The novel The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzergald has been deemed an American classic within the world of literature. With this being said, anyone who attempted to make a movie out of this book has their work cut out for them. Although it may be difficult, creating a movie that does justice to Fitzgerald's classic can and has been done. In our class, we had the privilege to watch the most recent film version of The Great Gatsby directed by Luhrmann. Luhrmann did a fine job of staying true to the goal and vision of Fitzgerald, but he also made many distinct changes, making his film unique.
The first unique change that Luhrmann made with this film came in the form of narration. In Fitzgerald's book, Nick is the narrator and he is telling the story as if he is recalling his memories, then writing it down on paper. Luhrmann decided to take a slightly different approach with the narration. Instead of Nick telling the story to himself or writing it down, you realize that in the movie he is telling the story to his doctor. One discovers throughout reading The Great Gatsby, that Nick is an alcoholic. The doctor being told the story is most likely helping Nick through his alcoholism. Even though this change was small, it added an extra layer of interest and depth to the movie that the book did not contain. There are a few scenes where the doctor is actually shown; however, for most of the movie Nick is narrating and once in a while there is dialogue between him and the doctor when the doctor responds.
Another element that Luhrmann added that I did not expect from reading the book was the imagery used in the movie. Even though Fitzgerald uses a lot of imagery throughout his story, I pictured it coming to life in a different way than the movie depicted. The use of panning and and flow to the filming of the movie, gives the movie a magical feel. Unlike the movie, I felt the book was a little more serious. Along with the magical feel in many scenes, I also felt that the characters in scenes were almost animated. The scene where I noticed this the most is when Nick arrives at Tom and Daisy's house, and Tom jumps off the horse to greet Nick. Another place where I noticed a hint of animation, was during the entrance or introduction of Gatsby. The fireworks in the background almost gave the scene an aspect of fantasy.
The final difference that I noticed between the movie and the book was the character depiction. In the book, Fitzgerald seems to emphasize how Nick is shy and reclusive. In the movie,, his character is much more outgoing and loves to party. I have a feeling that Luhrmann did this to make Nick seem more interesting. In the book you often forget about him becuase he is narrating. The only time that one remembers he is there, is when one of the other characters mentions his name. Another character that was showcased differently than the book was Myrtle. In the book, Fitzgerald describes Myrtle as slightly ugly, hefty, and without self confidence. On the other hand, in the movie her character is pretty, seductive, and confident. In the movie Myrtle was drastically different than how I pictured her in the book. This change may not seem faithful to the book, but I think Luhrmann decided to take liberty with Myrtle for many reasons. Since Myrtle is depicted as unattractive in the book, it is a little difficult to believe that Tom would have an affair with her. People wonder, "How could Tom leave someone as beautiful as Daisy?' By giving Myrtle a more seductive personality and making her more attractive, the people watching the movie may have an easier time understanding why Tom chose to have an affair.
Although the movie and the book have numerous similarities, I think the changes that Luhrmann chose to make to the movie were successful. The audience that is watching the movie may be very different than the audience that chooses to read the book, so it only makes sense to formulate a movie that appeals to a particular audience.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Map Analysis
Map Analysis
The first map that I chose was from the David Rumsey’s Map Collection called the “Maine”. The map indicates all of the mountain ranges, rivers, and bodies of water throughout the land. The map is also broken up into twelve colored sections. Each section contain multiple towns or ranges that appear to have English or European names, but a few have Indian titles. The colored sections don’t appear to be divided up between any particular towns or settlements. By looking very closely at the map, one can see that it has numbered squares drawn on it. Some squares even have letters, but the squares seem to overlap between the settlements and colored sections.
I think that this map shows the way Americans seem to conquer land, give it their own name, and claim it as their own, just because they “discovered” it. The European names given to the settlements and towns show that Europeans were probably the creators of the map. The map also depicts the little respect that many settlers had for Indians. Babb’s chapter also explains how as more settlers came to America, the maps contained fewer and fewer Indian names through the quote, “Aside from a leopard-like animal and a few trees dotting the landscape, no indigenous elements are present” (p. 54).Very few of the locations on the map contain Indian titles. The creation of the map was most likely to help European settlers in Maine know where all of the other towns were. With very few Indian names on the map, European immigrants may feel more comfortable settling and feel more at home.
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~200428~3000321
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Is the American Dream Still Alive?
Since its formation, the United States has been viewed as the land of opportunity. Many people have flocked to the U.S. with an aspiration to experience the American Dream. In the beginning, the hope for many immigrants was very much still alive, but as time went on many of them realized the journey to financial success would be very long and difficult. Just like the immigrants of early America, many people in the U.S.today also realize that social mobility may not be as apparent as they had hoped. After reading the multiple sources provided, I have come to the conclusion that the idea of the American Dream is starting to become more of a figment of our imagination and less of a reality.
The United States has always been known for its American Dream as a result of its less prominent social classes when compared to other countries. Even though there may not be a clear line separating the social classes in America, we are ranked as one of the lowest for social mobility. One of the main reasons for the lack of social mobility in the U.S. is the increasing need for a high level of education in order to be economically successful. The article "No Rich Child Left Behind" also attributes the lack of social mobility to the emphasis on education. In the article they also emphasize the facts that in recent years children that come from rich families perform better in school, have higher test scores, are more likely to attend graduate school, and are more likely to enroll in a highly selective university compared to children that come from middle-class or poor families. I feel that there are many possible reasons and explanations for this data. The first reason for this gap is that students from rich families have more pressure to do well and live up to the expectations of their families. If their parents were hard-working and successful, then they will expect their children to use the tools they give them and also be hard-working and successful. When it comes to college, I think the reason for higher completion and attendance of graduate school for children from rich families is the affordability. With every generation, college is becoming even more competitive and expensive. A student who is from a poor family will have to work multiple jobs throughout college in order to pay for the tuition. Working so many hours and studying at the same time can become very difficult and stressful. On the other hand, a student whose family can afford to send them to college has much less to worry about and can simply focus on their grades and doing well in college. For this reason, students who come from rich families in a way have a head start and an advantage over students from poor or middle-class families.
In some ways, people may argue that the American Dream still exists because most of the people who are rich did not inherit their economic status, but achieved it through hard work or intelligence. This may be true, but it does not mean that the social mobility is equal for everyone. The article "Social Mobility in America: Repairing the Rungs" makes this point. One of the lines that I think properly explains how the definition of a rich person has changed is, "An aristocracy that gambled its money away on 'wine, women and song' has been replaced by a business-school-educated elite whose members marry one another and spend their money wisely on Mandarin lessons and Economist subscriptions for their children." This line shows that the smart and educated elite are becoming even richer by investing so much in their own children's education and only marrying other smart people. On the flip side, many of the people from poor families are marrying less and less, becoming single mothers, and continuing the cycle of endless work with little pay. It is a very difficult situation because receiving a good education has never been more important for success, but a good education also has never been more expensive. In many ways these poor families can't afford to help provide their children with the tools they need to succeed. Sadly, this may mean that the gap between the rich and poor will only increase as we look into the future.
While the majority of the United States may be experiencing a lack of social mobility, there are still a few people who have been able to have the opportunity to succeed or are able to look at a different perspective. I thought the woman from the article "Gatsby's Green Light Beckons a New Set of Strivers" had a very interesting and optimistic perspective on the American Dream. According to the woman in this article, the U.S. is a place where people strive to achieve something beyond their reach in life. From her viewpoint, the story "The Great Gatsby" speaks of possibility and aspiration. She realized that everyone might not meet the American Dream, but it is their interpretation that counts. In America, she feels that she can achieve her goal of receiving an education and living a comfortable life. I like her positive point of view, because living the American Dream doesn't necessarily mean you have to be rich, as long as you have reached your goals. The author of "This I Believe: The American Dream Lives On" also had an optimistic view of America, and believes that America is still a land of opportunity. The author pointed out the many famous people in America who were once immigrants or very poor and rose up to be very rich and economically successful. He feels that simply being born in America is an opportunity and a gift in itself. I appreciate the author's optimism, but I also feel that the stories of the few famous and successful people only represent a small portion of society. It may be true that a few people in the United States have been able to surpass the social mobility barrier, but the majority of the country does not have the ability to overcome this barrier. It is my hope that achieving a high level of education would become available to everyone and not just the rich; I know this will be very difficult but we can at least try.
The United States has always been known for its American Dream as a result of its less prominent social classes when compared to other countries. Even though there may not be a clear line separating the social classes in America, we are ranked as one of the lowest for social mobility. One of the main reasons for the lack of social mobility in the U.S. is the increasing need for a high level of education in order to be economically successful. The article "No Rich Child Left Behind" also attributes the lack of social mobility to the emphasis on education. In the article they also emphasize the facts that in recent years children that come from rich families perform better in school, have higher test scores, are more likely to attend graduate school, and are more likely to enroll in a highly selective university compared to children that come from middle-class or poor families. I feel that there are many possible reasons and explanations for this data. The first reason for this gap is that students from rich families have more pressure to do well and live up to the expectations of their families. If their parents were hard-working and successful, then they will expect their children to use the tools they give them and also be hard-working and successful. When it comes to college, I think the reason for higher completion and attendance of graduate school for children from rich families is the affordability. With every generation, college is becoming even more competitive and expensive. A student who is from a poor family will have to work multiple jobs throughout college in order to pay for the tuition. Working so many hours and studying at the same time can become very difficult and stressful. On the other hand, a student whose family can afford to send them to college has much less to worry about and can simply focus on their grades and doing well in college. For this reason, students who come from rich families in a way have a head start and an advantage over students from poor or middle-class families.
In some ways, people may argue that the American Dream still exists because most of the people who are rich did not inherit their economic status, but achieved it through hard work or intelligence. This may be true, but it does not mean that the social mobility is equal for everyone. The article "Social Mobility in America: Repairing the Rungs" makes this point. One of the lines that I think properly explains how the definition of a rich person has changed is, "An aristocracy that gambled its money away on 'wine, women and song' has been replaced by a business-school-educated elite whose members marry one another and spend their money wisely on Mandarin lessons and Economist subscriptions for their children." This line shows that the smart and educated elite are becoming even richer by investing so much in their own children's education and only marrying other smart people. On the flip side, many of the people from poor families are marrying less and less, becoming single mothers, and continuing the cycle of endless work with little pay. It is a very difficult situation because receiving a good education has never been more important for success, but a good education also has never been more expensive. In many ways these poor families can't afford to help provide their children with the tools they need to succeed. Sadly, this may mean that the gap between the rich and poor will only increase as we look into the future.
While the majority of the United States may be experiencing a lack of social mobility, there are still a few people who have been able to have the opportunity to succeed or are able to look at a different perspective. I thought the woman from the article "Gatsby's Green Light Beckons a New Set of Strivers" had a very interesting and optimistic perspective on the American Dream. According to the woman in this article, the U.S. is a place where people strive to achieve something beyond their reach in life. From her viewpoint, the story "The Great Gatsby" speaks of possibility and aspiration. She realized that everyone might not meet the American Dream, but it is their interpretation that counts. In America, she feels that she can achieve her goal of receiving an education and living a comfortable life. I like her positive point of view, because living the American Dream doesn't necessarily mean you have to be rich, as long as you have reached your goals. The author of "This I Believe: The American Dream Lives On" also had an optimistic view of America, and believes that America is still a land of opportunity. The author pointed out the many famous people in America who were once immigrants or very poor and rose up to be very rich and economically successful. He feels that simply being born in America is an opportunity and a gift in itself. I appreciate the author's optimism, but I also feel that the stories of the few famous and successful people only represent a small portion of society. It may be true that a few people in the United States have been able to surpass the social mobility barrier, but the majority of the country does not have the ability to overcome this barrier. It is my hope that achieving a high level of education would become available to everyone and not just the rich; I know this will be very difficult but we can at least try.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Social Class
My own experiences with social class are in many ways both similar and different to the social class experiences of the rest of the U.S. Just like the majority of Americans who describe themselves as middle class Americans, I also associate myself as someone who is in the middle class. I don't feel as if I am scraping by or worrying about my next meal, but I also don't feel as if I can freely buy extravagant items without any worry.
According to the article "Shadowy Lines That Still Divide", the U.S. has supposedly become a society that is moving toward classlessness. I think this is true in the sense that it is increasingly difficult to tell what class someone is from, but I think that below the surface social classes are still a powerful force in the U.S. One reason that it may be more difficult to tell classes apart is because people are willing to go into debt in order to be accepted. They may have a nice car or a nice phone, but in reality they are not actually able to afford these items. On the flip side, the place where I see social class affecting Americans more than ever is in education. The article "Shadowy Lines That Still Divide" also raises this point by saying, "At a time when education matters more than ever, success in school remains tightly linked to social class." Throughout my experiences, I have realized the importance of parent involvement and having the proper resources in order to get into college. With the number of students furthering their education at its highest, it is harder than ever to get into college. In my own life I have seen that the students who do not have college resources, active parent involvement, or access to good education seem to be left behind in the race to college. I know that without my parents guidance with finding scholarships, or getting financial aid, I would not be able to afford the expense of college. This is where I see the largest gap in social class.
The documentary "People Like Us" also opened my eyes to many different aspects of social class. I did not realize how different the way of life is on the opposite ends of the social class spectrum. It was very interesting and surprising to hear that the "Silver Spoon" Americans even have certain phrases they use or topics of conversation that associate them with their class. They also emphasized the idea that you can't become one of them or learn how to be like them; you are simply born that way. This made me question if it really is possible to move up the social economic ladder, or if everyone is constricted to their previous way of life. The documentary "People Like Us" and the article "Shadowy Lines That Still Divide" both said that it is very difficult for someone to move up or down the economic ladder. They also pointed out that the only place where you see movement is in the middle class. As someone who is a part of the middle class, I feel that I would be able to move up the economic ladder, but it would be through education and hard work. I am very thankful that I have had the opportunities that I do, and I hope that these opportunities would one day be available to everyone no matter the social class in which they are born.
According to the article "Shadowy Lines That Still Divide", the U.S. has supposedly become a society that is moving toward classlessness. I think this is true in the sense that it is increasingly difficult to tell what class someone is from, but I think that below the surface social classes are still a powerful force in the U.S. One reason that it may be more difficult to tell classes apart is because people are willing to go into debt in order to be accepted. They may have a nice car or a nice phone, but in reality they are not actually able to afford these items. On the flip side, the place where I see social class affecting Americans more than ever is in education. The article "Shadowy Lines That Still Divide" also raises this point by saying, "At a time when education matters more than ever, success in school remains tightly linked to social class." Throughout my experiences, I have realized the importance of parent involvement and having the proper resources in order to get into college. With the number of students furthering their education at its highest, it is harder than ever to get into college. In my own life I have seen that the students who do not have college resources, active parent involvement, or access to good education seem to be left behind in the race to college. I know that without my parents guidance with finding scholarships, or getting financial aid, I would not be able to afford the expense of college. This is where I see the largest gap in social class.
The documentary "People Like Us" also opened my eyes to many different aspects of social class. I did not realize how different the way of life is on the opposite ends of the social class spectrum. It was very interesting and surprising to hear that the "Silver Spoon" Americans even have certain phrases they use or topics of conversation that associate them with their class. They also emphasized the idea that you can't become one of them or learn how to be like them; you are simply born that way. This made me question if it really is possible to move up the social economic ladder, or if everyone is constricted to their previous way of life. The documentary "People Like Us" and the article "Shadowy Lines That Still Divide" both said that it is very difficult for someone to move up or down the economic ladder. They also pointed out that the only place where you see movement is in the middle class. As someone who is a part of the middle class, I feel that I would be able to move up the economic ladder, but it would be through education and hard work. I am very thankful that I have had the opportunities that I do, and I hope that these opportunities would one day be available to everyone no matter the social class in which they are born.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Sound and Fury
The two arguments presented in this documentary were very different but both very interesting. I have had brief interaction in my life with people who are deaf, but not enough to fully understand the discourse. It was eye opening to see people who are deaf describe how they have their own culture. I always pictured it as, we are all human and just some of us can hear while others of us aren't able to. The documentary helped me understand that they consider it a culture because they communicate through their own language of sign language. There were two arguments presented in this documentary. These arguments consisted of whether it should be considered right or considered wrong for a deaf person to get a cochlear implant.
The father of Heather named Peter was strongly against the cochlear implant. He thought that getting an implant meant you were looking down on deaf culture and not being happy with who you are. He also believed that being deaf was a blessing instead of an impairment. This was in some ways difficult for me to grasp, because I am not part of that discourse and I can't imagine life without hearing. It is great that he is happy with who he is, but I think if you have the opportunity to gain hearing and communicate with the hearing world, then you should take it. In some parts of the documentary the father Peter contradicted himself about being successful in his career. It is true that he has a great job but he also admitted that he would not be able to go up any higher in the company because of his deafness. My question is why he wouldn't want his daughter to have all the oppportunities in the hearing world along with being part of deaf culture.
The other family in the documentary was the brother of Peter who's newborn son was also deaf. I think that the brother Chris made the right decision in getting their son Peter the cochlear implant at a young age. This way he would be able to learn how to speak and not have to deal with all of the pain and lonliness that can come with being deaf. He could have the same opportunities as his twin brother who is not deaf. Mari, the wife of Chris shared that in some cases children who go to a deaf school may only be able to read at a 4th grade level when they graduate high school. As a parent I would not want this to be my child, and I would want to give them as many opportunities to be successful as possible.
Even though I feel that the cochlear implant is a great advancement in our technology, the mother of Mari did bring up a good point. She was worried that in the future the cochlear implant would cause deaf culture to slowly die. I agree that this may be a sad thing because sign language and their way of communication is so important to them. Since it is very important, I think that children who recieve the cochlear implant should still be taught sign language. This way they can understand their roots, but have the chance to be part of both cultures. The other thing that I think about is how ridding the world of deafness could actually be a good thing. I think that hearing is wonderful and an amazing part of our bodies, just like sight. Would someone who is blind really say that they would never want to see, because they are part of blind culture?
There will probably always be deaf people born into this world for as long as the world exists. I think the best solution is to implant children who are born deaf with the cochlear implant so they can have every possible opportunity. I believe it is also important to teach them about the history of deaf culture and the language of sign language. In a way this will give them the best of both worlds.
The father of Heather named Peter was strongly against the cochlear implant. He thought that getting an implant meant you were looking down on deaf culture and not being happy with who you are. He also believed that being deaf was a blessing instead of an impairment. This was in some ways difficult for me to grasp, because I am not part of that discourse and I can't imagine life without hearing. It is great that he is happy with who he is, but I think if you have the opportunity to gain hearing and communicate with the hearing world, then you should take it. In some parts of the documentary the father Peter contradicted himself about being successful in his career. It is true that he has a great job but he also admitted that he would not be able to go up any higher in the company because of his deafness. My question is why he wouldn't want his daughter to have all the oppportunities in the hearing world along with being part of deaf culture.
The other family in the documentary was the brother of Peter who's newborn son was also deaf. I think that the brother Chris made the right decision in getting their son Peter the cochlear implant at a young age. This way he would be able to learn how to speak and not have to deal with all of the pain and lonliness that can come with being deaf. He could have the same opportunities as his twin brother who is not deaf. Mari, the wife of Chris shared that in some cases children who go to a deaf school may only be able to read at a 4th grade level when they graduate high school. As a parent I would not want this to be my child, and I would want to give them as many opportunities to be successful as possible.
Even though I feel that the cochlear implant is a great advancement in our technology, the mother of Mari did bring up a good point. She was worried that in the future the cochlear implant would cause deaf culture to slowly die. I agree that this may be a sad thing because sign language and their way of communication is so important to them. Since it is very important, I think that children who recieve the cochlear implant should still be taught sign language. This way they can understand their roots, but have the chance to be part of both cultures. The other thing that I think about is how ridding the world of deafness could actually be a good thing. I think that hearing is wonderful and an amazing part of our bodies, just like sight. Would someone who is blind really say that they would never want to see, because they are part of blind culture?
There will probably always be deaf people born into this world for as long as the world exists. I think the best solution is to implant children who are born deaf with the cochlear implant so they can have every possible opportunity. I believe it is also important to teach them about the history of deaf culture and the language of sign language. In a way this will give them the best of both worlds.
Monday, September 23, 2013
My hidden phobia
When most people describe their phobia or fear, it is common to hear people talk about their fear of heights or the occasional spider. Send me on a huge roller coaster and I will be delighted. Put a spider on my head and I won't even jump. However, there is one thing that will raise the hair on my arms.This item is a couch with a cover. Maybe it is the unknown piece of moldy food that lays hidden between the cushions, or the crazy texture of that old jean material cover. I do not know the exact reason as to why this strikes so much fear into me, but the fear is definitely apparent.
I think my fear began when I was about seven years old. For our Christmas celebration, my dad's side of the family decided to rent a cabin on an island in the middle of a lake somewhere in Minnesota. The outside of the cabin was very fun and exciting. One of my cousin's even brought a dog sled accompanied by her four huskies. It was the best feeling in the world to ride on the ice, while pretending to be a professional sled dog owner. Although, the outside of the cabin offered lots of fun and amazing adventure, the inside was a different strory. There was a pretty good chance that no one had lived in the cabin for many decades. The floor inside the cabin and the floor of the woods ouside the cabin bore a very close resemblance to each other. The furniture in the cabin had also seen its better days, and every couch or chair had a covering on it. Even my childhood curiosity didn't dare to have a peak at what lay underneath those couch covers. It was here on this family vacation where my phobia of couch covers began.
Although I have not been to another old cabin in the middle of a lake, my family has visited a few cabins since. I am not sure why, but the common theme at every cabin I go to seems to be couch covers. As you might imagine, this is a very scary moment for me. I have decided that whenever I go to places like this, I will just try to avoid the couches altogether. This usually means I end up sitting on the floor, but this is okay by me. My family finds it a bit odd, but I just tell them it is more comfortable being close to the ground. Not very many people knew about my fear of couch covers, but I guess you could say that now my secret phobia is uncovered. No pun intended!
I think my fear began when I was about seven years old. For our Christmas celebration, my dad's side of the family decided to rent a cabin on an island in the middle of a lake somewhere in Minnesota. The outside of the cabin was very fun and exciting. One of my cousin's even brought a dog sled accompanied by her four huskies. It was the best feeling in the world to ride on the ice, while pretending to be a professional sled dog owner. Although, the outside of the cabin offered lots of fun and amazing adventure, the inside was a different strory. There was a pretty good chance that no one had lived in the cabin for many decades. The floor inside the cabin and the floor of the woods ouside the cabin bore a very close resemblance to each other. The furniture in the cabin had also seen its better days, and every couch or chair had a covering on it. Even my childhood curiosity didn't dare to have a peak at what lay underneath those couch covers. It was here on this family vacation where my phobia of couch covers began.
Although I have not been to another old cabin in the middle of a lake, my family has visited a few cabins since. I am not sure why, but the common theme at every cabin I go to seems to be couch covers. As you might imagine, this is a very scary moment for me. I have decided that whenever I go to places like this, I will just try to avoid the couches altogether. This usually means I end up sitting on the floor, but this is okay by me. My family finds it a bit odd, but I just tell them it is more comfortable being close to the ground. Not very many people knew about my fear of couch covers, but I guess you could say that now my secret phobia is uncovered. No pun intended!
Monday, September 9, 2013
Are There Limitis To Free Speech Blog
Every day the press releases information and secrets that citizens of the U.S. soak up can't seem to get enough of. Many of these secrets are about politicians or celebrities and often published for means of entertainment only. I don't think that it is necessary information to know about every detail of Kim Kardashian's life. Although most information and secrets are ones like these that don't jeapordize our nations security, I think that some secrets are much better kept. In the case of WikiLeaks, most of the information they release to the public is very classified information. Some may say that as citizens of the United States we have the right to know this information. I think that this is true to some extent. For example, if the government knew we were going to be attacked by another countries nuclear weapon, this information must be shared with the rest of the country. In other words if the information directly affects our safety we should know about it. There are some cases where information that is meant to be classified is better off not being shared. A moment in our countries history where classified information should not have been shared was during World War II. Gabriel Schoenfeld brought up this point in his article Can U.S. Bring Assange to Justice? The press announced that the U.S. may have broken Japanese naval codes. Thankfully the Japanese did not notice the newspapers and did not alter their codes. If the Japanese had noticed the newspaper, the course of the war could have been drastically different. This information was also not necessary for everyone in the U.S. to know and could have affected our national security.
According to Julian Assange, the man in charge of WikiLeaks, they do filter through and carefully choose which pieces of classified information they are going to release. Even though this may be true, most of this information is not directly related to the safety of U.S. citizens; therefore if it is meant to be classified it should probably stay classified. In some ways Assange did break the Espionage Act of 1917, because he knew by releasing the information that it had the potential to harm the U.S. In other ways he may have been trying to exercise and be an activist for free speech, which is a good thing. He is riding on a very fine line, making it understandable why it is so difficult for the Judges in his trial to come to a verdict. If Assange is accused of breaking the law, many could say that it goes against our free speech amendment. If Assange isn't accused then people who actually do leak information with the purpose of injuring the U.S. could argue that what Assange did is no different. You can't exactly pick and choose who you want to convict based on the degree of their intentions to injure the U.S.
I think that the best idea would be to not convict Assange as long as he agrees to discontinue WikiLeaks. I think that in the end this would please people on both sides of the argument.
According to Julian Assange, the man in charge of WikiLeaks, they do filter through and carefully choose which pieces of classified information they are going to release. Even though this may be true, most of this information is not directly related to the safety of U.S. citizens; therefore if it is meant to be classified it should probably stay classified. In some ways Assange did break the Espionage Act of 1917, because he knew by releasing the information that it had the potential to harm the U.S. In other ways he may have been trying to exercise and be an activist for free speech, which is a good thing. He is riding on a very fine line, making it understandable why it is so difficult for the Judges in his trial to come to a verdict. If Assange is accused of breaking the law, many could say that it goes against our free speech amendment. If Assange isn't accused then people who actually do leak information with the purpose of injuring the U.S. could argue that what Assange did is no different. You can't exactly pick and choose who you want to convict based on the degree of their intentions to injure the U.S.
I think that the best idea would be to not convict Assange as long as he agrees to discontinue WikiLeaks. I think that in the end this would please people on both sides of the argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)