Download
1 / 110
1.1k likes | 1.11k Views
Learn about how the Reporters Without Borders index measures press freedom globally, including the criteria and events considered for ranking each country. Understand the significance and process behind compiling this influential index.
E N D
How the index was compiled The Reporters Without Borders index measures the state of press freedom in the world. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists and news organisations enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom. A score and a position is assigned to each country in the final ranking. They are complementary indicators that together assess the state of press freedom. A country can change position from year to year even if its score stays the same, and vice-versa. This ranking reflects the situation during a specific period. It is based solely on events between 1 September 2006 and 1 September 2007. It does not look at human rights violations in general, just press freedom violations. To compile this index, Reporters Without Borders prepared a questionnaire with 50 criteria that assess the state of press freedom in each country. It includes every kind of violation directly affecting journalists (such as murders, imprisonment, physical attacks and threats) and news media (censorship, confiscation of newspaper issues, searches and harassment). Ánd it includes the degree of impunity enjoyed by those responsible for these press freedom violations.
James Madison presents the Bill of Rights to the First United States Congress CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION Article [I.] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
September 29, 1965: President Johnson signs the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act On this occasion, President Johnson said: "Art is a nation's most precious heritage. For it is in our works of art that we reveal ourselves, and to others, the inner vision which guides us as a nation. And where there is no vision, the people perish."
“we fully recognize that no government can call artistic excellence into existence. It must flow from the quality of the society and the good fortune of the nation. Nor should any government seek to restrict the freedom of the artist to pursue his own goals in his own way… But government can seek to create conditions under which the arts can flourish”
U.S. Supreme Court MILLER v. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) 413 U.S. 15 MILLER v. CALIFORNIA APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE No. 70-73. Argued January 18-19, 1972 Reargued November 7, 1972 Decided June 21, 1973 1. Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , reaffirmed. A work may be subject to state regulation where that work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex; portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Pp. 23-24.
In the USA, can art be censored? If so, how? What criteria can be used? • In the USA, should art be funded by the federal government? • In the USA, does art that is paid for by the state need to serve the state? If so, how does one determine which art serves the state? What criteria can be established for this? • In the USA, can art funded by the federal government be censored? If so, how? • In the USA, can the federal government fund religious art? • In the USA, can art be denied funding based on the moral or religious views of the federal government or its members? • In the USA, once federal funding for the arts is approved, is then selecting grantees based on anything other than artistic merit a form of censorship?
“The American Family Association believes that God has communicated absolute truth to man through the Bible, and that all men everywhere at all times are subject to the authority of God's Word. Therefore, a culture based on Biblical truth best serves the well-being of our country, in accordance with the vision of our founding fathers.” American Family Association
Florence, Italy, became the cultural headquarters of the Renaissance. The glorification of mankind, particularly in his human form, was soon reflected in art. The giant replica of Michelangelo's magnificent David stands nude, overlooking that beautiful city. Quite naturally, this contradicts the wisdom of God, for early in Genesis, the Creator follows man's folly by giving him animal skins to cover his nakedness. Ever since, there has been a conflict concerning clothes, with man demanding the freedom to go naked. The Renaissance obsession with nude "art forms" was the forerunner of the modern humanist's demand for pornography in the name of freedom. Both resulted in a self-destructive lowering of moral standards. Tim LaHaye The Battle for the Mind.
"I feel we are in a struggle for the heart and soul of the American civilization." "Jews favor homosexual rights more than other Americans." “America desperately needs a moral rebirth. We need to implore God's blessings on our country and ask Him to forgive our sinfulness and restore our moral perspective.”
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, May 18, 1989 Mr. Hugh Southern, Acting Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC Dear Mr. Southern: We recently learned of the Endowment's support for a so-called "work of art" by Andres Serrano entitled "Piss Christ." We write to express out outrage and to suggest in the strongest terms that the procedures used by the Endowment to award and support artists be reformed. The piece in question is a large and vivid photograph of Christ on a crucifix submerged in the artist's urine. This work is shocking, abhorrent and completely undeserving of any recognition whatsoever. Millions of taxpayers are rightfully incensed that their hard-earned dollars were used to honor and support Serrano's work. There is a clear flaw in the procedures used to select art and artists deserving of taxpayers' support. That fact is evidenced by the Serrano work itself. Moreover, after the artist was selected and honored for his "contributions" to the field of art, his work was exhibited at government expense and with the imprimatur of the Endowment.
This matter does not involve freedom of artistic expression - it does involve the question whether American taxpayers should be forced to support such trash. And finally, simply because the Endowment and the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art (SECCA) did not have a direct hand in choosing Serrano's work, does not absolve either of responsibility. The fact that both the Endowment and the SECCA with taxpayer dollars promoted this work as part of the Awards in Visual Arts exhibition, is reason enough to be outraged. We urged the Endowment to comprehensively review its procedures and determine what steps will be taken to prevent such abuses from recurring in the future. We await your response. Sincerely, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Warren R. Rudman, Rudy Boschwitz, Dennis Deconcini, Pete Wilson, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, James A. McClure, John Heinz, Wendell Ford, Howell Heflin, Harry Reid, Richard Shelby, John W. Warner, Larry Pressler, Conrad Burns, Tom Harkins, Trend Lott, Jesse Helms, John McCain, Arlen Specter, Steve Symms.
Serrano said the work was about ‘redefining and personalizing' his own relationship with God. Recently reflecting on the controversy, Serrano said: “I started that work as an attempt to reduce and simplify a lot of the ideas and images that I had been doing up until that time. I didn't do it to be provocative, I did it because damn, the colours would look good, you know. I mean, sometimes I just feel like what I do has the simplest answers, but they're not good enough. People want more of a story and I try to give them a story, but sometimes I have to say: look, you're reading too much into this.”
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Senator from New York is absolutely correct in his indignation and in his description of the blasphemy of the so-called artwork. I do not know Mr. Andres Serrano, and I hope I never meet him. Because he is not an artist, he is a jerk.
I say again, Mr. President, he is not an artist. He is a jerk. And he is taunting the American people, just as others are, in terms of Christianity. And I resent it. And I do not hesitate to say so. I am not going to call the name that he applied to this work of art. In naming it, he was taunting the American people. He was seeking to create indignation. That is all right for him to be a jerk but let him be a jerk on his own time and with his own resources. Do not dishonor our Lord. I resent it and I think the vast majority of the American people do. And I also resent the National Endowment for the Arts spending the taxpayers' money to honor this guy.
![[Compiled by:]](https://cdn1.slideserve.com/3530424/compiled-by-dt.jpg)
