Blog Post #8

I would love to be at the Felix G. Woodward Library at Austin Peay State University at 2:00 pm March 31. Bruce Barry will be giving a presentation entitled "Freedom of Speech on a University Campus and in the Workplace" based on his book Speechless: The Erosion of Free Expression in the American Workplace. As a 20-something woman who has never held a "real job," the review I found of Barry's book terrified me. I can accept that I cannot speak as freely as I can when sitting in a restaurant with my friends on a Friday night, but it worries me that I could be fired for the views I express outside of the workplace. If it would have to do with my job or with the organization I work for, then I could potentially understand the conflict; to be fired for expressing a view that does not have anything to do with the job or the company is appalling to me. While I do not utilize bumper stickers to express my opinion, I do not think any one's job should be at risk for something like that. The one that made me the most nervous was the flight attendant whose job was at risk because the airline did not like what she was writing on her personal blog. My blog safety and privacy has been questioned during this class, but I have complete control over who can see my personal blog as it is protected through a username (the person's email that I add as allowed users) and a password that they choose. The thought of my personal thoughts having an effect on my job is incredibly unsettling. My performance at part time job has nothing to do with my political beliefs, or my choices when I am not at work.

Based on the review, I'm wondering how others feel about this and if anyone else is wanting to read Barry's book.

Blog #7

I forgot to post a blog entry before leaving the city for spring break. As I was driving, I heard a story about a court case in California that was recently decided on appeal. I then was able to find a few articles about it on the internet. It had a big effect on the way free speech is looked at in California. The decision states that a California law that bans the sale of violent video games to children is a violation of free speech. Games that were "patently offensive" to children would have required a sticker on the game that said "18" and any sellers who were caught selling these videos to children would have to pay a $1000 fine. What this decision does, at least in the state of California, is draw a line between sexually explicit material and violent material. The decision also draws a line between protecting minors from harm and attempting to control minor's thoughts.

I can agree with the court when they say the government should not be controlling anyone's thoughts. What I do not understand is the distinction between sexually explicit material and violent material. I know that this is an area where I would be much more conservative than others, and I know that if I ever have children I would not allow them to play violent games. I'm a fairly queasy person, especially when it comes to violence and blood/gore, and I tend to ask my mom or sister to "Tell me when I can look" when watching shows like ER or CSI:(insert city). I would not need the government to tell me or any future children I had to avoid violent games because I would not allow them to begin with. This being said, I don't have a problem with another parent making the decision to allow their children to play violent games--it is not my decision to make. However, I still think that minors should have to get parental permission to purchase "patently offensive" video games, similar to movie R ratings require.

I also think minors who spend all their time playing video games need to be required to spend time with people in reality to avoid events like this, although this again comes in with parental supervision and not so much government intervention.

Indiana Senate Bill 348 Passes

The Indiana State Senate passed SB 348 February 24, 2009. Referred to as the "Library Bill" in an article in the Indy Star, the bill would require all counties except for Marion to form a committee to look at the library services in each county and decide if it should expand, consolidate, or do nothing. The goal appears to be to improve library services to all residents of Indiana. The article states that approximately a half million residents of Indiana do not have library services where they live despite the state housing 239 library districts in 92 counties. I think this is a great goal to have, as public libraries should be accessible to all.

The problem I have with this bill is that by excluding one county, it may not really be serving the needs of Indiana residents. The purpose of the committees in each county are to look at the services of each library to its residents and look at options. One of the options is to leave the library system in the county as it is. I cannot believe that the representatives of Speedway or even the Speedway library itself does not want to look into how well it serves the residents in its districts. Speedway has voiced its concerns of being consolidated into the IMCPL, but by keeping Marion country from forming a committee to assess the services supplied to residents, Speedway is possibly keeping services from residents for the fear of something that is not guaranteed to happen in the first place. If Marion County were to perform the study through a committee and find that the county has done a good job of meeting its residents needs, that would help Speedway in their desire to remain independent. If Marion County would find that it is not doing the best job it could, wouldn't the Speedway library want to do its part to help its residents?

In a related article, it is reported that Beech Grove, an independent public library in the same situation as Speedway, understands Speedways concerns but would not have opposed Marion County being in the bill.