Blogs are lame.

I’m going to break a comedy milestone here by inventing a thus unfathomed concept: intellectual toilet humour.

I’m not crazy, I promise.

For this edition of “What’s wrong with this sentence,” I draw your attention to the following phrase, graffiti-ed on the wall of a campus bathroom stall 

“Having a bad day? Put your hand over your heart. Feel that? That’s called purpose. You’re alive for a reason” - Random Stranger who cares too much, 2012  

Though uplifting I can’t help but take issue with several things about this particular message and its placement:

1) Did the person who wrote this write it while they were actually sitting on the toilet, and what about that particular experience made them want to write this little gem of inspiration for fellow public bathroom users?

2) Let’s say you are in a place where you feel lost, and purposeless. Is the life-changing epiphany going to come from graffiti on a bathroom wall? And if it does, are you not more pathetic than you were before you realized your purpose because of this faceless stranger’s nudge of encouraging dribble. 

I apologize profusely if your continued existence is dependent on uplifting graffiti in public bathrooms 

To combat my own cynicism I end with the following thought: As much as it amuses me to mock the poor saps who take bathroom graffiti to heart, who am I to criticize people for living life with a purpose because they’ve been inspired by a stranger’s words? Isn’t that what I as a writer strive to achieve? 

Perhaps.

Or perhaps my goal is to convince my readers that their purpose is to question the metaphorical and literal writing on the wall, and wonder who put it there and why.

Either that or I’m trying to brainwash an army of minions for world domination. Yeah, that’s got to be it.

This is the first in a new series I’m going to call “What’s wrong with this sentence” 

Don’t worry, I’m not starting a grammar blog. That would be lamer than lame. I’ll come up with an adjective for that later, because that’s what I like to spend my time thinking about. 

Instead, this new series in the realm of only “lame” will feature sentences that are grammatically sound, but wrong for various other reasons - yeah, I’m tricky like that. 

Okay, so today’s sentence comes from my lovely Intro to Psychology textbook - In discussing memory/types of amnesia the textbook says the following:  

“For example, a 25-year-old gymnast who sustains a head trauma might find the prior three years, or seven years, or her entire life-time erased” 

There are two things wrong with this sentence. 

1) Perhaps this is grim, but I as a former gymnast cannot help but burst into peals of hysterical laughter thinking about the lucky sonofabitch who’s body has lasted until 25 years old in the sport of gymnastics. 

2) If a 25-year-old gymnast sustained a head trauma, any sort of memory loss would be irrelevant as long as she remembered how to do back handsprings, therefore what she would find after sustaining said head trauma is her coach telling her in Russian to get up and do another of whatever skill made her fall on her head in the first place. 

Because that’s how the world works. 

My textbook adds that said gymnast might have issues remembering where she has parked her car. Just in case you were curious about some of the more serious side effects. 

It happens sometimes that my two interests cross, and I happen to be reading a literary work that serves as inspiration for the TV show I’m currently in love with. 

This weeks picks: Supernatural and Paradise Lost 

I know I wrote about this already, kind of - but I’m just so astounded at the similarities between the two, and the subtle differences that seem to be defined not by the medium, but by the societal concerns surrounding each work. 

Think about it - Supernatural has been on air since 2005. Very modern. 

Milton wrote Paradise Lost in the 17th century. 

So we have the same basic elements - Michael and Lucifer, the corruption and fall of mankind, and the problematic question: How do you portray god? 

I’m not going to go through a point by point analysis, which would undoubtedly make a great term paper, but would require a lot more research than what my off-handed rambling provides. 

I suppose the reason I started writing this in the first place is because I think I’ve been experiencing the strange phenomenon of education via television. 

Which, I would like to add, I believe is only possible if one bothers to look at the source of inspiration for a particular plotline. 

For example, I recently found myself reading exerts from the book of revelations in regards to this example. 

My point is that while television is notorious for rotting your brain, it doesn’t have to if you bother to look beyond the images and absorb the stories and the history that some of the better-written shows actually broadcast. 

I could watch The Vampire Diaries and drool over the ridiculously good looking actors, and marvel in the bloodlust. 

Or I could watch the show and compare it to Stoker’s version of vampires, and laugh at the easter-eggs of allusion that you get once an episode. 

Side note: it’s still a guilty pleasure and I do not pretend for a second that it qualifies as “good television” 

That being said, I suppose everyone has a different definition of “good” television, depending on what they want to get out of it. 

Because that’s really up to you, isn’t it? 

So I could watch shows like Supernatural as purely science fiction shows, and laugh everytime the two monster-fighting brothers lop off the head of another CGI-ed creature. 

Or I could dig a little deeper, for lack of a better cliche, and use the normally brain-numbing experience of television watching to educate myself in religious lore and classical mythology. 

At this point, it sort of feels like the only way left to go. 

There is a certain phenomenon, which always affords me the opportunity to exercise my sense of satire, and tunnel into my wealth of distain for other people. 

This phenomenon is best described by the following example: 

Two children, lets call them Fred and Joe, decide to play hide and seek. After an intense battle of rock-paper-scissors, the finale of which occurs in a slow-motion Rocky-esque fight sequence (because I’m writing this story and I want  it to), the boys decide that Fred will be the first to hide. 

Joe, pondering to himself whether a cloud might make a good trampoline, turns towards a nearby tree, closing his eyes and beginning to count to one hundred. As he struggles with the temptation to peek through his sticky little fingers, Joe counts the requisite amount of mississippis, and turns around. The impish expression on his face is ready for the challenge, as he opens his eyes ready to scour the entire park for his friend. 

What he sees when he opens his eyes can only be described as the most colossal feeling of disappointment ever to grace his young psyche. 

What does he see? Fred, standing like a lightning rod in the middle of the field, with his hands over his eyes grinning like an idiot. 

Joe sighs, and walks home, deciding that leaving Fred standing there like a moron for hours is the only way to avenge his earlier rock-paper-scissors loss. 

By this point, if you’re still reading, I’m sure you’re curious as to why I’ve just chosen to exercise my creative writing “skills” and waste your time with a story that could’ve been expressed in 2 sentences. 

The answer to that question is actually quite simply: I’m an asshole who likes the sound of my own voice. 

That, and I do actually have a point to make that requires most of those details. 

I speak, of course, about the psychologically interesting phenomenon of denial. 

Ignorance is bliss, Ignorance is strength: whatever cultural reference you want to slap on - they all seem to send the same message - be it ironically or otherwise depending on the level of satire. Denial is just a healthy dose of self-imposed ignorance. 

Ignorance, or denial, is simply a transcendent state of being which gives human beings the surprising power to slap their hands over their eyes, grin like idiots and pretend they’re invisible, despite mountains of empirical evidence to the contrary. 

Its a beautiful state, denial, because somehow when you’re standing like a lightening rod in the middle of an open field, pretending to be invisible, it doesn’t matter that you’ve a) forgotten your invisibility cloak at home and b) suspect that the invisibility cloak your mom brought back from her “vacation” does not actually possess magical properties. 

Because as long as you believe its true, when you’re in a state of denial, it is so. 

Which leads me to the next chapter of my little story, which is the sad moment when you take your hands off your eyes, and forever lose denial’s bliss. 

Because, at some point, little Fred probably took his hands off his eyes, realized the sun had set, and that he should probably leave the park before the creepy man in the trenchcoat offered him candy. 

Delicious as candy is, not even a state of complete denial could shake the shivers of a trenchcoated middle-aged white guy trying to give you a free lollipop. 

*shudder* 

Sure, when your hands are securely over your eyes you can believe anything. For all you know, you’re in never never land and Captain Hook has made you his first mate. 

Denial is a magical state. But once you take even the slightest peek through the cracks of your fingers, something inside you shatters, and not even imagination can piece together the shards of reality you now must face. 

I’ve been thinking lately about the very thin lines that bind our emotions. 

We’re really a curious species if you think about the emotional range of which humans seem to be capable. 

Or perhaps I give people too much credit - after all, I can safely say I know people with the emotional range of a teaspoon. 

And yes, I did just steal a line from a Harry Potter movie, for those of you who were wondering. 

This is what happens when I start aimlessly writing blog posts, I start talking about something serious, and three sentences in I’ve arrived at something completely unrelated, usually to do with Harry Potter or some other nerddom. 

Let me take this opportunity to get really fancy and make my own point by example. 

See, emotions are sort of like my attention span - shortlived when you want them to last, and too long when you want to move on. 

It’s probably not news to you that periods of feeling good seem to whip by in seconds, while agony seems to last for an eternity with each passing minute. 

I suppose its part of the irony of human nature. We’re greedy little bastards who don’t like to work for what we want, yet we love to complain about what we don’t have, and fantasize about getting it. 

Its a constant dichotomy between desire and discipline and when you factor in the pure emotional need for happiness its a wonder we can ever get anything productive accomplished at all. 

Because for some people the easiest way to repress desire is to repress all emotional tendencies and become a vortex of self-discipline. 

Have you ever met a puritan? 

But what about those of us who dare to walk the line between desire and discipline and let ourselves feel the bubbling inner turmoil of simply experiencing life? 

I ask not if its right or wrong, because that seems irrelevant. 

I instead wonder if this choice, this allowance for some of life’s passions to gush through the cracks in discipline’s wall, is going to help or hurt the future. 

Are emotions clouding or clarifying? And furthermore, if it is passion and emotion and joy that might plug the path to a ‘successful’ future, then when I look forward what am I supposed to see? 

It’s a John Milton kind of month. 

I sound pretentious, don’t I. Probably. I’ll try to keep the snob factor to a minimum whilst I discuss my literary conquests - or rather lack thereof. 

Ok so in case you couldn’t tell by the title, I’m currently attempting to read Milton’s Paradise Lost. I feel like it’s one of those rights of passage for English nerds. 

The sad part of this, I already knew half the story from seeing reflections of it in TV’s Supernatural.

Although I do have to say, as much issue as I take with religion and those who write extensively about it, I do happen to enjoy Milton’s take on the fall of man (aka Adam and Eve), particularly in the characterization of Satan. 

In religious discussion, theodicy is the practice of answering the problematic questions presented when one takes the time to analyze biblical stories and teachings in relation with reason. 

I know what you’re thinking - that completely contradicts the essence of the bible thumping morons who believe that blind faith is the solution to all of life’s problems. 

You are correct. Though, luckily for rational minded people like myself (yes, I am that humble) there are some religious scholars who have taken the time to address some of the more troubling questions like: if god is all powerful, and all good why does god allow evil to exist? 

Its always been one of those questions that’s stumped me. Of course Jewish tradition has managed to take this question and turn it into a complaint (Re: Why do bad things happen to good people). 

But let’s proceed with the nature of evil itself. Because who doesn’t love a good ole’ reflection about the follies of human nature.

Actually, let me backtrack there for a second and give you a brief, two sentence, explanation of how “evil” was created. 

K, so basically there’s this god, and he’s got all these angels, and one day this one dude who shall remain unnamed lest I spoil the ending, decides that he doesn’t like the way god is running shit up in heaven. So, he decides to rebel, he loses and them him and his followers are banished to the fiery depths of a new realm guarded by nine infernal gates and a whole bunch of really angry dogs. 

Spoiler alert - the rebel dude is Satan. 

Yeah, that’s right - Satan was originally an angel - suck it nature vs. nurture. 

Which raises a more interesting concept than my desire to use the phrase “suck it” in a blog post. 

I’m going to phrase my question with a quote from my favourite musical, just for fun: 

“Are people born wicked, or do they have wickedness thrust upon them?”

You know, even through that bubble, Glinda is quite the theological scholar. 

See, if the beginning of evil was an angel, then one has to question whether evil is in fact a concept that must exist at the exclusion of good, or if it is simply a corruption of good. 

Milton seems to suggest the latter - particularly since Satan (you know, the devil and such), is a rather human character. 

See, if you think of Satan as someone who fought against a regime that he found corrupt, and failed, then isn’t Satan only as much of a demon as his opposer made him? 

So maybe the question shouldn’t be “how can god allow evil to exist” but rather, is evil something that exists only from the complete exclusion of good, or rather an ill fated version of what we might call good intentions. 

I’ve spent a great deal of time this year studying freedom of expression and Communications law. As it happens, I like this particular subject, and take pride in applying it to my least favorite week of the year: Israel Apartheid Week.

I’ve read, seen and heard many other – and probably smarter – students and experts discuss IAW. You, like me, are probably getting a bit tired of hearing the same back and forth that has dominated political discourse on the matter for the last 5 years or so.

So today I’d like to approach the subject from a bit of a different angle if you’ll let me.

But first, let me give you full knowledge of where I come from, and how that affects what I say. 

I am Canadian, I am Jewish, and I have been to Israel once on a trip called the March of the Living. My grandmother was born in Israel. I am a journalism student. I am not well versed in political theory, but that won’t matter for the purposes of this article.

What does matter out of that particular tidbit of rather boring biographical information is the fact that I am Canadian (insert beer commercial here): Which is probably the piece you thought would be the least relevant wasn’t it? See, I have some tricks up my sleeve.

Canada is considered a constitutional monarchy with a democratically elected government. By order of the British North America Act of 1867, also called the Constitution Act, the Canadian government has power to make laws governing its citizens. 

While we, as a country, are now known for the civil liberties associated with democracy and western ideology, these were not constitutionally guaranteed until 1982 when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted.

You’re probably wondering why I’m giving you a mini-history lesson. Hear me out – I promise it’s relevant.

So as of 1982, Canadian citizens have constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and rights: freedom of religion, thought, belief, opinion, expression and conscious, and the right to equality, fair and public trial, mobility and democratic government.

With that in mind, let’s revisit Israeli Apartheid Week.

On the surface, it would seem that Students Against Israeli Apartheid are perfectly welcome, under freedom of expression guarantee, to hold such a week and express their views.

After all, if you’re from John Milton’s school of thought, the truth is out there in the marketplace of ideas, and it is up to you to find it.

Which gives merit to the fundamental, constitutional rights of SAIA to hold a week that expresses their opinions… to an extent. 

Don’t think I didn’t have a twist coming for you. All good stories need a twist.

There is a concept which Klaus Pohle, my Communications Law professor (with a strange vendetta against men with green ties), calls ‘The Dynamics of Limitation’ – which here means: under what circumstances is it reasonable to limit constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression?

He pointed out several instances where Milton’s desire to have freedom of expression “above all” other civil liberties is simply not productive: instances of hate speech, propaganda, libel/slander/defamation and criminalized behaviors (i.e. it’s nice that you want to express yourself by brandishing a knife, but that doesn’t mean it needs to collide with the other nice people on the street exercising their right to walking on sidewalks free from knives. Okay, it might not actually cite that case as a constitutional example, but I think you get the picture). 

If I infer correctly, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, the thesis of the dynamics of limitation is that your freedom of expression bubble ends where another’s begins.

So while it would initially seem that in theory, SAIA campaigning against Israel is constitutional, we must take the dynamics of limitation into account.

Let me first address the categories you might think would apply, but in fact, do not.

Libel, or publishing material that would lower an individual’s reputation in the eyes of the public, is a civil or criminal offence under Canadian Law. Slander is essentially the same thing, but rather than publishing material on a permanent forum the defamation is accomplished by word of mouth, and one must prove damages in order for the case to be actionable in a court of law.

What prevents IAW from being subject to libel or slander laws is not any of the accepted defenses for libel (truth, consent, fair comment, qualified privilege, or responsible communication on a matter of public interest). In fact, I could go through that entire list and find elements of IAW that prevent each and every one of those defenses from making libel justified.

What does prevent SAIA from being the subject of a nasty civil suit, is the question of identification. When suing for libel, an individual must prove they were identified clearly, had their reputation lowered, and such offensive material was published in a permanent form (including the internet!).

While provisions for class action lawsuits do exist in Canada to allow small groups to band together in one lawsuit as a mater of financial convenience, they come with the footnote that each member of the group must be individually identifiable in the libelous material. Combine that with the rule that only the libeled party can sue (a clever provision making it impossible to libel the dead – fun fact), and unfortunately we are S.O.L. on the libel front.

Also, I’d like to point out that were such a case actionable, we as the plaintiff would not need to prove the allegation to be false, because the court makes a basic presumption that the plaintiff has a good reputation, enjoys such reputation and nobody has the right to lower that reputation.

So while there may be a case to be made that material published or rallies held by SAIA during this week are libelous, loopholes in Canadian law unfortunately prevent such action from succeeding. 

Instead, I point you down another, less legally solid but more emotionally provocative path, again concerning the question of identification.  

One of the civil liberties guaranteed by the charter of rights and freedoms is the right to a fair and public trial. While it may be tricky to prove that materials issued by SAIA are propaganda, or that their ideas about Israel constitute the ever-broadening idea of “hate speech,” it is reasonable to say that before Israel is branded an “Apartheid” state, perhaps they should be afforded the right to a metaphorical fair trial. 

Yes, I am aware that Israel is a state, not a person. But it is a state that, whether we like it or not, has a much greater impact than the geographical area it encompasses. 

Israel is not just a piece of land. At this point, Israel is an idea: it is a Jewish homeland. Let me be clear: Jews do not own Israel (thanks, stereotypes), but rather as a broadly generalized collective, there is a religious and cultural connection to the state, and to what it represents.

So while it may not be possible to identify each and every Jewish student with the term “Zionist” or “Jew” because those terms, and other less flattering ones used by SAIA, are too broad to constitute proper identification, it does not mean they do not apply to those of us living in Canada.

Terms, phrases, slogans, and ideas not only apply to Jewish Canadians, but when used in a derogatory fashion arguably not only violate our right to a so-called “fair trial” before being branded, but also our right to equality, and our freedoms of thought, belief and opinion.

While it is not written in the Charter, I, and Carleton University if I understand correctly, believe that it is every student’s right to feel safe on campus.

A friend of mine recently saw the slogan “Save an Arab, Slay a Jew” graffiti-ed on a bathroom stall in the Loeb building.

So while you may not be identifying me directly, hurting me physically, publishing libel or speaking slander, I still suffer the damages that come as a result of those torts. 

Here is the bottom line: I, as a Jewish student, do not feel safe on campus during Israel Apartheid Week. 

So while you, SAIA are at perfect liberty to express your opinions, and advocate for the rights of Palestinian people, don’t forget that we also have rights here in Canada, and yours are not the only ones in question.

How many times in the last day have you said you wanted something.

Probably upwards of 20.

How many times have you thought you wanted something in that same time frame? 

Probably a figure in the thousands. 

For the record, when I say ‘want’ I mean anything from ‘Gee, I could go for a chocolate bar right now’ to ‘I want to take over the world’ or ‘I wantto drop kick that kitten.’

So here’s my question - because as we know I always find something seemingly mundane to make into a seemingly huge deal - How far are you willing to go?

It takes a great deal of passion to throw your whole self into a goal, be willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to get there, and put in that ever-cliched 110% effort until you’ve gotten what you want. 

See, that’s wanting something. That is really wanting something. In fact, I might even go so far as to say that particular exhibition of inevitably self-destructive behaviour would be classified as needing something. 

When was the last time you needed something like that? When was the last time you had something you wanted done, or wanted to achieve, or recieve or percieve that you were willing to throw yourself off a cliff to get there. 

Ok, maybe not a cliff, maybe just a high bar. 

There are things to be said for apathy.

You’re probably expecting me to say them now, aren’t you. Oh gosh, well if you insist… 

The way I see it there are two types of apathy: voluntary, and involuntary.

The first kind is the sort of passive-agressive not caring that we try to accomplish by convincing ourselves other things are more important. It’s like telling yourself that you don’t care about your friend’s recent nasty comment, because your friendship is more important. Secretly, you’d like to rip their throat out and teach their smug-self-righteous jokes a lesson, but you acknowledge that staying out of jail is probably worth the few hours of frustration. You make a conscious decision not to care, which is a lie, because given the opportunity, you’d still care. 

The second is a bit different.  Involuntary apathy, as I oh-so-academically define it, has less to do with the passive agressive statement of “I don’t care” and more to do with the actual inability to summon true passion. I can hear you thinking I’m an idiot on this one; everyone has something to be passionate about, don’t they?  I suppose they do. But here is my question: what happens to a person when they spend their whole life being passionate, working for goals, and sacrificing everything to get there? What happens when they don’t get there, and know they never will? And finally, what happens when they try to find new passions? 

Emulators of sonneteers like Spenser and Shakespeare have been using fire imagery to describe “burning” passion for centuries. 

Passion is uncontrollable, unpredictable, and all consuming. The fire image makes sense. But like fire, without something to burn, passion will fizzle and when you run out of things to throw in the fire, what can you do to stop it from going out? 

As a journalism student, I’m expected to read the newspaper and keep up with current events. This morning, as I was scrolling through national post headlines (don’t get me started on the whole online thing), I found the following in an article about plans to make Facebook’s stock public: 

“The deal is certain to generate new billions for the site’s creator and founder, Mark Zuckerberg, as well as early investors like Peter Thiel and Napster co-founder Sean Parker (played by Justin Timberlake in The Social Network).” 

My reaction to this particular journalistic tidbit was fourfold: 1) eyebrow raise, 2) slight smirk, 3) scoff, 4) long sigh at the realization that the national post arguably feels that referencing Justin Timberlake is necessary to allow its readers to recognize Sean Parker 

You might tell me that associating a real person with the ‘actor’ who played them in a movie is only natural. After all, when I think of Teddy Roosevelt, I obviously picture Robin Williams in Night at the Museum.  

I’m trying to picture Queen Elizabeth II now, and I swear she could be Hellen Mirren’s twin sister. Oh wait, no - that’s Hellen Mirren. 

What I wonder about this phenomenon of associating historical figures with the actors who portray them is what this means for the responsibility of Hollywood cinema. 

Sure, movies are entertainment. We all know that. 

But accurate or inaccurate as they may be, they are also tools of rewriting history to some extent. 

When you think of the Trojan war, tell me you don’t think of a well oiled Brad Pitt, a symbol of the sexual drama veiling a bloody and barbaric historical era. 

As much as we think we would loved to really see two men argue using swords instead of words, what we fail to realize is that life does not present events with a convenient close-up, showing only what a director believes will stimulate the pleasure centers of our brain and entice us to spend another $15 for a repeat experience. 

Instead, life gives us the full picture. Or, as full as we bother to see it. 

Thinking the name ‘Sean Parker’ and pulling up the image of Justin Timberlake may seem like an unconscious response.

But hopefully, after said photographic recollection, I would be intelligent enough to take a minute and distinguish Parker’s cinematic self from reality.

But when the newspaper’s tidbit of information to aid recognition is the non-real aspect of the person, how are we supposed to take that moment and screen what we see to find the difference between entertainment and reality? 

Considering the recent trend of speaking out again censorship (ironic?) I thought I’d join the freedom of expression fold. 

When you take a first year journalism course they teach you the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of expression. They reiterate this a year later, in Communications Law, which is the source of what I’m about to say. 

In short, freedom of speech covers speaking and writing, freedom of expression covers all forms of self-expression such as the way you dress, the way you think, the way you file your nails (ok maybe theorists didn’t get that specific, but I think you get the drift).

Speaking of theorists…

In 1644 a middle-aged white guy wrote a speech with a title hard to pronounce and harder to spell. Little did he know, the speech would be the basis for all of western civilization: unimportant internet ramblings. 

Yes, I do speak of course of John Milton’s Areopagitica. 

While I could go into a deconstructionist analysis of what is “important” and what is “not” I think I’ll skip the post-modern drama and go straight to the implications of Milton’s line “give me the liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties” 

Essentially what he means by that rather poetic expression of idealism is that freedom of expression is the penultimate freedom. It’s the Donald Trump of freedoms. Ironic? Maybe. But freedom of expression takes first prize for importance. 

Milton also talked about a concept called the “marketplace of ideas” in which he believed all ideas should be expressed and circulated, and people given the chance to find ‘truth’ themselves. 

I put truth in quotation marks there because in order for this freedom of expression thing to work we need to accept the idea that there is no one universal Capital ‘T’, Truth. 

Go ahead, wrap your head around that. I’ll wait. 

Now, with a bow wrapped neatly around the theoretically guidelines for freedom of expression, its time to take a little dip into the practical implications of this free-range organic marketplace. 

In theory, freedom of expression is supposed to have four affirmative functions: 

1. Individual self-fulfillment - which is a fancy way of saying people like to hear themselves speak/insertotherformofexpression here. If you need proof for this one look no further. I present to you, um, well, this blog. 

2. Englightenment - Also known as the search for truth, not to be mistaken with Truth, and also not to be mistaken with anything said by political entities. 

3. Self-Governance - Ah, yes, Democracy my old friend. The belief that the people should participate in their own governance, because they all know what’s best. Or rather, the people should participate in their own governance because they have the right to screw up a few (hundred thousand) times. 

4. Safety valve - This is the belief that the ability to say/do/dress/dance/paint/write etc the way you want actually promotes stability in society. Here, I actually have a serious note: You can kill people, you can’t kill ideas (Paraphrased from the brilliant Klaus Pohle).

Think about that. 

So that’s Milton for you - expression good, suppression bad. 

The only problem I have with Milton is that I find he somewhat overestimates this so-called “conscience” with which we are supposed to govern the freedom bestowed upon us. 

What becomes problematic is that there is no universal moral code, no concrete definition of what is “right” and “wrong” 

Which leads me finally, to the point of exercising the freedom I’m currently criticizing. 

So here we are today, with those who make music, television and films in outrage at the amount of free information available on the internet, cumulating in two acts now the subject of fierce protest.

Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act are two bills currently circulating in the bureaucratic whirlpool of American politics. 

Without going into another in-depth academic analysis which I know you probably don’t want to read, I used the one reliable source in this issue to figure out the general idea: Wikipedia. 

Ironic? Definitely. 

Anyways, without all the complex legal jargon, from what I can discern - these bills will make online piracy a more severe criminal offence and will broaden the scope of what constitutes an offence. It will also apply to international websites promoting/selling/providing pirated material, which is (I think) the reason Canadians have taken it upon themselves to start getting involved. 

Major opposition stipulates that these bills censor the internet, which is a violation of the First Amendment. In protest, Wikipedia is shut down today, giving me only reliable information about this topic and nothing else. 

Which might not be such a bad thing. Yes, that was a pointed jab about Wikipedia’s credibility. Hopefully the Wikimonster hiding inside the internet won’t come eat me while I sleep. 

So here’s the question. Are pirated goods just an extension of our freedom that should be completely legal so as not to strangle the people’s ability to express themselves?

Is criminalizing the free spread of other people’s ideas tampering with the safety valve that keeps us from rebelling in frustration at not being able to do what we want? 

Or rather, is the circulation of pirated goods a use of this freedom that is “according to conscience?”

I don’t pretend to know the answer to that question, but I do know its within my right to ask it. 

Don’t get me wrong. Freedom of expression is vital to our society and by no means am I suggesting that we “censor the internet.” 

But before you start being morally outraged at someone trying to stifle your voice, why don’t you let your conscience be your guide and ask whose voice is really under threat here. 

Yep, that’s what I thought… Crickets.