Free Speech Terrorism

As I am sure many of you newsy types know, there have recently been incredibly violent and emphatic protests outside US Embassy's in predominantly Muslim countries as a result of a film posted on YouTube.

Given the details (or the distinct lack thereof), I have been unable to rationalize this incredible reaction directed specifically at the United States, rather than at the filmmaker. Mostly the problem appears to be that there is NOT a filmmaker. This BBC Article seems to suggest that the maker of the film himself was Egyptian. Indicating that Egyptian religious sects are fighting their battles indirectly through the United States, and the rest of the Arab world is up in arms as a side effect. Whether this is true or not, it does seem to be the case that this film was distinctly meant to upset certain groups and particularly in the direction of the United States.

Before I go any further, I need to define what I mean by terrorism in this instance. I consider terrorism to be the act or acts of deliberately being violent or inflammatory in the name of your own cause, without respect for human life or collateral damage, and possibly with the intention to destroy both.

Given this definition, this film is terrorism. It seems to be deliberately inflammatory, and certainly to it's own ends, without regard for the violence and loss of life it has caused. The fact that it is still unclear who created the film, and that no one has come out and apologized for the film's contents or defended the film in any way seems to indicate that this was either an intended effect or a happy side effect. The maker of this film is obviously complicit with the violence it has caused and is therefore a terrorist by the above definition.

So arrest him,you say! But unfortunately it is not that simple. The creator of this film was completely within his First Amendment rights to free speech. He broke no laws. Inciting violence via free speech is not a crime, and nor should it be. To prevent the strange future dystopia where Americans need assault rifles to fight against the government, we  need free speech. If we give that up, all is lost. Freedom of dissent is necessary and critical to the function of our government and society. It is important that differing opinions be heard and that no one is ever arrested for speaking their mind. An unfortunate byproduct is also the freedom to be incendiary, and to create violence by rhetoric without punishment.

There are many nations that do not permit this kind of behavior. A recent example is Russia, who continues to detain punk band Pussy Riot for their verbal and visual attacks in the government, the type of behavior that passes without comment in the US, as it is very much legal here. China has in the past arrested hundreds of men and women for sending even remotely disloyal e-mails (Amnesty International). This happens almost everywhere but in the US. We are privileged with free speech.

So what can we do here? I urge that we seek the truth about this film. Who made it? What for? If the groups currently protesting understand that they are protesting the acts of a terrorist and not a nation, I believe the tone will change.

-------------------------------------
What do you think? Let us know in the comments!

*I have deliberately not posted the actual film, because I do not think it deserves more views. If you absolutely must see it, Google is your friend. 

Context and Fable III

I have something of a thing regarding connections between current world events and the stories told in video games and motion pictures. I am fascinated by them. They are not a particularly rare instance, but when I see one, I tend to get very excited. A few weeks ago, I began playing Fable III (again) and the opening cut scene, to me, bleeds contextual commentary. Here's the clip, from Youtube:

The world of Fable, Albion, has been blessed with the age of industry. But the industrial age has also taken it's toll, and the divide between the rich and poor has become astronomical in size. The middle class is non-existent. The poor hope that one day they too will be able to live as they wish, and not be mired in the muddy halls of manufacturing. But, as the past has shown, hope has been difficult, as the rich grow richer and greedier, and all the more repress the poor who wish to make a name for themselves. Hope has not withstood the beatings, the deaths and the general maltreatment of the lower class.  The government is ruled by a dictator who supports the rich and cares not for the poor. The state of Albion is disastrous. The role of the hero (the player character) is to lead the revolution and usurp the current ruler, his or her sibling, and to thereby restore hope and promise for all. 

Fable III was  released on the Xbox 360 in summer of 2010, when the United States faced some of the same problems as Albion. The parallels are undeniable. The United States has been, in the recent past, blessed with great prosperity, though it may not feel like it, as much of this prosperity has been poured into the coffers of rich businessmen. Like in Albion, our rich grow richer as our poor grow poorer. Our middle class is disappearing, forced down by the government's lack of regard for them. In 2008, many in the United States were given new hope, with Barack Obama's campaign and eventual win of the presidential elections. One of his buzzwords was hope, and it spread. By the time Fable III was released however, that hope had waned. The metaphor of the chicken hopefully in flight and freedom, then dragged down again by gravity, rings true with the state of the American psyche. Hope itself is difficult, in times like these. Here is where things become a little interesting. Fable III was released before the elections in November of 2010, when those whose policies support the rich were put into power in congress. However, now that that time has passed, the situation in Albion is even more reminiscent of the situation in America. The connections grew stronger, as if the writers of Fable III had been prescient of what was to come. 


These parallels, between the narrative of Albion and the narrative of the United States, have deep persuasive meaning. They help the player draw a connection between the happenings in the game and their real life. This does several things. The first is that it gives the player more of a reason to play, because they contextually understand the basics of the situation, as it resembles their own. The second is that the action in the game affects the way the player addresses their situation in the real world. The story of the game makes the argument that in this day and age, when all seems lost, you, the player, are the one who is destined to help change it. You are the force to be reckoned with and the hero of your own time. Lead a revolution, bring back hope, restore your world, as you have done for Albion. 


Fable III, by contextually connecting itself to real world events, makes the argument that the world can be changed, and that each individual can help change it. 

                                                                                                                                                                     

As always, we invite you all to share your thoughts in the comments below.

Kiersten hangs out on Twitter and would love your company.
She also has another blog.

Same-sex couples should be able to get married.

That's what he said!

The LGBT community has been waiting for Obama to say that for years. Everyone knew he would someday, it was just a matter of when and how. I imagine many hoped for something louder and stronger than this, a statement of policy. A speech not unlike his race speech. Instead they got this, which is, in my opinion, a whole lot more interesting.

There is a lot of tossing around of the idea that this was in response to a supposed gaff made by Biden. Here's the "gaff":



I see the stumbling, but I don't see the mistake. Biden doesn't say it anywhere near as straight as Obama does, though the sentiment does get across. Even if this was a gaff (which is a stupid word anyway), it's not really the kind that Obama should have to respond to. It's just not blatent enough. Plus, he could just write it off as another "Oh, Joe..." moment and ignore it entirely. No one would really blame him, except the LGBT community who have wanted him to just-say-it-already for years. But most of them will vote for him in November regardless. So why on earth did Obama and his strategy team choose now? And why have him do it the way he did?

These, my friends, are my favorite questions to ponder, and I think I have come up with an answer. Doesn't matter if it's the actual reason why, that's the fun part of rhetorical study! Everyone's opinion counts as long as you can back it up. There isn't a "right" answer. It's pretty sweet like that.

Anyway. The first question. Why now?

I've read a lot of comments from people posing the idea that Obama chose now because of all the bigoted noise coming from the GOP. The idea being to show that Obama is equalist, not bigoted and LURVES E'RYBODY, unlike those big rich meanies over there. To some degree this seems right to me, but at the same time it seems too limited in scope. It's not as if the GOP doesn't make a habit of being racist, sexist, and gay-hating (in case my negatives confuse you, they do make a habit of that). It's not like their behavior is something new or irregular. So, why wait until now to show how Obama is a more accepting person than them? Sure the general election just started, but really? No. This cannot simply be an "I'm a better person than you" contest.

I think that to some degree it's because of this. That's a link to a New York Times article citing the newest poll numbers on same-sex marriage. There are more Americans in favor of same-sex marriage than there are in opposition. This first changed a year ago. So why didn't Obama say anything then? He had no reason to. It would have been essentially purposeless, and would probably have hurt his chances of convincing congress to get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell. In case you haven't noticed, House Republicans are very contrary. Many of those who voted to get rid of DADT would have voted otherwise, just because the POTUS had real opinions upon which he was basing such a policy choice. A policy choice alone is just policy. There could be a million reasons, stated or not, that a policy is bad. But a policy choice with an ethical opinion behind it? An ethical opinion that you disagree with? Them's fightin' words. The repeal of DADT would not have passed if Obama had openly supported same-sex marriage, just because congress is contrary. Now, with the new polls having just come out, Obama can make his announcement. But again, this is a little too small to be the ONLY reason.

Last week, our favorite person in the House of Representatives, John Boehner chose to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. For those of you who don't know, DOMA is the federal law banning recognition of same sex marriages by states aside from the one they occurred in and federal agencies. It also covers a whole lot of other minor details involving the prevention of same-sex marriage. So, under DOMA, a lesbian couple could be married in DC, but they have no married privileges in any other state, and they have to file their federal taxes as if single. DOMA was passed in 1996. In February 2011, the Obama Administration announced it found the law unconstitutional and would no longer defend it in court. A case has, of course, come up, and despite the administrations decision, Boehner has chosen to spend tax dollars defending the law. House Republicans also quietly enacted a few other measures last week that also infringe on the rights of same-sex couples.

The last couple weeks have therefore been full of legal activity on the same-sex marriage front. There have also been a number of announcements of support from high ups on the Democratic side of Congress, among them Harry Reid (D, NV), Majority Leader in the Senate. So, Obama's announcement is timely, based on actions by his opponents and by his allies.

So, why did Obama choose now? Because support for same-sex marriage is growing, and the opposition is becoming a louder, less reasoned minority. Has anyone else noticed how the right becomes even more crazy when you back them into corners? They seem to think this works, I am not sure why.

Well, that question has been answered. Next! Why did he do it that way?

Obama's announcement to me sounds a whole lot more like a confession. It's a solid stance, backed with his usual stories, but he notes that it's personal. It's a sort of quiet note, that yeah, he supports gay marriage, but not a statement that you should too. While that might be disappointing to some LGBT rights activists, I think it's a brilliant strategic move.

Obama is not a gay rights leader, as much as we may want him to be. He isn't one and he can't be. Despite the fact that yes, more Americans are in favor of same-sex marriage than oppose it, it is still a political risk for him to stand up on a podium and shout to the world about gay rights. The LGBT political movement has been pinned as radical, and a lot of people still think of it that way. If he were to  stand up and say HEY YOU SHOULD SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE, like so many wish he would, he would lose a lot of independent voters, simply because the stance made him seem radical. This calm quiet method of conveying his personal views is a whole lot less scary and a whole lot less offensive to the middle group that Obama needs to win the election.

Plus, it works just as well on everyone else. Those of us who support gay marriage are relieved and excited to hear his views, his real views, finally. Obama absolutely has the LGBT vote now. Hand and foot. Not to mention any other socially liberal Democrat who was maybe a little bit on the ropes.  Also, his base is now pepped to support him, because he has just done a wonderful thing that we've wanted from him for years.

That's why he didn't shout it from the rooftops: He didn't have to, and it was better if he didn't. Shouting and rooftops scare voters.

Another thing that has also been noted is the rhetoric of the word "marriage." Obama has supported full civil unions forever. The only difference was name, pomp and circumstance. Now he's said the word marriage, and as he notes, it's the meaning of the word that matters and makes the difference for the LGBT couples involved. It means a lot to say you're married, it doesn't convey the same if you say you're "civilly united." Sounds sort of like the end to a war to me, rather than the merging of 2 households. And so, marriage it is and marriage it should be, Mr. President.