So you may have noted that Mattel is getting a little bit of guff over their Dom Barbie, to add on to the general problem of the doll’s body mold. On the other hand, Barbie is breaking gender stereotypes with the “I can be” career series. Who knew women could be baby doctors or art teachers?
Big Law Barbie comes with a briefcase (wound up being too big for the box), that when squeezed, says “Ouch! That glass ceiling really hurts.” There’s a video up on flickr, along with various shots. Below is the back of the box, for more details.
No, not this Alex, 9th circuit judge Alex Kozinski, who has recently found himself in the limelight when asked to recuse himself from an obscenity case because he had published “similar” pornographic images to the web. He apparently believed that placing these items in an obscure directory on his private website was enough to hide them from public view. He was wrong. (And here, I disagree with Lessig’s view that it was private-ish.)
Someone sent me a note asking for my opinion on this. I’m not sure that I have a considered opinion. The descriptions of the images seem to be far worse than the images themselves. Two of the images described in the LA Times article appear here (NSFW), in a compilation of putatively humorous images that is not safe for work. Which gives rise to the question of that term: Not Safe for Work. Should a judge be judged by a standard different from the standards by which we judge any other citizen. Bear in mind that he has been accused of circulating distasteful images, not illegal images. I don’t think anyone would suggest that a subscription to Hustler should disqualify someone from the bench.
I can see getting fired for viewing these kind of images at work, particularly if it resulted in co-workers seeing them. I can even see getting fired for intentionally publishing this sort of material on a personal site, if your work found out about it and you were in an industry sensitive to public opinion (as most are). But there was no such intent here. It’s not like he’s been secretive about it; as he admits here, he maintains a “gag list,” from which he sends out “dirty jokes.” (There is more in this interview that seems a bit risque in retrospect.) The question is whether this should impact his role as a judge. I don’t see why it should. Given how few people we have at the appellate level that have even a basic understanding of the online world, it would seem a particularly unfortunate
At worst, I think he can be blamed for a lack of political acumen, and arguably (since it always is) questionable taste. Perhaps he should add “keeping a careful lid on your personal interests” to his advice for aspiring federal judges. And though he’s not a fan of bloggers, this serves as a great example to those who are bloggers of how personal web publishing (by you or your kids) can come back to bite you.
Ann Bartow (on Sivacracy) points to a new article available on SSRN entitled Pornography, Coercion, and Copyright Law 2.0. Bartow argues that, particularly with the growth of user-generated erotica, there is an increased potential for people to be depicted—either at all or in particular contexts—without their consent. To curb this abuse, she argues copyright should be contingent on new protections for the performers/subjects.
The article begins with a premise: that pornography is harmful enough to society that it deserves special censure. She notes, in passing, that she believes this is the case, and that she is proffering an incomplete definition of pornography. I would argue that these topics are unsettled enough that they cannot be put off so casually. Moreover, I don’t think they are necessary to her central argument, which is presented as being about pornography, but really should apply more broadly than that. She argues—correctly, I think—that pornography has become mainstream to the extent that it is created like “any other form of creative output.” But I don’t think she successfully argues that it should be considered differently.
She presents several scenarios in which it is clear that the subject of an image is unhappy with her depictions in online media (all but one case involve female subjects). One of those cases is that of Allison Stokke. (Normally, I would link to the Wikipedia article, but it was deleted—an issue in itself.) Stokke, for the few who are unfamiliar with her story, found herself an internet celebrity, after a number of photographs of her at pole vaulting meet were distributed on the web. In many cases, these photographs were placed in sexual contexts, and Stokke became the focus of a great deal of attention over a short period of time. As Bartow admits, the photographs are not, on their face, pornographic, even by her loose definition. But, she argues, under current copyright owners of photographs are under “no obligation to consider the feeling of their subjects” when they do things like display images on pornographic websites.
Especially given this example, the natural question is why we are dealing with this as an issue of pornography at all. Bartow compellingly argues that meager privacy protections offered by the law place the onus of prosecution on the victim, and that the rapidity with which viral images and videos are spread worldwide makes putting the genie back in the bottle is nearly impossible. There are real reasons to think that there is a need for reform of privacy laws, but by couching this in terms only of pornography, I think Bartow misses the boat. Why should there be special protection in this category? Why should Stokke receive more protection than, say, Star Wars Kid?
In other words, I agree, in part, with Bartow’s argument: the new ways in which images are captured and distributed make for a greater potential of damage to the people depicted in those images. This is particularly true of violent imagery, whether that is “gonzo” pornography or “bum fight” videos, but it is also true of images captured from our everyday lives. I think the problem is much more widespread—and ambiguous—than she presents here. Pictures of me have appeared on the web in contexts that I am unhappy about—as has my name—though not in sexually-related ways. It’s an unnerving experience, but that alone should not make it an illegal act.
At the end, the part of her argument least interesting, and least compelling to me, is the issue of pornography as a special kind of evil; to the participants, to their audiences, or to the culture as a whole. (As an aside, using Rimm’s “study” as evidence doesn’t serve to bolster any argument.) But the larger question of an imbalance of power over the image is an important one. This is as true of erotic material as non-erotic material, and of the unwanted mixture of the two.
The State of Connecticut has a list of criminal convictions since 2000 on the web for easy searching. Unlike other states, this one includes minor infractions like traffic violations. Nosy person that I am, I checked on some of my fellow faculty. Was hoping to find some dark secrets that would reveal something of their psychology: convictions for mayhem with suspended sentences, for example. No such luck: just some speeding tickets and the like.
I started to assemble a list of candidates’ positions on Guantánamo and indefinite detention, but then found that Shayana Kadidal had already done it over at the Huffington Post:
Clinton: Consistent advocate of Gtmo closure; co-sponsored Feinstein bill to close it down. A bit ambiguous at times on coercive interrogation; had wanted more detail on existing practices, later stated torture “cannot be American policy. Period.”
Edwards: says “We are not the country of Abu Ghraib or Guantánamo…. We are Americans and we’re better than that.” Would prohibit torture and rendition, and close Gtmo.
Giuliani: “[N]ot inclined to agree right now [with Colin Powell] that we should necessarily close Guantánamo.” Better on torture; like most former prosecutors, understands how the professionals work conspiracy cases: “You know how I put hundreds of Mafia people in jail? ... we arrested them, we got very significant charges on them, and we questioned them for long periods of time. With very aggressive techniques. Never ever tortured anybody.” [But hasn’t explicitly said that he considers waterboarding more than “aggressive techniques.” – AH]
Huckabee: “I visited Guantánamo just about a year ago. ...I [have] visited every single prison in the Arkansas prison system, and I can tell you most of our prisoners would love to be in a facility more like Guantánamo….” Denounces torture and states that waterboarding is torture.
McCain: Wants Guantánamo closed because it damages U.S. credibility abroad; would move the prisoners to Ft. Leavenworth in Kansas (which would make judicial review of detentions inevitable), and is against indefinite detention without charge. Knows torture firsthand; is against it.
Obama: spokesman says: “supports Guantánamo closing and is still working to find the best possible solution for the prisoners who are there right now.” On torture: “The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. ... Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Torture is how you set back America’s standing in the world, not how you strengthen it.”
Romney: “I believe that Guantánamo plays an important role in protecting our nation from violent, heinous terrorists.” “Guantánamo is a symbol of our resolve.” “The food down there is unbelievable. This is not this gulag; this is a modern prison which treats people with dignity and respect.” Said during June debate: “We ought to double Guantánamo.” (Spokesman later clarified that Romney meant he wanted “to go out and catch more terrorists and doesn’t want to import them [to the U.S.]”) Also supports “enhanced” interrogation techniques; won’t rule out waterboarding.
And to save the Ron Paul Army some time, Paul is the only other Republican candidate who wants to close it.
Of course, when it does close, we’ll just detain them elsewhere, as we are already doing.
I haven’t blogged about the ongoing saga of the Quinnipiac Chronicle, our student paper, which is facing administrative censorship. An editorial printed in the paper lays out the problems: efforts to constrain the way the paper represents the university and its policies. The president doesn’t like how his position has been portrayed in the paper, and the editor has been told it is not appropriate for him to criticize Quinnipiac policy, even when such policy hinders the way in which the newspaper operates. There are other issues, and like any sort of conflict, it’s a lot more gray than black-and-white. What is clear is that the university administration has taken a position that is regressive, and that hurts our reputation as a School of Communication, and, of course, our reputation as a university.
Tin Foil Hat
I have a pet theory. The president of the university, John Lahey, is nothing if not public relations-savvy. What is the guaranteed way of getting publicity for your campus newspaper? Threaten to shut it down, let things stew for a while, then make a firm statement that clearly endorses the autonomy of the newspaper. Think of this as a kind of “Pentagon Papers” for our own little newspaper. In a year the Chronicle may be seen as a beacon of student activist journalism, simultaneously propelling our journalism program to national prominence and dispelling the idea that the Quinnipiac campus is particularly apathetic.
It’s almost a given. If you want publicity, threaten the editor of the university paper when he criticizes an administrative policy. Even better, make sure that the president is directly involved. This is like sending an email to journalists saying “free hooks.” And at least a few of those journalists have bitten. An article appeared last Sunday in the New York Times detailing the conflict, and another article appeared earlier this week in Inside Higher Ed.
On the Other Hand?
On first blush, it looks like there is little to prop up the administration’s position. They offer two issues. The first is that they claim that things have been misquoted or taken out of context in Chronicle articles. This is almost certainly the case: after all, newspapers always fail at incorporating what everyone would like to see in the paper. Newspapers cannot please all of the people all of the time.
However, I am particularly cognizant of this criticism because of an exchange that occurred on this blog. I noted a quote in the Chronicle that seemed odd, and the person quoted argued that she never said what the paper said she said, or that if she did it was taken out of context. She complained to the paper, and the automatic response in these cases—the ethical response—is at the very least to make clear to the readership that the quoted individual disputed the article’s quotation. When I read a response on this blog that suggested that the paper was unwilling to do this, it raised serious flags for me: journalistic ethics require that reporters and editors are sensitive and responsive to their audiences and their sources. I think this is something that the paper should take seriously, and review their procedures for handling complaints about quotes and either publishing retractions or letters from sources contesting the quotation.
The second issue, which comes in a letter from the administration to faculty that I will not quote, suggests that there is an issue of legal liability: if the newspaper publishes content that is libelous, or that reveals protected information about the student (presumably issues protected by FERPA), the university could be held liable. I won’t hold them to this argument, since it seems not only misguided, but potentially damaging. If they are suggesting that by publishing the paper they are editorially responsible for it, I think they are setting them up for a fall down the road. It is almost inevitable that a media outlet will at least be threatened with lawsuit at some point. Even this lowly blog has received such threats from more than one corner. Does the administration really want it on record that they think they have an oversight role in determining content in the paper? If they assert such a role now, it will lead to a lot of back-peddling if and when the paper is sued and the administration tries to wash its hands of culpability.
In the end, what needs to happen is a clear statement from the administration that they have no interest or desire in acting as a censor for the newspaper. That is a vital first step. The second issue—whether university officials are allowed to speak to student journalists directly—is important to the quality of the education QU students receive, but if the administration chooses not to speak to the press, internal or external, there isn’t much that can be done about it. In some ways, the worst possible public relations is limiting your relations with the public. As the university seeks to become better known nationally and internationally, it needs to abandon parochial views and embrace a role that is very much in the public eye.
All of this comes back to an instigating issue. A number of racial epithets were scrawled on the doors of black students’ dorm rooms and elsewhere on campus. In some sick way, this makes Quinnipiac quite a bit like some other major campuses, where racial insensitivity is rising. Unfortunately, it represented yet another black eye for Quinnipiac, in part because of a (correct) impression that it is not particularly diverse. Quinnipiac ranks among the “top” ten whitest law schools in the US, and despite some interesting efforts, many of the students are strikingly unaware of the world outside of this little slice of the eastern seaboard, or outside of their own neighborhoods. It is important that the president not sweep racism under the carpet; like many social ills, it racism breeds best when kept under wraps, quiet, and unchecked. Many students on campus reacted against the racial incidents that occurred, and it is important to reflect the tolerance of our community proudly. We need to demonstrate our beliefs publicly, and conversations with our president should be equally open and public.
What Doesn’t Kill Us
As I said, I am hopeful that good can come out of this incident. As one commentator has noted, this act has energized otherwise placid students at Quinnipiac. She notes this rather ominous YouTube posting, suggesting that there is an undercurrent of activism on campus:
If there is such an undercurrent, it is well hidden. Many of the differences between this campus newspaper and that at the The Daily at the University of Washington are night and day, in part because the latter has successfully navigated efforts at censorship. It’s about page proudly trumpets its independence:
The Daily is the independent student newspaper for the University of Washington. The Daily is produced exclusively by students, with the exception of four non-student UW staff members who provide fiscal and administrative assistance. Any UW student may work for The Daily and will be paid for their work.
All content and advertising is approved by student staff members with no interference by UW staff or administration for an uncensored press. No non-student staff members review editorial content before publication.
A nine-member Board of Student Publications oversees the newspaper, reviews finances, resolves disputes and selects the editor and advertising manager. The board is comprised of representatives from UW administration, the Faculty Senate, the Department of Communication, ASUW, GPSS, a professional publication and The Daily newsroom.
The Daily began as the Pacific Wave in 1891. It became The Daily in 1909 when the paper began publishing five days a week. The Monday edition of the paper was dropped in 1933 during The Great Depression. The Monday publication resumed in 1985 and has run on schedule ever since.
The uncensored approach to student journalism has been controversial at times, but the First Amendment and Supreme Court decisions guarantee this right for students at the University of Washington.
Former UW Communications professor, Don Pember, stated “While freedom of expression has been considered a basic right for the press in this country for nearly 200 years, this right was not articulated for college and high school newspapers until quite recently. Until the 1960s, college and high school journalists enjoyed about as much freedom of expression as the newspaper’s advisor, the high school principal or the college dean was willing to allow.”
In the 1967 Supreme Court decision Dickey vs. Alabama, it was ruled “censorship of school papers is allowed only when the exercise of freedom of speech interferes materially and substantially with the requirement of appropriate discipline and order in the school.”
It remains as the law today.
UW faculty, staff and students can be proud that this university was a pioneer in clarifying the freedom of student press and that University presidents have defended that Constitutional freedom ever since.
The Daily won the Apple Award at the 2006 College Media Adviser Spring Convention in New York City for the best overall four-year college tabloid-sized newspaper in the nation.
Obviously, The Daily has about a century of a head start on the Quinnipiac Chronicle, but I hope that the current efforts to curtail its freedom act as a kind of annealing process, giving student media on campus a more common set of values and objectives.
So you may have noted that Mattel is getting a little bit of guff over their Dom Barbie, to add on to the general problem of the doll’s body mold. On the other hand, Barbie is breaking gender stereotypes with the “I can be” career series. Who knew women could be baby doctors or art teachers?
No, not this Alex, 9th circuit judge 
Ann Bartow (on 