Why second? Because that’s what actually happened, and frankly, first will just be a bit too cliché.

As it turns out, Manti Te’o’s girlfriend was not real; in fact, the “girlfriend” might had been a boy. Many people are now “vaguely enraged” (phrase borrowed from Kolsterman in his letters to Gladwell) because they ended up on the receiving end of the “just kidding” story of the year.

As of right now, nobody knows whether Te’o was involved in this not-so-malicious hoax. In fact, I made a meme for the occasion!

(I actually think it is also incredibly stupid for trying to dupe everyone, but the meme works out better this way)

So why do we care so much about this?

Gladwell, in his letters back to Kolsterman, described this sentiment very adequately:

Earlier this fall, I read many stories about how Kansas State quarterback Collin Klein didn’t even kiss his wife until they were both on the marriage altar. The public reaction was pretty much, “That’s strange, but I guess that’s nice.” It was just a little romantic detail that was widely believed, despite its superficial implausibility. Nobody thought that much about it (and — as far as I can tell — it’s completely true). But imagine if this had been proved to be a conscious fabrication. People would suddenly be outraged that Klein had lied about something they’d never previously cared about.

And I full-heartedly agree. I think there is even a bit more as to why many people are angry – because we really believed the story.

We believed the story because we love them. We love it when a basketball star overcomes sickness to hit the game winning shot, we love it when a squirrel rallies a team from behind to win the championship, we love it when an Asian basketball player defies underdog status and racial prejudice, and we love it when a football player leads his team to prominence after the tragic death of his girlfriend.

We also believe it because the media is powerful. It is our only way of finding out the “truth” short of going to South Bend ourselves and searching through Te’o’s internet history (oh wait, the media basically did that for us).

Because we believed in this story, we feel betrayed when we find out that it’s not true. This reminds me of a Barney quote from How I Met Your Mother: “People like being lied to. They just don’t like finding out they’ve been lied to.” How mad will we be if we find out that Michael Jordon wasn’t sick at all that game? Or that the squirrel was released on purpose to boost popularity? Or that Jeremy Lin is…um…not Asian?

It’s pretty crazy how much controversy a college football player can stir up nowadays, but really, why is this a big deal? Te’o is just a college student playing for his school. We shouldn’t even be paying that much attention to his personal life in the first place. Why are we giving SO much publicity to him? So what he was dumb and fell in love with a “girl” through texts and Twitter? Even if he did lie, is it worth broadcasting on national news over and over? Whatever Te’o did or did not do, it is better than Armstrong lying about doping, or Reggie Bush taking illegal benefits, or the Saints’ bounty program, or all the DUI and domestic violence stories we read on ESPN.

There aren’t any direct victims here, in fact, about $3,000 were raised for leukemia research in the girlfriend’s name. While it is not ethical to lie (if Te’o did lie), it certainly isn’t ethical either to construct this righteous image of a college football star and tear it apart in front of a national audience. The one thing we can be sure of is that the media is the winner. If there is a story that the media loves more than “new found strength due to death of a close one,” it is the fall of a hero.

Why is it that young adults have to give up their privacy when they choose to play for a popular sport in college? Or that they are assumed to be either flawless or dirty liars? These would not be issues if we just treat the athletes as who they are: college students playing sports. The Te’o hoax is funny and bizarre, but it really doesn’t mean much. We are mad because we bought into the system and it failed us, and if we zoom out to the bigger picture, that is exactly why being sports fans can be so devastatingly heartbreaking, so shouldn’t we be used to it by now?

Unlike the usual subway preacher/ rapper/ drum artist/ con artist with an upbeat message, this man was proclaiming eternal damnation for everyone (in very graphic terms): Asians, Jews, Russians…the list went on and on. I was grateful when an MTA police officer asked the man to step off my train.

Reflecting on this scene brings me to the logical question, what are the limitations of free speech on public transit? Does free speech ride the bus? In what forms and what ways?

Recently, advertisements by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) have drawn controversial fire in New York City and in our own backyard, Chapel Hill. The ad reads:

IN A WAR BETWEEN THE CIVILIZED MAN AND THE SAVAGE,
SUPPORT THE CIVILIZED MAN.
SUPPORT ISRAEL
DEFEAT JIHAD

In the case of New York City, the District Court has ruled that MTA cannot ban the advertisement because doing so would be a clear violation of the First Amendment. The court reasoned that the ad does not constitute “hate speech,” but rather, a viewpoint akin to “Southerners are bigots,” and “fat people are slobs” — certainly offensive, but not prohibited by law.

On the other hand, the Chapel Hill town council has currently suspended new bus advertising and is revising its policy on whether to allow religious/ social/ political ads on its buses. It is also deciding whether to continue advertisements by the Church of Reconciliation, which advocates the opposing viewpoint to AFDI. The church’s ad reads:

“Join with us. Build peace with justice and equality. End U.S. military aid to Israel.”

I believe that these ads have more in common with my offensive subway preacher (whose speech was curtailed) than advertisements on TV or billboards.

First, the nature of these advertisements is different from those promoting a product. Although some commercial advertisements may be offensive as well (ie: steak advertisements to vegetarians), they do not specifically target groups of people. The litmus test should be whether the advertisements ses out to offend or discriminate against one group. In the AFDI case, the answer is clearly yes. The Church of Reconciliation advertisement is more debatable.

Moreover, the location is key. Unlike political messages on a television channel or a blog on the internet, these “views” promoted by the advertisements are imposed upon everyone who rides public transit. I can change the channel or ignore a blog post with much greater ease than I can boycott public transit. Thus, the standards for what qualifies as acceptable free speech should be stricter as well.

AFDI’s advertisement is not as obtrusive as the man on my subway, but the principle underlying both should be the same. Free speech should not ride public transit freely. We should consider which groups merit protection from offensive content.

Recently the video, The Innocence of Muslim was tied to the violence occurring in Libya and other countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa, as Grace posted about earlier this week.  YouTube hosted the video, but decided to take down the video in Egypt and Libya even though they had already determined that it did not violate their terms of service.  Why did Google decide to violate its normal ways of regulating YouTube?  They issued a statement saying these were extenuating circumstances.  In this case, the fact that violence was tied specifically to this video shows that Google tried to make the situation better with the options that were available to them.  Other countries, including the U.S., requested that Google remove the video from YouTube, and were denied. Numerous countries that made this request did not have any violence occurring that was tied to the video. Not to mention, Google rarely ever complies with such requests, so any acquiescence would have been unusual. If Google had complied, their role in regulation would increase, which evidently Google wants to prevent.

Other videos exhibiting acts of violence like the video showing the former U.S. Ambassador to Libya moments before his death have also not been taken down.  You may wonder if this maybe classifies as an extenuating instance, but this video has not incited violence nor is it hate speech.  Taking down videos like this could make Google more susceptible to the numerous requests they receive concerning the removal of videos.        While legally Google does have the right to take down any video, whether they use it or not people are similarly free to use Google’s services or not.  I feel that Google has chosen to give the power back to the people as much as possible through their lack of interfering with what is posted on Youtube.  Having the video on YouTube, doesn’t force anyone to watch it.  Google leaves it up to the current laws of a nation and the choices of its people to regulate.

Google’s business and moral interests are in alignment:  they largely do not want to control speech.  They’ve mostly taken a hands-off approach to regulation that coincides with the country the company originated in.  Some incidences occurred where Google played the moral police in subtle ways, like in the case of Ashley Madison website.  Google removed this website which helps to facilitate extramarital affairs, from autocomplete – making it more difficult to find unless you know what you’re looking for—and blocked its ads in the Google Content network.  Google had no right to begin blocking their ads or the website and should have followed their own rules of taking smaller role in regulating speech.  Look at it this way, if Google took a more active stance in regulation everyone would be aware of the beliefs of the people in charge.  If they were homophobic, chances are all of the videos concerning homosexuality would be removed.  If they were religious, anything that violated their beliefs could be removed.  If they hated violence, perhaps the Call of Duty commercials would no longer exist on YouTube.  Wouldn’t you rather they took a hand-off approach to regulation except for extenuating incidences like The Innocence of Muslims video?

Despite requests from the government of the United States, Bangladesh, and Russia, Google has maintained the video on its main site, and only blocked it in India and Indonesia, where it violates local law.  To justify its decision, Google asserts that the video does not violate its terms of service or constitute hate speech because it is directed against Islam, not Muslims as a group.

This recent controversy brings to light grave ethical and political implications.

Should Google be the only party to have jurisdiction over YouTube?  What does freedom of speech and press look like in a realm that transcends national, religious, and geopolitical boundaries?

Google’s recent actions are problematic in 3 ways:

1. In an effort to preserve free speech, Google premises its defense on imposing a blanket principle that other countries and cultures may not subscribe to.  Satire of Islam may not qualify as hate speech in the United States, but it certainly does figure into the definition that many countries, such as Bangladesh, espouse.  (For different standards of hate speech around the world, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech). By refusing to take down the video, Google is forcing these countries’ hands in banning YouTube altogether – which is what Bangladesh has done, and what Russia is considering.
2. By refusing to assume a “Big Brother” role, Google is ironically becoming “Meta-Big Brother.”  Although protests have erupted in more than twenty countries, Google has only temporarily blocked the video in Egypt and Libya.  In response to U.S requests to take the video down in other protest-ridden nations, Google has responded that it will do so if these situations become exigent.  This begs the question, since when did Google become the main arbiter of geopolitics? Given that Google removes videos that violate local copyright law, it should accede to local standards for hate speech as well.  With regard sensitive videos such as “The Innocence of Muslims,” Google can be “hands-off” by allowing governments to make the final call.
3. Finally, Google needs more restrictions on permissible video content beyond its terms of service and prohibiting hate speech.  Although the “Innocence of Muslims” may not hit close to home for many Americans, the video of the former U.S Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens certainly does.  While it is certainly within the purview of Google’s policies to allow the video of former Ambassador Steven’s brutal treatment to be shown, is it ethical to allow the footage in light of the recent tragedy?

Google needs to recognize that the line between inaction and action is a dubious one.  Although it wants to be as unobtrusive as possible, the plight of the Modern Day Big Brother is that it has no choice but to involve itself in governing the internet realm.  Whether it chooses to keep the video up or to take it down is setting an unmistakable precedent.  Given that Google has already conceded that free speech needs to be reined in under certain circumstances, it should take the first step in further defining its place in the YouTube community.

*Not everyone agrees with my views. In fact, Kristian will be posting a rejoinder on Wednesday. Stay tuned!

Credit: WeKnowMemes

I can’t resist.  I’m going to add my two cents to USA Today, Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Post, etc. about Kony 2012.

For those of you who haven’t seen the viral (or infamous?) video yet, it’s worth half an hour of your time:

Although the campaign has generated a lot of media buzz, including celebrity endorsements from Rhianna, Justin Bieber, and Oprah, there is also significant backlash.  According a recent USA Today article, many experts are now “lambasting Invisible Children for doing more harm than good.”

The tension between the Kony 2012 campaign and vocal critics raise questions about the ethics of mass-media activism.

First, there’s the issue of timing.  Obama has already committed 100 special operations troops in October to work with Ugandan forces to root out Kony and his supporters.  The increased media attention may compromise their work and exacerbate violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Southern Sudan, where the LRA is currently operating.   It is also highly ironic that Invisible Children chose to re-start the campaign focused on child soldiers in Uganda when Kony’s operations have moved to Southern Sudan and the DRC.

Second, the efficacy of Invisible Children is being called into question.  Many people are insinuating that Kony 2012 is merely a money-making scheme.  Online blogger, Amber Ha’s critique of Kony 2012 has also gone viral.  According to Ha, a student at Columbia University who spent last summer in Gulu, Uganda, locals see Invisible Children as a greater threat than Joseph Kony and believe the organization is out there “to use them and make money.”  A recent Atlantic Monthly article, entitled “Soft Bigotry” echoes the sentiments that Kony 2012 makes Africans seem “helpless” and Western civilization “the savior.”

Finally, there’s the critique of fostering “slacktivism” in place of informed “activism.”  Invisible Children makes it seem like Joseph Kony is the source of all evil and that arresting him will solve the problems in the region.  The campaign encourages people to like the video, to put up posters, and to wear the Kony 2012 bracelet.  Critics point out that blind awareness for the sake of awareness is counterproductive.  Most people have not taken the time to understand the political context of the situation.  Kony falls into the paradigm described by Malcolm Gladwell in “Small Change”: it is “effective at increasing participation—by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires,” but hardly fosters informed activism.

Now, my two-cents.

Although I agree that the campaign is oversimplified and paternalistic, I disagree that the Kony 2012 campaign (and the controversy surrounding it) is largely negative.

Why?  Although USA Today, Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Post, etc. have all harped on the negative impacts, I fail to see any concrete harms (the in-country program and Invisible Children as an organization is a separate issue).

First, regarding the accusation of ill-timing: is there ever a “wrong” time for awareness? Although I acknowledge that Invisible Children has misrepresented many facts about Kony, it has been overwhelmingly successful in generating awareness, including awareness about its misrepresentation.  Moreover, the claim that this newfound awareness could compromise the strategic operations of the U.S troops is weak, at best.  The video isn’t the first thing to let Kony know that the international community is watching him; the ICC beat Invisible Children to the punch with an indictment.

Next, regarding the accusation of fostering soft-bigotry: while Kony 2012 may represent the Africans as helpless, I think that the backlash has done an excellent job combatting this notion.  Most people who have seen the video have also probably seen, heard, or read the overwhelming critiques of its paternalistic content.  And for those who haven’t, I ask, is paternalistic concern worse than ignorance?

Finally, regarding fostering slacktivism: I think the movement as a whole (including the backlash) has not only raised awareness about the LRA and child soldiers in Central Africa, but has also encouraged many people to reexamine our mass-media activism.  The fact that every major news source has published some form of critique shows that most Americans are not passively imbibing propaganda (although some may be).   As social justice issues grow increasing more global, we cannot realistically expect Americans to be invested in the same way as the generation before us in the civil rights movement.  Yes, liking a status is “slacking” compared to marching for freedom or conducting a sit-in, but given that the nature of the social issues has become increasingly international, liking a status, then feeling guilty about merely clicking a button after reading endless news tirades, may be the first step toward informed activism.

The beauty of duality of Kony 2012 and the criticism it raises is that this time, we won’t feel jaded or cheated about another social fad.  The critique (which is just as popular as the original video) lets us watch the video and judge Invisible Children with our eyes wide open.

Those who are semi-competent students of history will know, however, that Nazis (the German word for the National Socialist Party headed by Hitler) and current United States political parties look almost nothing alike. In fact, some argue (such as this group of rabbis) that using the term Nazi in political debate is an insult to the millions of Jews, and others, who actually suffered under the Nazis’ genocidal rule.

At first glance, it seems that the “Nazi card” is thrown around most often by Republicans—especially Fox News. Bill O’Reilly, Megyn Kelly, Glenn Beck and others on the conservative-leaning network have compared Obama or his policies to Nazis on more than one occasion. Jon Stewart, the famous satirical comedian who delivers the “news” on Comedy Central, ran a hilarious segment pointing out Fox News’s hypocrisy in using Nazi repeatedly on their network:

Before you think I have it out for Fox and conservatives, however, here’s the big twist in the story: just a few weeks after Stewart aired that piece, Wisconsin Democrats pulled out the ole Nazi card themselves. The recent Wisconsin Democratic senators’ walkout from the state legislature has caused quite a stir in both local and national politics. In once instance thousands of protesters gathered outside the capitol, likening Gov. Scott Walker to, that’s right, a Nazi for his anti-union policies.

We can all agree that free speech is a crucial part of American democracy, and a recent Supreme Court decision guarantees that even disruptive speech that nearly everyone condemns is still protected by the First Amendment. So, sure, we have the “right,” in the legal sense, to call our political opponents Nazis. But don’t you think it’s both distasteful and extremely inappropriate? After all, as Jon Stewart says, “Being a heartless douche isn’t exactly the same as being a Nazi propagandist.”

Photo credit: Decafinata via Flickr

Remember when smoking was good for you? Well, not anymore. At least that’s what most people would tell you, and they tend to readily blame Hollywood for glamorizing the act of smoking. Recent studies further reinforce this claim. A recent article published in The Economist discusses the discovery of increased brain activity (in the form of mirror neurons) for smokers when they view a movie in which people are smoking. The article quotes Scott Heuttel, a neuroscientist at Duke, who says, “This study builds on a growing body of evidence showing that addiction may be reinforced not just by the drugs themselves but by images and other experiences associated with those drugs.”  The writer goes on to suggest that people will come out in protest against movies that feature characters who smoke.

Is pretending smoking doesn’t exist really the right answer? First, it’s unreasonable to ask Hollywood to only feature society-approved acts in their films. (And who is “society” anyway?) Movies are often meant to serve as an escape from reality, not as a boring replication of what you can see in your own town for free. Dictating what can and cannot be showed in theatres could seriously hurt the movie-making industry.

But my real issue with removing smoking from films is that it’s an inconsistent request. If people wish to prevent the showing of disagreeable social acts, will they also attempt to ban murder, crime, violence, prostitution, etc.? These acts all add intrigue to the plot, and regardless of whether you approve of the acts themselves, they are often entertaining on the big screen.

You may argue that the aforementioned acts are so blatantly wrong that preventing viewers from seeing them is unnecessary. Fair enough. But what about gambling, premarital sex, and even obesity? The study of mirror neurons also supports an increased desire in obese people to eat when they view others eating. So should we stop showing people eating in theatres? Obesity can be just as harmful as smoking. And it is undeniably a significant problem in this country. Or maybe we should stop them from showing skinny people, because this just encourages eating disorders? On the flip side, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong has done a lot of research suggesting our neurological makeup influences our morality. So maybe seeing people doing “good” in movies can alter viewers’ moral decisions outside of the theater.

I support informing youth through programs such as D.A.R.E. and Health in schools. I appreciate eating in a smoke-free environment when I go out. But please, leave my movies alone.

Please take a look at this and tell me, what was the speed limit?

Okay, you might have answered that one correctly, but what if it was not censored?

What speed limit?

What if you saw this on the street while driving 40 miles per hour?

What street?

(I did the conversion and you would be speeding in this case, assuming you didn’t slow down to…um….not run over the lady of course…but slowing down is what we are aiming for, right?)

So…I know I am currently speaking to the segment of population that hasn’t stopped reading this and flown to Denmark yet, and for that you have my thanks. But anyways, what if something like this happened during a news broadcast?

Ever heard of Megyn Kelly? and yes, she is a Fox news anchor (for all my Democrat friends, let’s keep the political jokes to a minimum). So now back to my straight male readers, imagine her giving the news, and don’t worry, she will be more covered than the Danish lady. How much news will you be able to absorb?

So just very recently, two researchers from the University of Indiana conducted a study related to that specific question. Essentially, what they found was that men retain much less information when there’s a sexier anchor.

SHOCKING, right? As an engineer, I sometimes marvel at what science can tell us.

So what does this all mean?

I do not blame the news channels for increasing number of “hot” news anchors out there. Let’s face it, we don’t need another scientific research to tell us that on average straight men are more likely to stop at a news channel with sexy anchors while channel surfing. News channels are for-profit, and they are trying to increase their ratings. If we regulate the anchors’ appearances, shouldn’t we also anchor all the distracting (well, at least to me) color schemes that fly around? And I’m sure we’ve been hearing a lot of “attractiveness discrimination” in, ironically, the news. So that is one ethical issue in itself.

But now we have this research results – we know that our suspicions are true. What is the ethical thing for news channels to do? News is meant to inform the public, but this research clearly shows that “sexier” women aren’t doing that as efficiently. Sure, we can tell the news anchors to all put turtlenecks on, but should we? And should we police who can anchor?

So does that mean the most ethical thing to do is to have “reverse attractiveness discrimination?” No news channel will do that – but that’s not the point, should they do that? Or perhaps any of this shouldn’t matter?

It seems to me that the news channels should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as the materials are kept PG and there are no sexism and discrimination issues. The viewers should know what they are viewing and should be able to decide for themselves what to watch (that’s the point of channel surfing).

And who knows? Maybe these anchors will attract some people who usually don’t watch the news.