons opinions and self-expressions. The producers of this movie must have known that after the make of this movie that the Muslims because of their sensitivity of their religion there would have been a rebellion. So is the case of the Salman Rushdie issue, everyone is entitled to freedom of speech where he scrutinized and made negative claims against the Islamic faith but should be aware as a writer than these claims would lead to a domino effect. It is my firm belief that apart from the reality of freedom of expression, the key for peace is respect. There must be respect for other person’s beliefs and principles.
ReplyDeleteAnother pressing issue, the media, the French magazine (Closer) in their quest to gain public attention and to capture an audience to purchase their magazine, engaged in a marketing strategy aimed at capturing mere global attention. This as a result would increase in the sales of the selling of their magazines. Should advertisers be allowed to communicate messages in any way they please? The answer is a blatant no. The media here is to bring about changes in behaviour and in this case is to entertain the public apart from informing and educating. Again, are these pictures reaching the intended audience? These pictures are in the public domain. Are they seen by children? There always conflict reviews to what is meant by freedom of expression as it relates to the media. I believe that persons of prominence should be given their respect, but also believes that the Duke and Duchess should also conduct theirselves with dignity in public life and not forget that because of their level of high caliber the paparazzi are always on the move and not just the media aiming at gaining a market share.
Reference:
1.BBC News Asia. Anti-Islam film. Pakistan minister`s bounty condemned. 23th September, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879. 23th September, 2012.
2. Kate Middleton and Prince William: More 'intimate' pictures in editor's hands (Video),” TMZ, accessed September 23, 2012, http://www.examiner.com/article/kate-middleton-and-prince-william-more-intimate-pictures-editor-s-hands
NAME: Nathaniel Theodore
ID: 809000034
In remarking that "writers should be able to write anything they want...no restrictions," Salman Rushdie brings into focus the issue of freedom of speech. Recent outcry over a movie trailer, showing the prophet Muhammad in a derogatory manner, has once again divided many on the subject of the rights of an individual to believe (or disbelieve) anything they choose. At the same time, the Royal Family is making arrangements to ban further releases of a photo of the Duchess of Cambridge topless on Solomon Island. In making the argument that the photos displayed the couple in a private and intimate setting and therefore had no place on the front of a magazine cover, the Royal Family attempts to distinguish themselves further from the rest of society.
ReplyDeleteJust as the Muslim community - a significantly larger group than the Royal Family – has to accept that film makers and authors have the right to publish anything they please, so too does the Royal Family. In addition, an informal precedent has been established in the light of situations like this: celebrities have been photographed in many a compromising situation, but they are aware that it is simply a hazard of being in these compromising situations in public. What sets the Duchess of Cambridge from any other figurehead? The prophet Muhammad is, at the very least, a figurehead to the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.
Despite the events that transpired after the video was released (which went as far as an ambassador being killed by Muslim rebels), Nakoula Bessely Nakoula, the film maker behind "The Innocence of Muslims" has remained protected by the US government. Therefore, in my opinion, the injunction placed on Closer, though supported by French law, is an insult to freedom of speech and publication.
References:
Richard Peppiatt, “Outrage over topless Kate photos shows Fleet Street's skewed logic,” guardian.co.uk, Monday 17 September 2012 17.05, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/17/topless-kate-photos-tabloid-the-sun
Melanie Phillips, “Kate's right to be angry. But only King Canute would think privacy laws can hold back this tide,” Published 16 September 2012 | Updated 18 September 2012, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2204251/Kate-Middletons-right-angry-But-King-Canute-think-privacy-laws-hold-tide.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fdebate%2Fcolumnists%2Fcolumnist-256%2FMelanie-Phillips.html
David D. Kirkpatrick and Steven Lee Myers, “Libya Attack Brings Challenges for U.S.,” New York Times, September 12, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/us-envoy-to-libya-is-reported-killed
“The Future of the Global Muslim Population: Projections for 2010-2030,” The Pew Forum, January 27, 2011, http://www.pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx
Dana-Marie K. Dhanpath
04789205
“There are laws to protect the freedom of the press’s speech, but none that are worth anything to protect the people from the press.” – Mark Twain. Such is the case in today’s world. While writers may emphasize that there are laws allowing freedom of press, they must also understand the sensitivity of some topics, knowing the thin line between freely expressing oneself and offending others. They must understand that if they are allowed to publish what they want, people are also allowed to express how they feel about the issue. However, respecting where these boundaries lie has much to do with the principles and ethics of the writer.
ReplyDeleteIn his interview on the BBC news, Salman Rushdie states, “My view was and is that nothing is off limits.”, holding steadfast to the belief that writers should be able to write anything they want with no restrictions. (Rushdie n.d.) I disagree with this statement totally. There must be a limit; there must be a line; one which we know we must not cross, not out of fear or nervousness, but out of respect. Similarly, the movie trailer for the film Muhammad is insulting and blasphemous, making a mockery of the Islamic faith. Again, this is an example of a writer having too much liberty. The highly controversial film has caused deadly protests in the Middle East. The pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton, which were published and distributed was a breach of privacy. One may argue it is a common practice to leek photos of those in the public’s eye, but this cannot justify the fact that it was indeed an invasion of privacy.
I believe that in an attempt to gain glory or publicity, writers choose to venture paths that have caused them to be offensive to others. What is unfair is that some of them have a one-sided view that members of the public should not cause a stir when they feel offended by someone who is simply ‘expressing his or her views.’ If, however, a writer is prepared to cross that line, then he/she must also be prepared to face the views of the public, because as much as there is freedom of press, there is also freedom of speech.
References:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164. n.d.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1RagKWM8ldk. 2012.
Rushdie, Salman. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879 (n.d.).
Empress-Zena Tafari
810000577
Media is governed by the “seen and unseen”. Pictures taken may show a certain action, which can be portrayed in a negative aspect for increasing sales. Hance, the question remains, “can writers write anything without restrictions”. No, since materials published by writers on a public platform, can influence its audience to have both positive and negative opinion on its topic.
ReplyDeleteThe Muhammad movie, a god-like figure was perceived to be the “Anti-Christ” of that era and raised questions in today’s societal religious beliefs of Islam. This movie was prejudice, hypocritical, and was an insult to the historical Islamic figure of Muhammad. Thus, the man depicted as the epitome of good is deemed to be an ulterior figure of negativity. As a consequence, murders have occurred in the Middle East. Furthermore, one might question those involved in this production.
A CNN World publication revealed that the cast and crew members were misled by the producer of the film Sam Bacile who were in alliance with an organization known as the Egyptian Coptic Christian Diaspora who funded the project. The film was intended to depict desert warriors thousands of years before Muhammad lived. However, it was instead dubbed into a film showcasing negative views of the Islamic faith to put across the opinion of Bacile that “Islam is a cancer, period”. This exemplifies the media saying, “controversy creates cash”. Thus, the Duchess of Cambridge photos were testament to such media concepts and invasion of privacy.
In conclusion, can writers really write anything without restrictions? The answer is no, as in accordance with the statements made by Salman Rushdie about personal safety prove that the consequences can go to unpredictable lengths if publications are offensive and bias. Therefore, to avoid hindrances, writer should publish material based only on literary accreditation, proof and merit.
Kavita Butkoon
809002079
References
1. Moni Basu and Tom Watkins, “Staff and crew of film that ridiculed Muslims say they were ‘grossly misled’,” CNN World. September 12, 2012, http://articles.cnn.com/2012-09-12/world/world_anti-islam-film_1_movie-islamic-film.
2. “'Innocence of Muslims' actors, crew duped by director” last modified 13 September, 2012, http://rt.com/news/israeli-filmmaker-hiding-muhammad-932/
3. “Salman Rushdie: Satanic Verses 'would not be published today'” last modified 17 September, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879
4. “Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images” last modified 17 September, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164
Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas via speech. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, copyright violation and incitement to commit a crime.
ReplyDeleteThe book written by Sir Salam Rushdie, in my opinion has stayed within the confines of this definition. While some may argue that mister Rushdie’s work aims to slander the Islamic faith, he is simply stating his opinion and criticising the religion because he believes there is truth in his work and he is well within his rights to do so. Publishers are afraid to circulate his work because of the presumed consequences it may bring but I believe that the ignorance displayed on their part has disallowed them to think holistically and see that a coin is never one sided and remember the little expression…‘Freedom of choice’. Publishing his book does not necessarily mean that it would be a success on the market and consumers will purchase it. This is a win win situation as the consumers and not the political institutions, decide whether the works are blasphemous or not and in this way, freedom of speech is not felt like it has been stifled.
On the other hand, publishers may be doing great disservice to the general public when refusing to publish works such as these because of fear. To some, this literature may be extremely eye opening and educational. When governments decide not to allow the option of this experience, are we not forced to believe that they have now taken away our freedom to think for ourselves?
This point now leads me to discuss the topic of the Anti-Islamic film produced by the U.S. This film, as compared to the book Satanic Verses, is aimed to mock and slander the Islamic religion and way of life. Here is where I disagree with Salam Rushdie’s statement that “My view was and is that nothing is off limits”. When religion, something so sacred is involved and the work is aimed to be insulting and offensive, I believe that government intervention to maintain decency and order is warranted and most definitely needed. This film has fuelled protests and extreme reactions such as murders, suicide bombings and social unrest. This film is provocation to what is already a delicate situation between the U.S and the general Muslim population which begs me to question whether or not this may fuel a continuance to the already raged war that was September 11th. Did the persons who produced this film truly consider the domino effect this could have not only on the country but worldwide? For this reason I understand why political institutions see the need to put a clamp on freedom of speech.
In the case of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge however, while I understand her wanting to maintain a sense of regal and trust to the public, I simply cannot justify her claim that photographers breeched her privacy in any way. These pictures were not taken in the confines their home, so being outside made them vulnerable and open to public viewing. Any repercussions for this action must be taken with grace and not dwelled upon, making it more newsworthy than it actually is.
References:
Schofield, Hugh. "Kate Topless Pictures: Royals Seek to Ban Closer Images." BBC News. BBC, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 23 Sept. 2012. .
"Salman Rushdie: Satanic Verses 'would Not Be Published Today'" BBC News. BBC, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 23 Sept. 2012. .
Press, Associated. "Protests over Anti-Muslim Film Continue with Scores Hurt in Bangladesh." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 22 Sept. 2012. Web. 23 Sept. 2012. .
"Freedom of Speech." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 23 Sept. 2012. Web. 23 Sept. 2012. .
Sihle Mendoza
811002601
Neikylle Gomez
ReplyDelete811100596
The future Queen of England Naked? A clear breach of privacy of Kate Middleton,dutches of Cambridge, for now, but future queen. Closer, a French Magazine published nude photos of the royal couple,after receiving them from an unknown photographer. The French magazine published the photos under the heading "The Queen is Nude".A heading this sensitive can damage the reputation of the future Queen and by extension the royal family.The Prince and Kate, even though Royalty, are still human beings and do not deserve to be taken advantage of to make a magazine more popular.an ordinary citizen would not have had to undergo this type of embarrassment,therefore one must wonder, are the French seeking revenge after Britain had defeated them in battle in the 18th century .
In Light of the recent "Muslim" movie, that is suppose to highlight the the life of Muhammed, is based on culture, it was made in the USA, where the Islamic culture may not be fully understood.However it is noted that at 7;17 - 7;35 of the you tube link, false information about the Quran was given, the holy book of the muslims, it stated that "A woman can be given to a master even if she is married" this false information is an out right disrespect to the Islamic community as they consider the teachings sacred.There legal action should be taken against the producers of this film.However it leaves one to speculate whether the USA are deliberately provoking the Muslims for the event that happened on 9/11
Refrences :- BBC World News
US History, Voice of America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RagKWM8ldk&feature=player_embedded
There are certain boundaries that should not be crossed. Both the publishing of the pictures of the Duchess and the video of Islam are example of boundaries being crossed. The media and paparazzi are often allowed privileges to torment people lives and practically stalk them. Privacy is something that should be respected whether or not you’re royalty. They were on a private vacation on private property and they deserved to be left alone without the worries of Peeping Toms(and in my book Terrorist). Nobody(and Kate) should fear of sunbathing in the nude in a private environment but now thanks to the paparazzi(terrorist), the right to sunbathing nude(in a private environment) has been taken away from Kate. The photographers who took the photos should be tarred and feathered for being disrespectful and having no morals. It needs to be against the law to take pictures of nude people without their consent no matter who they or where they are.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most sensitive topics is that of religion. Many people may argue that the makers are unaware of the concequences of the video, however I believe that they are fully aware of it. The video about had every intention of making a movie that would inflame the Muslim world, it is a mockery of Islam and used to agitate them. The consequences of this video are very obvious since it is easy to predict that it will result in riots. If youtube does not allow video with pornography or racism then why is it acceptable to allow a video bashing a religion? Would youtube allow videos mocking Christianity or any other religion? The fact that the video has not been removed since September 13th shows that they are not against the video therefore one can argue that they support the views. This is exactly why people should not be allowed to publish anything they want.
Refrences:
The Sydney Morning Herald, Police Gas Sydney Protestors, September 15th 2012: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-gas-sydney-protesters-20120915-25yrb.html
Bheemal Ramlogan
810004091
In relation to ‘Current Events’, which the title of the articles fall under, displaying global, cultural perspectives on events based on religious views as well as privacy and laws of different lands, multiple opinions and views can be highlighted within each. With link to what was deemed ‘breach of privacy’ by French law, the case of the nude photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge, interrelated to the lack of bravery from another perspective, religion, by Sir Salman Rushdie, clearly shows that writers\editors and the power they attain can branch off into many different directions. In the case of the Duchess of Cambridge and the case of the Royal family, the nude photographs which were published by the ‘brave’ magazines ‘Closer and Chi’ is a clear depiction of bravery and following the comment which states, “ writers should be able to write anything they want….no restrictions.” The differential views on the articles can be highlighted in diverse ways due to the fact that one strongly relates to media and entertainment of world renowned individuals recognized and acknowledged as the Royals and the other to religion which is considered a much more ‘touchy’ topic, quoted by Sir Salman describing recent times of having ‘a lot of fear and nervousness around’.
ReplyDeleteThe both articles have their fair amount of justification and reasoning for the ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ of being published or not and their exposure to public media or not publish exposure to public media. The concluding factor in these articles and their views conclude the point that articles and what are published entirely all related to the audience receiving the media, the cultural base and acceptance of the media audience and the speed and related issues that present it after the said exposure of the media. The trailer for the Movie – Innocence of Muslims falls under the statement, “writers should be able to write anything they want… no restrictions”, due to the fact that movie scripts are written and are a presentation of written work, but this movie can either come over as comedic or highly offensive. This also indicates and forwards the point that media and the presentation of media to an audience is highly dependent on the cultural base as well as the acceptance of a particular perspective displayed by the writer or editor.
Jared J Bennett
810001484
Royal Newly Weds, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Williams and Catharine Middleton, while on a PRIVATE HOLIDAY at the French chateau of the Queen's nephew, Lord Linley, in Provence, were being photographed by paparizzies who managed to capture the Duchess sunbathing topless. These pictures managed to make their way onto the pages of French and Italian magazines Closer and Chi, to spark a “major controversy”. The couple according to magazines and newspapers across the globe is currently suing Closer Magazine for publishing these pictures.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt where ever there are celebrities, there are paparizzies; without which celebrities would be nothing, because they are the ones who actually market them. Knowing the status in which came with marrying Prince Williams, The Duchess should of know better not to sunbath topless, if she does not want a photograph of “Boobs” being placed at the center of attention. Private Holiday or not being who she is, she will always be followed; paparizzies and magazines do not care about ones private life, because celebrities are “money” and people are willing to pay to know what is taking place in these people lives.
There is no need for The Royal Couple to sue anyone over these pictures, they just need to take their status into consideration and take a page out of the books of Actresses Sienna Miller who was caught sunbathing with lover, model Jamie Burke on an isolated Mexican beach on February 19th and Lindsay Lohan who was given the name fire crotch after her vigana was captured in a photo as she stepped out a car.
The film “Innocence of Muslims” in my opinion is to make a mock of Islam because of the 9/11 incident which was carried out by Muslims, and also because some war is always happening in the Middle East. Although people have the freedom of speech, degrading another’s religion is a thought which should not exist and one must think before sending out a regrettable message.
Reference List:
1)BBC News. Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images. (accessed September 23rd 2012).
2)“Kate and William to make criminal complaint over topless shots,” 16th September, 2012. (Accessed 23rd September, 2012).
3)Weber, Carol. R. “Kate Middleton Topless Scandal goes Global.” Examiner, September 17, 2012. Accessed September 23rd 2012.
4)Synamatiq Blog “LINDSAY LOHAN LEAKS THE PINK” December 29, 2009. Accessed September 23rd 2012 '
5)Celebrity-Gossip.net “Sienna Miller’s Topless Photos With Jamie Buke”. Accessed September 23rd 2012
6)You Tube, FULL HD-Muhammad Movie Trailer- Innocence Of Muslims 2012.
Leslyn Alexander
811002435
“Journalism is the investigation and reporting of events, issues and trends to a broad audience. Though there are many variations of journalism, the ideal is to inform the intended audience.”
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult at times for journalists to publish articles when the message they are trying to send can be interpreted wrongly; as in the case of the author Salman Rushdie. Rushdie says “The only way of living in a free society is to feel that you have the right to say and do stuff.” in other words you can say what you want and do what you feel because you are in a free society. Rushdie wrote against “Islamic Extremism” and recommends others to step up and stand out so to speak. This can be potentially disastrous as Rushdie himself experienced, he offended hundreds of thousands but because he generalised and made assumptions about something that he may not have understood himself; this can also be seen in the video Muhammad where a movie was created to caricaturize the religious views of some.
Journalists cannot always publish whatever they want whenever they want because there will always be persons affected. Especially shown in the case of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge whose privacy was violated and also in Yemen, Egypt where persons protested against mentioned movie above. According to Rushdie the “need to be braver” was clearly shown taken to heart in both articles. One needs to take into account the feelings and the respect of privacy when reporting. The Royal couple are first and foremost persons who deserve the respect of privacy no matter what. The citizens of Egypt too deserve to be able to profess their faith and not be judged for what a few have done.
References:
1) “Journalism” This page was last modified on 20 September 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism
2) “U.S. embassies attacked in Yemen, Egypt after Libya envoy killed” This page was last modified on 13 September 2012,
http://news.yahoo.com/u-embassies-attacked-yemen-egypt-libya-envoy-killed-115434407.html
Dana Harrinanan
810002070
Communication is the process by which messages are transferred from source to receiver. Their are various approaches where the sender tries to convey information to the receiver. Communication of information is to help people from sound opinion and the need to good decision. The four goal of communication are to entertain, to inspire, to inform and to persuade.
ReplyDeleteAs in the case of the Duchess, the pictures were publicized for monetary gain of the publicist. They were not interested in the effect it would cause or the significance of respect of ones privacy. The goal here of the sender was to entertain the public, the one-step flow model, hypodermic needle approach was used. According to this model, the main task of the communicator is to get the message to stick to the minds of the public.
Salman Rushdie, 1988 novel, The Santanic Verses, was banned in many countries and resulted with threats on his life. The goal of the author was attempted to persuade and inform the public. People from different cultures have different ways of seeing the world and therefore interpret things differently. This concept is known as homothily - heterothily. Mr Rushdie, believed that one should be able to write anything they want with no restrictions. We live in a world of varied culture and religion and people should deliver information via books, films, but also holding a standard of respect to others.
The controversial anti Islam film was made in the USA which has angered the Middle East, is yet another example of socio-cultural background. In communication, the source must have a thorough knowledge of the subject, to command respect from the audience. This film held no evidence of knowledge for the public.
References
1. YouTube, FULL HD-Muhammed Movie Trailer-Innocence Of Muslims 2012.
2. Entertainment & Arts. September 17th, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879 ( accessed September 21, 2012).
Kristy Mahabir
810000758
Communication is a process where information is exchanged between the sender and receiver but is only complete when the sender gives feedback (Communication and Leadership). Information is communicated to, inform, educate and advertise. Why were the photos of Prince Williams and the Duchess of Cambridge communicated to the public? It is true that there is “freedom of press”, and magazine Closer used this to justify their publishing of the photos, even though there the royal couple was a civil action against the magazines that have published the photos. Even though there is freedom of press, individuals are also entitled to their privacy.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the couples’s layer, Aurelien Hamelle (Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images) the scenes that were captured were intimate and personal. He also stated that the couple was not aware that they were being photographed and the photos could have only been taken with a long lens. Ignoring this fact, the magazines owners knew their target audience and therefore knew that the pictures and the story behind it would arouse the readers’ interest and draw the readers’ imagination. Regardless of this, the magazines should have done some pretesting before publishing, to avoid negative fallouts with the couple.
In response to the anti Islam film (Mohammed Movie Trailer.), I personally do not find it offensive. The film was kind of funny but it includes, actions that Muslim extremist portray and justify using the Koran . There are films that make fun or tarnish the image of Jehovah witnesses and Roman Catholics but they do not start riots. However knowing the image that the world have about Muslims and the fact that they are offended easily about anti Islamic actions, I think that I maker of this video should have taken serious consideration before posting the video.
Malika Simon
810000431
References:
Bibliography
Communication and Leadership. 22 May 2010. 23 September 2012 .
Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images. 17 September 2012. 23 September 2012 .
Mohammed Movie Trailer. 17 September 2012. 23 September 2012 .
Writers and other personnel within the media think they could use “any means necessary” to bring across their messages without any consequences. Based on Salman Rushdie’s quote, a writer thought that he criticizes the Islamic race in his book without any sort of repercussions. Rushdie takes the concept of freedom of speech and uses it to his leisure without considering his wider audiences. The book took an emotional toll on the Islamic religion since they thought it was criticizing their religion. It was so distasteful to the Islam people that Salam went into hiding after receiving death threats from Islamic personnel; his book was never published. I agree with his point that writers should be courageous to publicize things that may me hidden, but I also think they should go about this in a respectable manner which ought not to offend a particular audience.
ReplyDeletePersonal privacy is something everyone in the world would appreciate at any given point in time, therefore, with the Duke and Duchess, William and Kate enjoying their free time privately, they should not have been ‘spied or peeped’ upon. The paparazzi have no sort of remorse or care, that even though the persons being photographed are popular, they are also people with private lives away from the cameras. Nude pictures of royalty could cause great dishonor to the people in England since they should be persons of a certain stature who have an upper class image to uphold. Although it is good for the public to see that these things could happen to anyone, even royalty, it is inexcusable. Undoubtedly, taking pictures of someone during their private time activities is deplorable and insensitive. I give great respect for the British magazines that refused the topless pictures of the Duchess Kate. It goes to show that the British take pride in their leaders and would not use any means necessary to bring them down.
References:
• Youtube, Full HD-Muhammad Movie Trailer-Innocence of Muslims 2012.
• BBC News, UK 2012
• “Will royal response to topless photos put European freedoms at risk?” by Duncan Lamont - the Guardian Media Network
• “French magazine raided in hunt for the Kate paparazzi as other countries say they'll print pictures” by Michael Seamark
http://www.dailymail.co.uk?news/article-2205467//Kate-Middleton-photo-scandal-Closer-magazine-France-raided-Denmark-Sweden-print-topless-pics.html#ixzz27plOnGs.
Kirston Charles
811000573
Both these issues raise the question “how far is too far?”
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of Kate Middleton’s photo scandal, I would consider it as a breach of privacy since the couple seemed to be under the impression that they were on a private estate and the duchess probably thought she was safe enough sunbathe at her leisure. The paparazzi were estimated to have been standing more than a kilometre away when snapping the photographs. How is this any different than a peeping Tom peering into someone’s home just because they had the equipment to do so?
Prince William has expressed concern in his wife suffering a similar fate to his mother, Princess Diana, who was killed in a car crash trying to outrun the paparazzi. It should not have to reach to this point for a lesson to be learnt. Invading someone’s personal space (whether or not they are famous), pursuing people in a vehicle, taking pictures on private property or secretly through windows etc. is absolutely distasteful.
There is obviously a market for these types of photos, but if the public were not so obsessed with every little mundane act that a celebrity does, then that market would be considerably diminished.
With respect to the anti Islam film and Salman Rushdie’s book; religion forever has been, and remains one of the most controversial topics in the world. The author states that "The only way of living in a free society is to feel that you have the right to say and do stuff". While this manner of thinking may create a sense of empowerment in people, it may also breed anarchy and chaos.
Because of the book, Rushdie has had death orders placed on him and has had to go into hiding for fear of his life. Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator of The Satanic Verses, was found stabbed to death repeatedly in the face and arms by an unknown assailant. Is all of this really worth a piece of literature?
There is always tension between freedom of speech, expression and thought, and certain art, literature, videos or other acts that some may consider as being sacrilegious or blasphemous. The level of these tensions can reach to the point where they manifest into wars. The makers of the video seem not to have any regard for who they offend by misrepresentations of people’s beliefs. It appears to be a case of religious intolerance.
References:
1. “Royal snap: How paparazzi do it,” last modified 09:52 18/09/2012, http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html.
2. “Salman Rushdie: Satanic Verses 'would not be published today’,” 17 September 2012 Last updated at 07:29 GMT, http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html.
3. “The Satanic Verses,” last modified on 23 September 2012 at 22:13, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses.
4. “The Satanic Verses,” last modified on 23 September 2012 at 22:13, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses.
5. “Japanese Translator of Rushdie Book Found Slain,” July 13, 1991, http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/04/18/specials/rushdie-translator.html?_r=1.
6. “Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images,” 17 September 2012 Last updated at 19:31 GMT, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164.
Crystal Ramkissoon
04719856
Freedom of speech and expression, no matter the medium it is portrayed through, is an essential part of modern civilization and society as a whole in the twentieth century. I am speaking from the view point of someone that has spent their entire life in a democratically, right wing society. Therefore, my direction of thought sees free expression as a norm of the day, similar to that of shoes on my feet. Someone living in a communist or left wing society, where citizens are restricted in their freedom of speech, expression and beliefs, might or will give an answer down a very different path, a path where shoes just may be luxuries of the rich.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and freedom of the press, there should be some discretion as to the limits of this freedom. There should be some clarification as to the boarders that perimeter the blurred lines of individual privacy and the freedom of the press. The lengths to which journalists and paparazzi are able to exercise should be clearly demarcated. The idea put forward by Delphine Pando, representing Closer, that topless photos were no longer ‘shocking’ to the public, has a lot of truth behind it, but, discretion should be practiced. Yes the royal family are people like us, we all bleed red blood, but the position of future queen is not an ordinary status to command. This status brings with it influence, dignity, respect, honour, tradition and history, and should not be stained via the exploitative actions of predatory journalists spying, to make a quick dollar.
The U.S. born anti-Islam film that is causing deadly protest globally, reflects the ignorance that occurs in societies that do not understand the rights and privileges that accompanies the term, ‘freedom of speech’. Yes, the film is insulting to the Islamic religion, but, it is also being grasped in the wrong light. The film blatantly and loudly screams of comic relief. Comic relief, that, in the 21st century, just as in the duchess’ case with the topless pictures being of the norm, can be seen as a norm in the film industry. The Roman Catholic faith has been the scrutiny of the film industry for many years, with the depiction of all priests being homosexual with particular interests in young boys painting the screens of movie theatres and television screens alike. Deadly protests have not resulted from these films, but peaceful protests that occur from people who respect the views and expressions of others. The idea that these films are just that, films, and are not being taught to the world’s youth in their lesson plans should be taught to the ignorant. They should be aware that there are other means of getting to an end in today’s world than violence.
BBC News - Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images." BBC - Homepage. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164 (accessed September 23, 2012).
"Pakistani minister personally offers reward for anti-Islam filmmaker's death - CNN.com." CNN.com International - Breaking, World, Business, Sports, Entertainment and Video News. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/23/world/meast/pakistan-film-bounty/index.html?hpt=wo_c1 (accessed September 23, 2012).
Jerome Mendez
809001928
One is entitled to freely give their opinion on a topic; however when it comes to making these opinions publically recognized then regulations or limitations should be considered. I therefore disagree with Mr. Salman Rushdie’s statement “writers should be able to write anything they want.” There must be restrictions as to what should be shown on the television and what should be written in the press. Not having this can lead to a ‘recipe for disaster!’ The “Innocence of Muslims” trailer movie, to me showed a mockery of the Islamic religion as well as extreme disrespect. Its either the filmmakers did not consider the effect the video would have on the public or it was deliberately done to cause chaos. I believe that one should respect each other’s religious beliefs because, it is such a controversial topic and it is relatively easy for persons to take offence by the simplest things said. In spite of an individual’s beliefs it’s not right to evaluate any religion particularly in such a way that can lead to significant problems such as riots and even wars. This simply goes to show how effective freedom of speech can be.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, their privacy should be respected, especially due to their status in society. It was said that the Chateau d’Autet was a very private and isolated location, however the paparazzi was still very much able to obtain photographs from a distant and planned location. The job of the paparazzi is to get photos of well known persons and sell it to magazines, newspapers and other press media and this particular photographer was most definitely invasive and immoral but it became a rather ‘big deal’ due to Kate Middleton’s status as the Duchess of Cambridge. All individuals should be allowed their privacy, whether they are royalty or not!
Alicia Baig
809001148
References:
1. MuhammadMovie. 2012. Innocence of Muslims. Muhammad Movie Trailer. Accessed from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RagKWM8ldk&feature=player_embedded
2. San Francisco Luxury Living. 2012. No privacy for royals: what will Prince Harry say about Kate Middleton naked photos? Accessed from: http://sfluxe.com/2012/09/18/no-privacy-for-royals-what-will-prince-harry-say-about-kate-middleton-naked-photos/
3. Scherba de Valenzuela. J., Ph.D. 1992. Communication. National Joint Committee for the Communicative Needs of Persons with Severe Disabilities, p. 2. Accessed from: http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/handouts/defcomm.html
In my opinion free speech is just that, free speech. There should be no boundaries on what a person can say. If governments start to reprimand citizens for voicing their opinions on matters such as religion then that can be a slippery slope that can only lead to a fractured citizenry. A few days ago a man by the name of Alber Saber was arrested and charged with religious blasphemy because of an atheist video he posted on his Facebook page. I think this action is highly improper and if we start reprimanding persons for voicing their opinions on religion then where do we draw the line, how do we decide what is acceptable or what is not. As I see from the other comments here, there is a huge divide on what free speech actually is, and so too it is in the international community. As of right now the United Nations are discussing a proposed blasphemy law. In my opinion this law would severely infringe on the most basic right we enjoy as being part of a tolerant and democratic society. In my opinion people can say whatever they want once it is true and then if persons what to sue on the basis of slander or libel then they can do so, and then according to their laws one party would have the burden of proof while the other would not. In my opinion if a law were passed to limit free speech it would be impossible to draw a line between what is acceptable and what is not and this would lead to the said law being abused. In my opinion free speech is the most basic right of any democratic nation and should be protected at all costs.
ReplyDeleteJaved Lakhan
808011171
References:
1. Rights groups condemn detention of atheist on blasphemy charges. Accessed from: http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/rights-groups-condemn-detention-atheist-blasphemy-charges
2. Salman Rushdie: Satanic Verses 'would not be published today' Accessed from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879
Anonymous23 September 2012 18:11
ReplyDeleteA vacation can be defined as an extended period of recreation or time spent away from home or travelling. When a person is on a vacation, their time is expected to be enjoyable and relaxing, and their practices are expected to remain private. This may be so for the average individual, but it can be a complete disaster for persons of a high stature. According to the article, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were vacationing and having a private moment, when their privacy was breached and topless photos of the Duchess were revealed to the entire world. The question is: Should writers be able to write whatever they want "no restrictions"?
It is my belief that writers should not be able to write whatever they want no matter who the story is about, nor who is writing it. Writers are supposed to have some sort of code of ethics where they do not write about or publish things that the person does not want to disclose. I'm quite sure that the Duchess did not want her topless self exposed to the entire world. It was highly immoral for those magazines to published those pictures. However, this is an issue that has been occurring for a long time. In previous years, pictures and videos of celebrities have been exposed to the world. Writers and publishers could not be more happy to get such a "scoop" to put into these magazines. Also, it is noted, that this is not an issue for celebrities alone. The average person deals with issues like this on a daily basis. Examples of these are pictures and videos of regular people and/or school children are vastly spread online through social media such as Facebook.
There should be some laws or restrictions concerning what is suitable for media and what is not. Also, if proper penalties were put into place for when incidents like this happened, people would be able to live their lives in peace without having to worry about their private time being breached.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vacation
Lynette Dookhran
810002330
Reply
I think that the creators of this anti-Islam film has impacted the worldwide, in a negative fashion. The movie clearly reflects pure disrespect and ignorance on the part of the film makers. It is insulting to the Muslims/Islamic region and is simply unfair. Director of movies just like members of other religions, should respect other peoples religions. The film appears to be a mockery of the others believe and stand for. If everyone in the world were to to be insulting and disrespectful to each other, there would be now world. The little I know of the islamic faith indicates that most muslims are very passionate about their religion and many would die for it. Similarly other religions like many Christians... Although I think not as passionate.
ReplyDeleteYes, we want freedom of speech and there should be. However,there must be respect for one another. Whether a film or a product or service, if success is your goal, serious consideration must be taken in knowing your target audience FIRST. Talk to others, get opinions, pretest for feedback before contributing to the destruction of peace in world.
As a single woman who respects my self and others, I really do feel for the Lady Duchess and the Duke. Using Princess Di's experiences... If my mother-in-law, or anyone for that matter, suffered at the hands of the paparazzi, I would be very alert every where I go. The paparazzi would stop at nothing, if they feel they would have the most unique photos for the media and/or fans to purchase. The real driving force behind them is the $money$. So, in the process of succeeding in getting their goal, they become insensitive. They do not care about the 'person' involved and the fact that their actions would cause serious harm or hurt. It is a human thing and for some, I call it chronic macociousness. On the hand, other that Prince Andrew, 1 Royalty who does not seem to mind what the paparazzi does is Prince Harry. LOL
References:
Youtube,Full HD-Muhammad Movie Trailer-Innocence of Muslims 2012.
Salman Rushdie: Satanic Verses 'would not be published today'
Accessed from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19600879
"BBC News - Kate topless pictures: Royals seek to ban Closer images." BBC - Homepage. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164 (accessed September 23, 2012).
Christine Brown
ID#02751166