Law and Order: Obscene

                 The episode ends with Casey Novak remarking that “No one is forcing you to listen,” to BJ’s radio show.  I believe this ideal fits within Plato’s quote that “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”  Good genuine people with “good” morals probably do not want to listen to things that BJ is saying.  In this case, BJ is a bad person with corrupt morals given the way he speaks about women and anyone who does not agree with him.  He finds ways around the law, protecting himself with the First Amendment.

                 Jefferson said “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtue of a good citizen.”  This episode is titled “Obscene.”  I think that fits accurately because all the characters involved (ie. Jessie, Franco, Danny, and Danny’s Mom) all participate in indecent acts.  While only some of these acts violate Jefferson’s statement on the virtue of a being good citizen by obeying the written law, they all violate Plato’s idea of law. 

                I believe that instilling morals and values should be the job of those around you who are raising you and it is their job to make a good person.  By Plato’s statement, this good person will not try to do anything that would violate the laws, and therefore they do not need them.  Inherently bad people will do bad things, whether the law is there or not.  This is evident in the episode when BJ evades the law by not directly telling people to hurt Jessie, but only talking about her and those actions, finding ways around the law.  Danny’s Mom does the same thing by ignoring the law and shooting BJ anyway.  Also, Danny ignores the law and breaks into Jessie’s trailer and rapes her.  All these actions happen regardless of the law because they are bad people.

                Personally, I have had the freedom to listen to the radio and watch television in my room from a very young age and in the car since I could drive.  I have never felt the need to listen to or watch anything similar to the BJ show.  If I heard a show similar to this, I would change the channel.  It is not something that I would enjoy or want to hear.  As Ms. Novak said, “No one is forcing you to listen.”         

Mill and Stephen's Principles in Law and Order: SUV

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Mill and Stephen have contrasting views on personal liberty, Mill in that someone should be free to do anything that doesn’t bring harm, or impede on others rights to personal liberty.  Stephen agrees, but also says there are something’s that are so morally wrong that, although they may do no harm to another person, they must be considered illegal based on their wrongness.  The episode of law and order portrayed many people doing illegal acts as well as what some would consider wrong acts.  Two people in particular, the radio DJ, and the mother of the criminal son are people that Stephen and Mill would argue about, in regards to their rights to do certain things.

Both would have to agree that the mother was wrong in the attempted murder of the radio DJ.  She was trying to rob him of the right to life, and that would be violation of his basic liberties in every sense.  Where there might be disagreement between Mill and Stephen would be with what she was doing throughout the episode by trying to ban the TV show and later the radio show.  Mill would argue that, while she has a right to argue against the practices of both shows, she has no right to try and get them banned or impede the shows through acts like picketing.  Stephen might counter point, saying that some of the principles of both shows, such as turning a child into a sexual object, or using words to promote rape and hatred toward different groups of people are wrong and that people have the right to demand they be stopped.  In one of the cases, the sexual exploitation of a minor led to her being targeted for physical and verbal abuse, clearly bringing harm down upon her.  In this case wrong and immoral actions that should bring harm to no one, end up indirectly harming someone involved, and at that point even Mill would have to consider the possibility that not all wrong actions should be allowed.

Based on Mill’s ideas on personal liberties the radio DJ, BJ, would be in the right, being allowed to speak his own opinions over his own radio show.  There is nothing making those who don’t agree with his point of view listen to what he has to say, and his show even brings a certain entertainment value to over two million listeners.  According to Mill, it would be a gross violation of BJ’s personal liberties to have his voice censored or taken off the air.  However, the way he talks about, and belittles very important issues such as rape, women’s rights and integrity, and general respect towards other human beings, may be considered something very morally wrong.  Because of this Stephen might argue that such obscene comments should not be put to public ears, because BJ as a celebrity probably carries more influence then he gives himself credit for and this could lead more people to shift their ideologies to those of BJ’s.  This would be a bad situation, having an entire subsection of our society that views rape as a decent act and women as inferior and in need of subjugation.  Even these ideas should be considered wrong on just a moral level, excluding the fact that such ideas could lead to people acting and behaving based on these ideas.

I believe that Stephen might also argue against the director’s attitudes towards his sixteen year old actress.  It would be considered wrong for him to marry the young girl based on the facts that he would be taking advantage of: her emotional instability, his role in her life as basically her father figure, and just the plain facts that the emotional and psychological maturity yet to happen in her life would make her unable to make a completely informed decision about marrying the man.  Of course Mill would say in response that if it was consensual on both sides, than nothing should be considered wrong with the action.  But there is a very good chance that as she matures the girl will begin to realize the mistakes in marrying someone twice her age, and then being in an unhappy marriage, her mental condition could be in harm.

The criminal actions portrayed in the law and order episode should be considered wrong and punishable by all.  The debate on the actions of the characters would be based around their actions and ideas that aren’t ‘illegal’ but may still be morally wrong.  Because of this moral wrongness, Stephen and Mill would argue about whether the people committing such flagrantly wrong actions should be forced to stop, or if they should be defended on the principle that they are doing no wrong to others.  However, it would seem that often times, when an act is committed that is morally wrong, it often does bring about harm to another individual.

The Complexity of Individuals

The necessity of laws is minimal in an ideal society comprised only of virtuous individuals who always attempt to behave morally. As evidenced in the "Obscene" episode of Law and Order, the behavior of individuals in society is rarely so strictly associated with the ideal moral standard. The episode used the events that unfolded, from the rape of Jessie to the shooting of BJ, to exemplify the complexity of character that makes absolutes in the law and morality nearly impossible to create and justify.

The initial complexity that generates a sense of confusion within the viewer is the discovery of Jessie's marriage to her middle-aged director. Morally, the marriage of a 16 year old to a 40 year old in today's society is borderline obscene within itself. Yet this is juxtaposed with the tenderness and love that is evident in their relationship, both through the director's evident concern for his wife and the dedication that Jessie shows to her husband. Their marriage is explained as a "a piece of paper that allows me to have sex with my husband." Yet this creates a contradiction within Plato's statement, "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." This couple, while morally conflicting between their dedication and their age difference, could be considered "Good People," yet they are forced to circumvent the law protecting minors from sexual contact with older individuals by getting married. Yet this marriage seems to have truly stemmed from law. Thus these two fall in line with the idea that "A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen," which would define this couple as "good citizens" due to their careful observance of the law.

Another conflict is then created with this definition of a "good citizen." Ms. Spencer is presented as the most "morally correct" individual in the episode. Her dedication is protecting youth in America through protests of the BJ show and Jessie's television show would likely be universally praised by moralists. Ms. Spencer would likely agree that "Good people do not need laws..." due to the way that she views her actions. Yet from the perspective of her son and BJ, Ms. Spencer is a vicious censor, dedicated to curbing the free will of other people to be more in line with her moral views. BJ would argue that her support of censorship is irresponsible, due to the potentially disastrous effects that increased government censor controls could have on individual liberty. Yet BJ, the scapegoat and most clearly defined "bad person," for his rants and insensitive remarks that ultimately resulted in the rape of a 16 year old, operates well within the law. The conflict that arises between Ms. Spencer and BJ directly illustrates why the law is necessary to protect the common good of all people.

Through the events of the episode, it is clear that a strict observance of the law is not the highest virtue of a good citizen. The words of BJ can encourage, but not cause, the rape of a 16 year old, the destruction of a family, and personal injury to himself through the anger inspired in others. Personal loss cannot justify the actions of Ms. Spencer to attempt to kill a man who operates well within his rights as a citizen of the United States, nor can the claimed desire to protect others allow the premature murder of a "shock jock." The acquisition of a piece of paper did not change the relationship between Jessie and her husband, and therefore highlights the Plato's statement that "Good people do not need... around the laws." Through the lens of the episode, it is clear that there are very few purely good or bad individuals, and the law can have a poor time differentiating between the two. Therefore I would conclude that Plato's statement that "Good people... around the laws" is the most applicable to the "Obscene" episode of Law and Order with the supposition that this should apply more to good "actions" due to the complex and ephemeral nature of any single individual.

SVU Episode - Plato

Plato once said, “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen.” In reality, this claim holds no truth, and was proven incorrect by the SVU episode we watched in class. First of all, written laws are not all inclusive when it comes to things that are just wrong. This is where I agree with Mill when he says, some things are just plain wrong. Maybe not because they cause harm to others, or to an individual themselves, but because they just are morally unacceptable. BJ, from the episode, was morally a bad person. He talked in a crude manner, degraded women as he spoke of them as sex objects. He provoked young boys with inappropriate thoughts and  turned serious crimes, like rape, into jokes. It is not hard to see that he was clearly a bad person. Yet, he did not once break the written law. He was not the one who made Danny violate Jessie, nor did he make him take the pictures.  BJ simply provided entertainment to 200,000 young people everyday. That is obviously not a crime. Yet, his words and actions prove his moral character. On the other hand, Danny legitimately broke the written law. Not only did he trespass into Jessie’s trailer, he raped her. In the end though, I believe Danny proved to be more virtues because he admitted he was wrong and was truly sorry. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be punished for his actions, or that his guilt negates what he did to Jessie. I do believe though, the fact that he felt remorse and accepted his punishment, proves that he is a better citizen than BJ, who although he didn’t commit a crime according to the law, still continued his show with inappropriate topics, and all along, he felt no remorse for his crude actions. BJ was clearly a bad citizen, yet he upheld the written law to perfection. Danny, on the other hand broke the written law, yet proved to be a better citizen than BJ.

Plato also said, “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” This statement initially seems more valid than the former, but in reality it isn’t either .  As was proven by the episode, good people do bad things. I strongly agree with Thomas Hobbes and believe that human nature is indeed bad.  I do believe good people exist, and for the most part, people are good people. But instinctively, I think people are bad and we as humans are always going to have morally unjust tendencies. Even good people make mistakes, just like Danny. I don’t think he was a bad person in the episode. He was a teenager, with a negligent, yet obsessive mother, seeking for acceptance from his peers. He made a huge mistake,  and what he did was wrong. He should be punished, but it doesn’t make him a bad person. Good people still need laws to prevent them from acting on their innate flaws.  The second part of the statement holds some truth. I do think bad people will find ways around the law, but that is where the quality of the justice and enforcement systems come in. Unfortunately, in the episode, the justice system failed because Danny's mom, was clearly a  bad women as she obsessed over Jessie, and neglected her own children, and most importantly, she broke the law, by shooting BJ. Yeah, she didn't kill him, but that was her intent. The jury took her side though, under the impression that she was a good person. In reality, that and many other things is what made her a bad person...hypocrisy. She easily got the jury's sympathy and got around the law. The episode accurately proves that bad people will find ways around the law, but this doesn’t mean that good people don’t need laws at all.

Jefferson vs. Plato

The quote from Thomas Jefferson says that a good citizen will follow the written laws of the governing body to the letter.  No matter what, the written laws should be followed if one wants to be a good citizen.  Although, Plato’s quote says that if you are a good person, and therefore a good citizen, you do not need written law to tell you how to act responsibly, and if you are a bad person, will find a way around the laws.  The contradictories of these two quotes applied to the recent episode of “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit” are evident and makes the viewer ask many questions.

                If Thomas Jefferson watched the same episode that the class did, he would think that the mother of the rapist is not a good person, because she did not follow the law when she shot the radio host.  And by that reasoning, the radio show host would be considered a good person by Jefferson because he followed the law.  He was just doing his job- hosting his show and making a living by voicing his opinions.  However, that logic is questionable since the DJ was extremely derogatory towards women, and anyone who disagrees with him for that matter. He never told anyone to commit a crime for him, and just because his show is on the air does not mean that a person has to listen.  That being said, does Jefferson mean to say that the character of a person has nothing to do with if a person is good or bad?  Is he classifying people as “good” of “bad” by whether or not they follow the written law? The radio show host has questionable morals, but he never broke the law.  That would make him a “good” person, according to Jefferson.  But, if you shoot someone who is invading your house, does that make you a bad person because you acted in self-defense and broke the law?  Granted, most good citizens do value the law, and most bad citizens do not.  But, does breaking the law once make you a bad person?  Does Jefferson believe in giving someone a second chance?  By the information in this quote, the answer would seem to be no.

                To the contrary, Plato believed that a good person does not need written laws to tell them how to act and bad people will find a way around the laws, regardless of their consequences.  Plato’s logic labels good and bad people on the morals they possess as opposed to whether or not they follow written laws.  This logic would make the radio show host in this episode a bad person since he never explicitly broke the law, but found a way to demoralize women and appreciate the rape of a woman without getting in any trouble.  Although, acting responsibly could potentially break the laws, going back to the intruder example, Plato would not consider a person “bad” if he or she broke the law and just because someone followed the laws doesn’t mean they are a good person.  Plato’s logic would point more in the direction of looking at the situation as opposed to just if a law was broken.

                All in all, these quotes point in two opposite directions.  One is extreme, if you do not follow written laws, you are bad. The other is based more on whether or not you act responsibly regardless of the written law.  However, both logics point to the mother in the “Law and Order” episode as being a bad person.  She knowingly broke the law and tried to turn it into a publicity stunt.  But because of how she broke the law, some would argue she was looking out for the children, her peers did not all agree that her actions made her a bad person.  Her shooting of the radio host brought the question to light, if you attempt to kill a person who is a bad influence on the children of the nation, what is more important: Protecting our laws or protecting our children? 

"Obscene" SVU

As I was watching this episode of Law and Order, I immediately saw that there were multiple ethical dilemmas.  First, Danny was said to have been influenced by BJ to commit this crime, when in reality, there are multiple reasons he could have done this.  He was a teenager therefore very easily influenced by others (BJ), which explains the pictures, but does not explain the rape.  He did that on his free will, and that is certainly punishable.  Yes, his mother was part to blame for being so ridiculously insane about the whole Jessie thing to begin with, and he was rebelling, but rape is not a proper way to rebel for should it be acquitted.


Secondly, the mother (Ms. Spencer) shooting BJ was very shockingly able to get away with this.  She did not kill him, but that was certainly her goal.  I do not understand how a person can blatantly try to kill someone without being punished.  Yes, she was trying to help her son and keep other families from BJ's harsh words, but is this a good enough reason to shoot someone?  Would the situation have been different if she had actually killed him? Was the jury unable to reach a decision simply because they did not like BJ, or was there really some merit behind their decision?


Plato says, “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen."  This applies to both situations because both mother and son broke the law, and therefore should be punished.  However, this statement, "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws," seems to make it okay.  This is how Ms. Spencer got away with her crime, and also the sole reason BJ's show was still on the air.  His radio show was a form of free speech, and no matter how many people didn't like it, there was no way to take it away from him.  


This doesn't mean, however, that BJ was a good person.  This also doesn't mean that Danny was a bad person.  Danny made a mistake but owned up to it.  He, the better person, was punished while his mother (the seemingly evil person in this case) got away.  In both cases, the verdict seemed to be decided upon simply because of the people they were up against in court.  Jessie was more innocent, therefore won.  In the other case, BJ was seen as a bad person, and even though Ms. Spencer was also a bad person, she got away because her flaws were overshadowed by BJ's seemingly worse flaws.  The law is very apparently flawed, but with all the different scenarios out there, there is no concrete way to make it perfect and just for every single situation with even the slightest discrepancy of the law. 

Weblog assignment for 2/20/12

For this week's weblog assignment, we would like you to consider the Law & Order episode we watched on Tuesday from two contrasting points of view. To do this, you have three options:

1. You can think (and write) about what Mill and Stephen would have said about the various actions and arguments in the episode, for instance, how they might each view the dispute between the mother and the disc jockey about personal responsibility, freedom of speech, and the part that the law should play with respect to each.

2. You can think (and write) about the issues in the episode in light of these related and contradictory claims “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen"* vs. "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws" (Plato)

3. You can think (and write) about the issues in the episode using your own set of two (or more) contrasting viewpoint as a lens through which to analyze them.

Please write the equivalent of a few paragraphs, post them to the weblog, and be ready to talk about them in class.

For your reference, the episode we watched was titled, "Obscene" and originally aired 12 October 2004.



* This is actually taken from a quote by Thomas Jefferson, but it is incomplete here, and full quote imparts a very different meaning than the portion I've quoted here on its own.