Source: AP, WENN

Question…and this is embarrassing…

What if we, you and me, are to blame, at least partially, for what happened in Steubenville, what we hear on “U.O.N.E.O.,” and the unfortunate rape culture within Hip Hop?

I’ve seen and heard many response from artists, consumers, readers, bloggers, journalists, etc. who are not happy with Rick Ross’ lyrics. Things like“He’s misguided.”  “He took it too far.” “He hasn’t offered a real apology.”

To them I say: We have misguided him.We have allowed him to take it that far. And he’s not the only one who needs to really apologize—although mere remorseful words alone won’t change the entire culture.

For the record, the rape culture is not exclusive to Hip Hop. Many have adamantly expressed that point. And they are obviously correct. But if we want to be proud of Hip Hop for its presence on the global stage, let’s not downplay the influence it then has, whether deservingly or not, on popular culture. The culture of rape that exists within the broader society needs to be attacked, but it is also reasonable to challenge people with respect to their influence. Platforms should bring expectations because platforms give power. Sure, it’s not fair for mainstream society to demonize a culture (hip hop) rooted in the black community when society at large faces the same issues. But our double standard arguments can be distracting. We want the blame to be shared for the rape culture, great; but let’s not argue that so much so that Hip Hop becomes a victim of mainstream media, and we forget the issue at hand! What would make Rick Ross think he could rap those lyrics? Did he really think no one would catch them? Or did he not think there was anything to catch that was troublesome?

By no means am I suggesting, as he did, that the lyrics are being misinterpreted. Because if they were, he would have told us what he really meant. Then again, can you imagine? A Hip Hop artist having to explain his lyrical content? That might be shocking enough considering a good beat is all you really need to distract people from your bad (in multiple senses) lyrics. So, why did he say it? Better yet, why did he think it, then write it (pardon me if he goes off the dome), and have no qualms about even recording it? Not to mention, everyone else who let that verse make the final master.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that in the early ’90s the Supreme Court decided Uncle Luke and the 2 Live Crew could be as As narsty As They Wanna Be. And guess what? President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, defended the 2 Live Crew in this landmark decision. Or maybe it was back in the late ’80s when we allowed N.W.A. to glorify brutality against the police in response to police brutality. (They were speaking truth about police injustice, but two wrongs will never equal right.) Then again, it could have been in 2004 when we dismissed Spelman students for not allowing Nelly to hold a bone marrow drive at their school without addressing his “Tip Drill” video at the event as well. Better yet, maybe it’s because so much of what is in popular Hip Hop songs, in general, already revolves around sex. And their videos leave not much to the imagination. Everything points to sex. But it’s not just the male rappers; from Foxy Brown and Lil Kim before to Nicki Minaj today, sex permeates the content. Meanwhile, we’re all for free speech, and artistic liberty, but what is it doing to the culture? Do we not realize that what artists say and do trickles down to our youth?

Depending on what the case is, if you ask our Facebook followers if a person should get in trouble with their employers for things they say on their personal Facebook pages, a majority often say no. But I’m sure when folks read what former fire captain Brian Beckmann had to say on his account, a few people will rethink their stance for at least a moment.

In his social media post, Beckmann called out prosecutor Angela Corey (who charged George Zimmerman with second-degree murder for killing Trayvon Martin) for her choice to seek second-degree murder charges on Zimmerman, as well as the parents of “urban youth” for being welfare folks who can’t take care of their responsibilities. In his opinion of course.

“I and my co-workers could rewrite the book on whether our urban youths are victims of racist profiling or products of their failed, sh–bag, ignorant, pathetic, welfare dependent excuses for parents, but like Mrs. Corey, we speak only the truth.”

If that wasn’t enough, Beckmann finished his rant by saying, “They’re just misunderstood little church-going angels and the ghetto hoodie look doesn’t have anything to do with why people wonder if they’re about to get jacked by a thug.”

Though he thought himself to be mighty slick, according to The Miami Herald, someone took a screenshot of the post and sent it to Beckmann’s bosses. The folks at human resources agreed that his comments were not only inappropriate, but very unacceptable. It was decided on Monday that he would be punished for his words and be demoted back to a firefighter. Why? Well, because even though his Facebook has nothing to do with his work, by spouting a whole lot of nonsense and involving his co-workers in his post (“I and my co-workers…”), he shook the confidence of the public as someone who is supposed to be in charge. His disciplinary action report said this:

“While the opinion posted may have been personal, as a captain with Miami-Dade Fire Rescue, it greatly disrupted the public’s confidence in our entire organization as a result of the reference to ‘my co-workers.’”

Not sure why Beckmann felt the need to try and pull the “urban youths who are products of their failed environment and crappy parents” in reference to the Martin case. Trayvon’s parents aren’t on welfare, and he was killed while trying to navigate the gated community his father lived in. And for the umpteenth time, can people stop playing stupid and fess up to the fact that EVERYBODY owns at least one hoodie!? Can we please stop acting like a hooded sweater is all the excuse someone needs to feel intimidated and open fire on someone not posing a threat to them? It’s tired at this point, and we all know the real reason Trayvon was targeted by George Zimmerman.

No need for me to do my own rant, so I’ll just wrap it up by asking you this: Do you think his department made the right decision to demote him? I mean, the man still has his job, but they just didn’t see him fit for a leadership role. Was that a good decision, or in your mind, were they wrong and is this just another case of free speech being attacked?

More on Madame Noire!

• Bet You Didn’t Know: Secrets Behind the Making of “The Color Purple”
• Lord Help Me, I’ve Got The Old Chick in The Club, Ready For a Family Itch
• An Open Letter to People With Jobs…Who Don’t Want to Work
• Wondering What The Most Popular Baby Names Were of 2011?
• Made For T.V. Moms: Our Favorite Reality Show Mothers
• Where Are They Now? The Cast of “New York Undercover”
• Evening Eye Candy: Model Broderick Hunter

The late Gil Scott-Heron used to say that the “revolution won’t be televised.” Nowadays, it appears that certain dictators and oppressive governmental agencies around the globe are doing their best to silence or limit the voices of their citizens.

As robust democratic movements have recently transpired in Iran amid the election protests opposing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and in Cairo during its struggle against the tyrannical leadership of former president Hosni Mubarak, the world has been able to witness injustices and brutal behavior- firsthand and live- via Twitter and Facebook like never before.

In the case of Egypt, many individuals were also able to see the actions of their government to shut down the access of the Internet to limit civil unrest. One would think that similar actions to block communication in the United States should not occur due to constitutional law and state-specific legal protections. But, our nation and others have lately witnessed the now-infamous shutdown of underground cell phone service by the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to disrupt protesters in San Francisco who have become fed up with alleged police brutality.

The First Amendment of the Constitution does allow peaceful demonstrations and the freedom of assembly as means to redress grievances. From a state perspective, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a 1967 California Supreme Court ruling found that a city could not prohibit non-disruptive political activity inside a railroad station. Taking this into consideration, did BART officials violate the free speech rights of the protesters by cutting power to its wireless nodes to prevent live blogging? I believe that BART did overstep its boundaries, although they may not have technically violated any laws.

Certainly, one can make the argument that BART turned off cell phone hardware on its own property to address public safety and thus restricted communication based on reasonable and neutral viewpoints. Thus, there are no legal issues. And, to be sure, this is definitely different from a case where the government would shut down private networks or interfere with communication on private property.

By Charlotte Young

India has put its country on Internet lockdown. The Indian Department of Information Technology has issued new regulations that attempt to restrict web content they view as “harassing, hateful” or “blasphemous,” reports The New York Times.

The restrictions have caused an uproar among free speech advocates and Internet users who say the regulations “could severely curtail debate and discussion on the Internet.”

Additionally, the law also demands that sites such as YouTube and Facebook remove any offensive content within 36 hours of a request from the Indian government without allowing the Internet user responsible for the content a chance to respond.

“What are we, Saudi Arabia?” asked Pushkar Raj, the general secretary for the People’s Union for Civil Liberties in India.  “We don’t expect this from India. This is something very serious.”

Although fewer than 10 percent of Indians even have access to the Internet, mobile devices are quickly increasing the numbers. More than 700 million cell phone accounts have been created in India.

The country has also largely benefited financially from the technology increase due to its role in software and Web services creation.

One of the very first things you learn as a commentator on the Internet is to never – and I mean never – feed the trolls.

We’re not talking about the beastly creature that tormented the three Billy Goats Gruff in the classic Norwegian fairytale, but rather the internet slang term used for the anonymous persons that posts inflammatory and just flat out mean-spirited comments on online discussion forums, chat rooms or in the comment section of your blog.

As a writer, particularly one who publishes their work online, you will learn to develop a thicker skin over time to deal with attacks from those whose sole purpose is to provoke an emotional-based response. As infuriating it is and can be at times, consider the trolls as a not-so-pleasant consequence that comes with the privilege of participating in the last bastion of free speech also known as the Internet.

But not everyone is feeling the free speech terrain.  Jermaine Hall, Editor-in-Chief of a Vibe magazine, and his wife will be in court today to seek a court order to disclose the identity of an anonymous online poster, who calls him/herself BETonBlack. According to published reports, in November and December of 2010, BETonBlack called Hall an “Uncle Tom” for marrying a white woman and then went on a tirade to insult his wife’s appearance. The comments were made on LipstickAlley.com, a very well known gossip online message board where people go to well, gossip.

Last month, a New York judge ordered Lipstick Alley to disclose the anonymous poster’s name. In response, Lipstick Alley’s message board operators reached out to Public Citizen, an Internet free speech organization with a long history of defending the right to speak anonymously on the Internet. They are now providing legal assistance to Lipstick Alley and the anonymous poster.

According to the attorney working on behalf of Public Citizen and the anonymous poster, this case represents the unending debate over people’s First Amendment right to speak anonymously on the Internet. Moreover, the attorney claimed that the “Halls have not provided the required proof that would prompt a court to order the critic’s identity to be disclosed.”

Certainly, the proliferation of incivility online has warranted some sort of corrective action, but at what point does cracking down on anonymous content threaten freedom of expression? Moreover, is there such a thing as having anonymous speech protected by the First Amendment?

Online usage has induced a plethora of lawsuits demanding that the identities of anonymous posters be revealed; however, the outcomes of the request differ depending on the judge.  Recently, a Texas circuit court judge ordered an online news aggregation site to turn over any potentially identifying information it has on its 178-member posters, some of whom posted alleged defamatory comments about two individuals involved in a sexual assault case.  In Cleveland, a judge there sided with a website dedicated to criticizing a Lorain County home builder; the site often featured anonymous posts that attacked the quality of the homebuilder’s work.

These sorts of lawsuits could be troubling for some people because it could result in a much harder time using the Internet if real names and/or addresses are revealed. Corporate whistleblowers, human rights workers and organizers, and victims of domestic violence all benefit from the anonymity of the Internet.

As for Hall, it appears that he might be making mountains out of a molehill because prior to lawsuit, most users probably never heard of BETonBlack or his or her comments.  Now it’s a guarantee that folks will be actively seeking them out. Those who learn of this story will have a comment on not only the merits of this case, but whether or not BETonBlack in right. In essence, Hall broke rule number one of the Internet: never feed the trolls.

Charing Ball is the author of the blog People, Places & Things.

One of the very first things you learn as a commentator on the Internet is to never – and I mean never – feed the trolls.

We’re not talking about the beastly creature that tormented the three Billy Goats Gruff in the classic Norwegian fairytale, but rather the internet slang term used for the anonymous persons that posts inflammatory and just flat out mean-spirited comments on online discussion forums, chat rooms or in the comment section of your blog.

As a writer, particularly one who publishes their work online, you will learn to develop a thicker skin over time to deal with attacks from those whose sole purpose is to provoke an emotional-based response. As infuriating it is and can be at times, consider the trolls as a not-so-pleasant consequence that comes with the privilege of participating in the last bastion of free speech also known as the Internet.

But not everyone is feeling the free speech terrain.  Jermaine Hall, Editor-in-Chief of a Vibe magazine, and his wife will be in court today to seek a court order to disclose the identity of an anonymous online poster, who calls him/herself BETonBlack. According to published reports, in November and December of 2010, BETonBlack called Hall an “Uncle Tom” for marrying a white woman and then went on a tirade to insult his wife’s appearance. The comments were made on LipstickAlley.com, a very well known gossip online message board where people go to well, gossip.

Last month, a New York judge ordered Lipstick Alley to disclose the anonymous poster’s name. In response, Lipstick Alley’s message board operators reached out to Public Citizen, an Internet free speech organization with a long history of defending the right to speak anonymously on the Internet. They are now providing legal assistance to Lipstick Alley and the anonymous poster.

According to the attorney working on behalf of Public Citizen and the anonymous poster, this case represents the unending debate over people’s First Amendment right to speak anonymously on the Internet. Moreover, the attorney claimed that the “Halls have not provided the required proof that would prompt a court to order the critic’s identity to be disclosed.”

Certainly, the proliferation of incivility online has warranted some sort of corrective action, but at what point does cracking down on anonymous content threaten freedom of expression? Moreover, is there such a thing as having anonymous speech protected by the First Amendment?

Online usage has induced a plethora of lawsuits demanding that the identities of anonymous posters be revealed; however, the outcomes of the request differ depending on the judge.  Recently, a Texas circuit court judge ordered an online news aggregation site to turn over any potentially identifying information it has on its 178-member posters, some of whom posted alleged defamatory comments about two individuals involved in a sexual assault case.  In Cleveland, a judge there sided with a website dedicated to criticizing a Lorain County home builder; the site often featured anonymous posts that attacked the quality of the homebuilder’s work.

These sorts of lawsuits could be troubling for some people because it could result in a much harder time using the Internet if real names and/or addresses are revealed. Corporate whistleblowers, human rights workers and organizers, and victims of domestic violence all benefit from the anonymity of the Internet.

As for Hall, it appears that he might be making mountains out of a molehill because prior to lawsuit, most users probably never heard of BETonBlack or his or her comments.  Now it’s a guarantee that folks will be actively seeking them out. Those who learn of this story will have a comment on not only the merits of this case, but whether or not BETonBlack in right. In essence, Hall broke rule number one of the Internet: never feed the trolls.

Charing Ball is the author of the blog People, Places & Things.

(New York Times) — Of the thousands of complaints that have saturated NPR in the wake of Juan Williams’s firing earlier this week, some of the most telling have been from callers describing themselves as long-time “viewers” of NPR who warn that they are going to “stop watching.”  NPR, of course, does not have viewers, it has listeners. But the public radio organization has come under severe criticism — largely from people who are not listeners, it believes — for having fired Mr. Williams, an analyst who was employed by both NPR and Fox News when he said on Fox that he felt fearful when he saw people in “Muslim garb” on an airplane.

Read More…

(Time) — When the Supreme Court ended its term last week, its ruling extending gun rights was the big news. But the real headline of the term was the court’s decision earlier this year giving corporations and unions sweeping new rights to spend money to elect candidates to office. It is not an overstatement to say that the 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which was handed down in January, could permanently change American democracy.

Read More…