Gemeinunnütziger Schnickschnack
Articles filed under the category “Deutsch gedacht” — “thinking (in) German” — are written in German because they address topics that specifically affect German readers.
Gemeinnützige Organisationen haben es schwer heutzutage: unzählige Non-Profits konkurrieren um die Gunst der edlen Spender — aber eben jenen sitzt das Geld bei Weitem nicht mehr so locker wie noch vor ein paar Jahren.
Dementsprechend einfallsreich sind die Extras, die den Bittbriefen beigelegt werden in der Hoffnung, damit des Spenders Herz zu erweichen, auf dass er reichlich geben möge. Von Adressaufklebern über Grußkarten bis zu Jahresplanern ist alles zu haben.
Ob derartiger Schnickschnack die Spendenwilligkeit der Adressaten tatsächlich erhöht, vermag ich nicht zu beurteilen. Zumindest dürften aber die Produktions-Kosten für derlei papierne Druckwaren noch halbwegs akzeptabel sein.
Werbe-Müll, mit Spenden finanziert
Bei dem “Präsent”, das vor einiger Zeit aus einem Brief des World Children’s Fund herausfiel, trifft genau das sicherlich nicht mehr zu: ein “Nähset”, bestehend aus Garn, Nadeln, Plastik-Fingerhut, Mini-Schere und Einfädler.
Was laut dem beiliegenden Brief als “Zeichen meiner Dankbarkeit” daherkommt — denn “Nichts auf der Welt könnte Ihre Barmherzigkeit aufwiegen.” –, ist nutzloser Ramsch der allerbilligsten Machart.
Dass dieser in Fernost gefertigt wurde, liegt angesichts der Qualität nicht nur nahe, sondern wird durch einen “Made in China”-Schriftzug ganz offiziell bestätigt.
Es hat schon einen seltsamen Beigeschmack, wenn eine Organisation, die sich dem Wohl der Kinder verschreibt, Produkte aus einem Land vertreibt, in dem Kinderarbeit — insbesondere auch bei der Herstellung solcher “Pfennigartikel” — traurige Alltagsrealität ist.
Wer sich ein Bild darüber verschaffen will, welchen Anteil der Spenden-Gelder der World Children’s Fund in diese Art von Marketing investiert, hat schlechte Karten. Eine öffentliche Antwort auf diese Frage bleibt die Organisation nämlich schuldig: Die Seite “Finanzielle Rechenschaft” auf der offiziellen Website bietet viel wohl-klingende Floskeln, aber keine handfesten Zahlen.
Laut FAQ sind diese Informationen immerhin auf Anfrage zu haben:
Wenn Sie möchten, könnten wir Ihnen Informationen zu unserer Vision, unseren Programmen und darüber zusenden, wie wir die Spenden verwenden, die Sie uns für die bedürftigen Kinder zukommen lassen. Kontaktieren Sie uns und nennen Sie uns dabei Ihren vollständigen Namen und Ihre Adresse; wir werden Ihnen die Informationen dann zusenden.
Das klingt vielversprechend. Wie jedoch auf der Website von Charity Watch nachzulesen ist, bleibt es nur bei einem Versprechen:
Eine Mailanfrage mit der Bitte um Übersendung des Jahresberichts wurde mit wenig aussagekräftigen Unterlagen beantwortet. Das anschließend mit der Office Managerin Tina Giove geführte Telefonat lieferte ebenfalls wenig erhellendes. So wurde zum Beispiel die Frage nach einer Einnahmen-Überschussrechnung und der Bilanz mit der Auskunft abgetan, diese unterliegen dem Geschäftsgeheimnis.
Auf der Website der britischen Charities Direct finden sich dann doch noch ein paar finanzielle Eckdaten zum britischen Ableger des World Children’s Fund. Danach werden satte 28.65% des Spendenaufkommens für Fundraising ausgegeben. Gemäß der Beratungs-Firma GuideStar Data Services liegt der Durchschnitt für diese Ausgaben (PDF 184kB) in Großbritannien bei weniger als der Hälfte, nämlich bei rund 14%.
Messbare Transparenz statt hehrer Worte
Ein Beispiel dafür, wieviel Transparenz man als Unterstützer durchaus erwarten kann, zeigt SOS Kinderdorf: Ganz ohne umständliche persönliche Anfrage ist der vollständige und ausführliche Jahresbericht für jedermann direkt zugänglich.
Somit kann man sich selbst ein klares Bild davon machen, was mit dem gespendeten Geld — bei SOS Kinderdorf immerhin fast 120 Millionen Euro in 2009! — geschieht und wieviel davon insbesondere für Marketing-Maßnahmen verbrannt wird.
Eigentlich sollte man World Children’s Fund dankbar sein. Dankbar dafür, dass ihre aufwendigen Präsente schon ein Hinweis auf vermutlich unverhältnismäßig hohe Ausgaben für Werbung sind. Es wäre natürlich schön, wenn sich diese Befürchtung dank harter Zahlen widerlegen ließe. Aber: siehe oben!
Nicht immer jedoch ist der Zaunpfahl, mit dem zweifelhafte Non-Profits winken, so groß. Also was tun, wenn die Bitte um Geldzuwendung subtiler ausfällt? Wie lässt sich herausfinden, ob eine Organisation des Spenders Vertrauen verdient?
Drum prüfe…
Zwei wertvolle und hilfreiche Ressourcen stellen die Websites des DZI Deutsches Zentralinstitut für soziale Fragen sowie von Charity Watch dar.
Charity Watch verwaltet eine umfassende Datenbank mit Informationen zu zahlreichen Hilfsorganisationen. Bevor man auf ein Spendengesuch eingeht, lässt sich auf dieser Website schnell und einfach recherchieren, ob die entsprechende Organisation vertrauenswürdig ist oder nicht.
Das DZI gibt einen alljährlichen Spenden-Almanach heraus und vergibt ein Spenden-Siegel an Hilfsorganisationen, die bestimmte Anforderungen an finanzielle Transparenz und Mittelverwendung erfüllen. Während der Almanach gegen eine kleine Gebühr zu bestellen ist, kann die Liste der mit dem Siegel ausgezeichneten Organisationen online eingesehen werden.
Ach übrigens: Zum World Children’s Fund hat das DZI in einer Presseerklärung vom Dezember 2010 (PDF 44kB) klar Stellung genommen — und ausdrücklich vor dieser Organisation gewarnt.
A Bottleneck Called Airport Security
Traveling to far-away places is a fantastic way to see new sights, expand your mental horizon, and meet interesting people. If it weren’t for traveling, my wonderful Jill and I would never have met and, even more importantly, we would not be able to see each other, as — at least for the time being — we live quite a ways apart from each other.
Actually getting to those far-away places, though, often isn’t quite as enjoyable. A constant pain in the frequent travelers’ collective behind are inexperienced tourists who are not familiar with certain procedures and processes. And all too often, they make matters even worse by trying to show off some (non-existent) cosmopolitan travel prowess through arrogant behavior.
A not-so-express connection through Heathrow
While traveling from the US to mainland Europe last week, I had a quick stop-over at London Heathrow. “Quick” as in 1 hour, 10 minutes between both flights, which was plenty during previous experiences of this kind. Due to a 40 minute delay of the incoming flight, however, it didn’t work quite as smoothly this time.
The problem was somewhat exacerbated by our plane “docking” at Terminal 5 B, requiring us to be taken to T5 A by bus, which cost another ten minutes, or so. When the bus arrived, passengers on two connecting flights, including mine, were handed “Express Connection” cards.
These “Express Connection” cards grant passengers the right to use the Fast Track pathways, regardless of whether they are entitled to this privilege based on their flight’s booking class or membership in the British Airways frequent flyer program. Unfortunately, neither Fast Track nor Express Connection will help you get past the above-mentioned fellow-travelers from the “Nuisance through Ignorance” Club.
And so I and a “few” other passengers waited more or less patiently in line at the security checkpoint as a middle-aged couple slowly and very accurately removed bottles from the lady’s “beauty case” and placed them on the X-ray belt — one bottle at a time. And once this ordeal was finally over, the Lord and Lady Slowpoke still had to be told to also properly empty their pockets, and how to walk through the metal detector — one person at a time.
Turns out, these two were just the opening act for the party of passengers that was next in line: a Mom with two small kids plus Grandma in tow, and all of them behaved as if they had never seen the inside of an airport before. Ever.
Their discussions with the security personnel went on for what felt like hours, as these people were not only clueless about what they had to place on the belt, but seemed to have some non-trivial language issues with the security staff, as well.
Not surprisingly, the kids were running around nervously, and I did feel sorry for them, because they were obviously pretty scared about the whole situation. In the meantime, Mom and Grandma gently transitioned into that infamous “I try to hide my cluelessness through arrogance” mode.
And there even was a final tasty blob of cream to top it all off: when they had finally managed to proceed through the metal detector and arrived at the other end of the baggage belt, they started mimicking the previous couple by taking their shit from the belt one frickin’ item at a time. Pick it up from the belt, walk it over to a close-by table, walk back to the belt, move one of the kids out of harms way, pick up another item…
These baggage belts at Terminal 5 sport a very cool technical feature: at the end of the X-ray belt, a little overhead camera checks whether the trays are empty before they enter a tunnel through which they are taken back to the beginning of the belt. If there is still stuff inside a tray, the belt is stopped until the passenger has removed all of their belongings. Which means that, while the belt is stopped, the passengers who are next in line have to wait for their trays to come out of the X-ray machine. And those waiting at the beginning of the belt have to wait before they can put their things onto the belt.
Since Miss I-Don’t-Travel-All-That-Much-Really took an excruciatingly long time to empty her tray — and, it almost seemed, did so on purpose –, she created a tray traffic jam on that belt that rivaled what you see on the M251 during rush hour. And as a result of that, other passenger could not get their stuff, because most of the belt is fenced off by a glass tunnel to prevent people from grabbing things that aren’t theirs.
At this point, having just gotten off a 9-hour overnighter, I couldn’t help but utter “Some people should just not fly”, which was immediately greeted by a heart-felt “Yeah, I think you’re right” by the person standing next to me, and nods all-around.
“Flight closing”
When I had finally collected all my stuff, tied my shoes, etc., and headed for my gate, the first destination board I saw listed my flight as “closing.”
I never thought that all those countless hours I had spent on playing car racing games would ever pay off, but when I hurried to my gate through typical Heathrow people-traffic, I was amazed how my PlayStation-Formula-1-game-trained eye found openings in that very traffic, enabling me to out-maneuver everyone around me and find a reasonably quick path through that crowd.
In return for my brave efforts, I was greeted by the checkered flag at my gate. OK, not quite a checkered flag, but they were waiting for me, as I heard a voice shouting “Mr Wolters? Mr WOLTERS?!?” in my direction. And as befits a winner, I stuck out my right index finger (my left hand was clutching my carry-on’s handle), pointed said finger at myself, and, now quite out of breath, croaked “That’s me! That’s ME!”
This almost sounds like a fun experience, but, seriously, my heart rate only started to go down when the charming BA lady told me “You made it! You’re on the flight!”.
Getting onto a plane as the very last passenger sucks. Kids, don’t try this if you hate the idea of getting the evil eye from a whole plane full of people. Never mind. It wasn’t my fault, and at that point I was well beyond caring.
The stress-free way of making it through airport security
In case you’re a frequent traveler, chances are that you have already developed your very own process for getting through security as quickly and smoothly as possible. In that case, congratulations, a heart-felt “Thank you for not being an ignorant, selfish ass!,” and feel free to stop reading this article right now. Safe travels!
If you do not practice such a security checkpoint workflow, though, and you want to avoid causing the same annoying hold-ups that I experienced, here’s what you can do to make an airport security check as painless as possible — both for yourself and for your fellow-travelers.
The key principle of this workflow is to handle as few items as possible while you’re inside the actual security checkpoint. To that end, you start preparing for this procedure while you’re still at home: pack your laptop and liquids into your carry-on bag in such a way that you can remove them quickly and conveniently. Here’s how.
According to current regulations, any liquids you bring on-board must be placed in a zippered plastic bag.2 I place this bag in a pouch which faces the “outside” edge of the bag. For my laptop, I use the really awesome Brenthaven Trek Sleeve, which has just enough room for the laptop, the power adapter, and a few cables. I position this laptop bag inside the carry-on so that its zipper — which I leave open! — is facing the same way (when the carry-on is properly closed) as the liquids bag.
As a result, by simply opening the zipper on the carry-on’s side, I can grab both the liquids bag as well as the laptop, and pull them out in a few seconds without too much hassle.
Next up is what you should do when you arrive at the security checkpoint.
- If there is enough room inside the carry-on, put your jacket inside it before you join the security queue. This gives you more room and empty hands to juggle your things. If it won’t fit, put your jacket over your arm. Then get in line.
- As soon as you see the “door frame” of the metal detector, untie your shoes.
- Unbuckle your belt, remove it from your pants, and put it into your carry-on.
- Remove everything from your shirt and pants pockets, and also put it into your jacket (in zippered pockets, if possible) or carry-on.
- When there are some three or four people left between you and the baggage X-ray belt, take out your liquids bag and laptop, and properly close your carry-on.
At this point, if all has gone well, you have only three or four items that you need to handle: your carry-on, your liquids bag, your laptop, and maybe your jacket.
- Step up to the belt and grab a tray. Place your laptop, liquids bag, (jacket,) and shoes into the tray. Put your carry-on onto the belt (on a tray, if required), and send them off into the X-ray box.
- Walk through the metal detector while trying to keep an eye on your belongings on the belt if possible.
- At the other side, put your shoes back on (leave them untied for now), grab your laptop, liquids bag, (jacket,) and carry-on, and move away from the belt to an area where you have enough room and “quiet” to sort out your stuff.
- Tie your shoes, put your belt back on, and put back any items you had removed from your pants and shirt, making sure that you haven’t left anything behind.
- Get your carry-on, head to your gate, and enjoy your — possibly new-found — travel-savvy!
A usability view of security checkpoints
I tried to give this story a funny twist here and there to make a reasonably entertaining read. Nevertheless, experiences such as these also point to a serious underlying problem.
Most modern airports have big signs that explain how to prepare for, and get through, security checkpoints. And yet, there seem to be so many people who still don’t get it. You just have to come to the conclusion that the people who designed the security checkpoints — the spacial arrangement of the checkpoint stations, the signs, the overall process — have failed pretty badly.
The process is fairly simple, really. In essence, it works like this:
- Put everything on the belt except your pants/skirt, shirt/blouse, socks, and underwear.
- Keep liquids together in a clear plastic bag (as per detailed regulations/instructions).
- Take your laptop, similar devices, and the liquids bag out of your travel bag.
It really does not go beyond this, or does it? And it should not be too difficult to design signage that explains these steps so that anyone can comprehend it. Am I asking too much when I expect a place as sensitive to hiccups in “people-flows,” and with such huge revenue streams, as an airport, to invest in actual user testing of signage? With people from many different countries and cultural backgrounds?
Heck, place a UI researcher right at the entrance to the security queue, and ask the real-world passengers whether a) they have actually spotted any signs with instructions, and b) they understand what those signs are saying. Shouldn’t be all that complicated, right?
The very least the company operating an airport could do is ensure that any instructions they do put up have been written by people who know the language. In other words, please do spare us from crappy English like “1. Take a bowl. 2. Inlay the objects.” I swear I saw these exact phrases at the international(!) airport of Düsseldorf, Germany, a while ago!
Even with proper, intuitive signage in place, people would most likely still make mistakes. People get nervous and insecure when confronted with an unfamiliar situation, especially when rushed through, and/or caught in, a big crowd. When this does happen, why don’t security lines have a “step-aside” area at the beginning of the X-ray belt, so if someone is ill-prepared, they can be moved there for sorting out their things without standing in other passengers’ way?
Dare I say it? The root problem here is bad usability. Bad usability at a grand scale. Bad usability of explaining the process of getting through airport security, and bad usability of the “apparatus” that is used to perform the checks: the waiting areas, walkways, and conveyor belts of the checkpoints.
Wouldn’t that be a great challenge for a talented UX designer: start from scratch and develop an optimized process that allows passengers to be relaxed and vacation-happy while going through security as well as afterwards.
Until that happens, though, I should probably put some home-made instructions into my wallet: “Take a deep breath. And another one. And remember that this, too, shall pass. Eventually.” is what it’ll say.
-
The infamous “London Orbital” motorway, which is also known as “the world’s biggest car park.” ↩
-
If you don’t know what items you are allowed to pack in your checked and/or carry-on baggage to begin with, do read up on the applicable regulations. ↩
Visiting Mr. Einstein and the Sock Monkey
Einstein and Sock Monkey is “A podcast for web geeks and website owners” that was launched fairly recently — as in: “four episodes ago” — by Ron Zasadzinski and Steve Martin.
Ron and Steve, both very active members of the Fort Collins community of web pros, are seriously passionate and seriously competent about all things web. It’s no wonder, then, that their Einstein & Sock Monkey podcast covers lots of interesting topics that appeal to anyone who, in one way or another, is involved in web content creation.
Presented as a casual conversation, every episode comes with an in-depth interview as its main course, garnished with a generous helping of recent news, announcements of upcoming conferences, a virtual book club, and the blogs of the week. Mr. Einstein and the Sock Monkey1 were kind enough to welcome me as a guest on two of these shows.
In episode two, Ron, Steve, and I take a close look at the merits and the implications of the now-infamous Wired article, “The Web is Dead.”
Episode four, which just went online today, features an interview with Jeremy Keith, the author of “HTML5 For Web Designers,” and with web designer Lindsey Ogden. As a guest co-host, I enjoyed our chat about news and blogs which enframed the interview.
If you’re into strategizing, designing, or implementing web sites, do give Einstein and Sock Monkey a listen.
-
Just in case you’re wondering, Ron and Steve keep it a secret who’s who, so don’t bother asking. ↩
How to Survive Your First Ignite Talk
Two weeks ago today, I gave my first Ignite talk.1 If you feel like giving an Ignite talk yourself — and I think you should if there is anything in your life that you feel passionate about –, here’s a little story on how I not only “survived” that talk, but had tons of fun in the process.
Geek enlightenment
In case you haven’t heard about Ignite yet, this series of events is based on an intriguing idea: you can talk about (almost) anything you find worth sharing, but you get only five minutes and twenty slides, and the slides change automatically every 15 seconds.
This may not sound like a big deal, but even for seasoned speakers it can be quite a challenge to fit all that they want to say into this rigid framework. And people do have a lot to say — about a very wide range of topics.
Finding your topic
At SXSW 2009, John Gruber and Merlin Mann discussed how to turbocharge your blog with credibility. The very essence of that discussion is when Merlin explains what he calls a “controlling metaphor” for publishing something on the web:
Topic times voice. Or, if you’re a little bit more of a maverick, obsession times voice.
So what does that mean? I think almost all of the best non-fiction that has ever been made comes from the result of somebody who can’t stop thinking about a certain topic — a very specific aspect, in some cases, of a certain topic. And second, they got really good at figuring out what they had to say about it.
And if you have obsession without voice — or topic without voice — what do you have? You have basically a keyword search. […] And then, on the other hand, if you have voice without an obsession, you get a lot of, y’know, people commenting on the Thai food that they just had, on Twitter.
The same rationale also applies to Ignite talks.
If you plan to speak at an Ignite event, think about the topics you are truly obsessed with. The stuff that totally grabs your attention whenever you see it — that you cannot not think about.
When in doubt, just ask your friends. They will definitely know what makes your brain kick into gear, because they have had to listen to you talk about that one subject many, many times…
While, generally speaking, there is room for almost any topic at Ignite, some organizers explicitly state what kind of talk they would like to see for their event, like “family friendly.” As long as you respect this kind of minor limitation, you should be fine even with controversial subjects.
Now, what’s that thing about finding your own voice? You know, I find that term a bit limiting and would prefer to extend it to “voice plus perspective.”
It’s not only what words you will use, how you will combine the words into sentences, and how you will phrase those sentences. The point of view from which you are looking at your subject matter is at least as important as your “voice.”
To sum this up, a really great Ignite talk will make the audience think: “Hey, why have I never heard of this topic before?” or “Wow, I had never thought about this topic that way!”
Preparing your talk
There is no One True Way to prepare for an Ignite presentation. Just trust your instincts and rely on your experience with similar projects from school, uni, or work, and watch a few Ignite videos for additional inspiration.
What’s unique about Ignite, though, is the rigid format: 5 minutes, 20 slides, 15 seconds per slide. During your preparation, you need to keep in mind that there is no way to present every single detail of your topic within that format.
Five minutes are more than enough, though, to get your audience interested in your chosen topic, so that, if the topic strikes their fancy, they will want to learn more about it. Or join a cause that is dear to you!
Use your talk as a teaser: show your audience why your topic is important (at least it is sufficiently important to you that you want to talk about it, right?); how it affects them; and what they should do about it.
Regardless of how you compile ideas and then transmogrify them into a coherent talk: as soon as you have submitted a talk for an Ignite event, you should start taking notes about what comes to your mind when you think of your subject. That is probably the easiest way to make your subconscious continuously munch away on the topic.
As soon as you hear that your talk has been accepted, start working on your presentation. Before you actually implement your slides, check what formats the organizers requested for the formatting of your slides, the file type, etc.
Practice your talk early, and practice often: it’s a good idea to start practicing giving your presentation while you’re still preparing the slides. Here’s why: chances are that, as soon as you actually start practicing your talk with the slides you already have, you will see that the pacing does not work. At all.
Also, if you still have blank slides to fill, you might very well come up with a great idea about how to fill those gaps during your practice runs. Practice with your slides and keep modifying both your words and your slides until your talk — the combination of what you say and what your slides show — is in sync and feels just right.
If my personal experience is any indication, keep practicing even if you’re convinced that you have nailed your presentation. I skipped two days of practicing over the weekend before the show, and when I rehearsed my talk the following Monday, it took me a while to get into my rhythm again.
Giving your talk
On the day of the event, get to the venue in time. Attend the speaker briefing and sound check, make yourself familiar with the surroundings, and mingle with the attendees to get a feel for the atmosphere in the crowd.
Have your first alcoholic beverage of the evening after your talk. And try enjoying the talks of those speakers who come before you, even if you’re nervously awaiting your turn.
When it’s your time to climb onto the stage, relax. You will be talking about something you are passionate about and most likely very familiar with. You’ve gone through ample dry runs for this talk (right?), and the audience is on your side and eagerly wants to find out what you’re passionate about.
Get more advice
There is lots more advice out there on how to give an Ignite talk, but avoid getting sidetracked. Since you’ve already read a whole (way too lengthy, I have to admit) article on the subject, have a look at Scott Berkun’s excellent “How to give a great ignite talk” as well as the Tips page from Ignite Sidney.
And then do get started on your own talk and submit it for an Ignite event near you. You can always try to find more tips and hints, but do make sure you bridge that gap from wanting to give a talk to actually giving it.
Good luck, and have fun!
-
You can find more details about my talk on The UI Observatory, my blog dedicated to everyday usability. ↩
Celebrate Your Freedom to Read!
At a conference last year, I met a young woman who publishes a weblog with book reviews aimed at pious Christians. Little traffic lights next to the reviews indicate — red, orange, and green — whether she deems a book suitable for her readership.
Whenever she “awards” a book with an orange or red light, she explains how she arrived at that verdict by pointing out such details as “promotes the use of magic”1, “portrays homosexuality as normal,” or “presents evolution as fact.”
I whole-heartedly disagree with many, if not most, of her assessments. Nevertheless, I honestly think that she provides a useful service to her blog’s readers: if her reviews and warnings help these people select books that they will most likely enjoy reading, I’m all for it.
Obviously, in a free society, we have every right to avoid what we don’t like. What we, as members of such a free society, do not have, though, is the right to tell anyone what they must, or must not read. Unfortunately, though, not everyone shares this point of view.
The attempt of a few to tell the many what they can read
The American Library Association has more than 10,500 challenges on file, each of which is an “attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group.” The predominant reasons that were given: a book is “sexually explicit,” contains “offensive language,” and/or is “unsuited to any age group” [emphasis mine].
The ALA maintains a list of the most-challenged books for the current decade. On this list you can find such timeless masterpieces as Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men,” Salinger’s “Catcher in the Rye,” Huxley’s “Brave New World,” Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451,” and Twain’s “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.”
Although the ALA website states that “[b]ooks usually are challenged with the best intentions — to protect others, frequently children, from difficult ideas and information,” these challenges are based on the notion that because someone disapproves of the contents of a certain book — or any other expression of human creativity, for that matter –, they have the right to also limit other people’s access to it.
We need to tell these people that that is not the case. Regardless of what their motives are, and regardless of what specific content they find objectionable.
Anyone who makes something artistic, anything artistic, enjoys the right to freely speak his or her creative mind. In a similar manner, we all enjoy the right to freely decide whether we want to listen to what these creators have to say.
One of my favorite quotes regarding freedom of speech is this one by Rob Clark:
Freedom of speech is the only true guarantee for any other freedoms, so to an extent it is the one freedom by which the level of freedom of a society can be gauged. In a society without freedom of speech, they can tell you how free you are–you can’t tell them back.
It’s not just overly zealous governments who all-too-often try to take such freedoms away from us “for our own good.” It’s also overly zealous individuals and advocacy groups who think they need to protect us all from the darker side of the human condition as it may be expressed in art.
These people are most welcome to avoid anything they find offensive in any way. But it doesn’t — and mustn’t — go further than that.
Banned Books Week: Celebrating the Freedom to Read
To raise awareness for these attempts at banning books, the American Library Association celebrates our freedom to read through an event called The Banned Books Week. If you want to support this important cause, check out their website at http://bannedbooksweek.org. And please do spread the word. Because that is your right!
-
Yup, “Harry Potter.” How did you guess? ↩