211–220 of 234 posts
We watched it on a large TV set that they rolled in on a cart. Granted I was in a 99% white school at the time, but the school was not for the rich - however they bought the necessary footage (I assume now, no idea).
I distinctly remember Dr. King's voice, I will not forget it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If schools really wanted to teach it, it would be well within fair use laws for them to show the whole thing. No, not a chance. Even a few paragraphs would likely get them smashed, especially if they're the most interesting of the speech. > First one that comes to mind is its length. Have people stopped studying books or something? > Secondly, there is a lot of religious imagery in the speech. I could certainly ima…
> I wouldn't. Neither would I. We studied the book of Ruth in an ancient literature course in high school, along with Gilgamesh, et al. It was very interesting to read them in that context. The effect of religion is inseparable from the course of history. It's possible to approach it from a non-theistic context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"On that basis you couldn't have US school textbooks with translations of the letters of Christopher Columbus in them" I don't know what your point is, most school textbooks don't include Colombus' letters either. And it's not that history textbooks can't include religious content but the more religious content there is the less likely you're going to see it in a secular textbook, grandparent is precisely right.
How on earth do you think you can you avoid including religious content in history textbooks, irrespective of the secularity of the school? You'd have to cut nearly all of it. Besides I would have thought that a secular school would be one where you would see the widest range of religious content when studying history, as it would be less likely to be biased in favour of any religion in particular. edit - the followi…
I have to disagree with part of the premise. While the speech is copyrighted, that might not be the reason most people haven't read or seen the entirety of the speech. If schools really wanted to teach it, it would be well within fair use laws for them to show the whole thing. There are probably a variety of other reasons why you don't see this speech taught in schools. First one that comes to mind is its length. Unl…
> If schools really wanted to teach it, it would be well within fair use laws for them to show the whole thing. No, not a chance. Even a few paragraphs would likely get them smashed, especially if they're the most interesting of the speech. > First one that comes to mind is its length. Have people stopped studying books or something? > Secondly, there is a lot of religious imagery in the speech. I could certainly ima…
>> If schools really wanted to teach it, it would be well within fair use laws for them to show the whole thing.
>
> No, not a chance. Even a few paragraphs would likely get them smashed, especially if they're the most interesting of the speech.
>
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that educational programs are allowed to do whatever they want wrt. copyright as long as they can show educational value and aren't directly profiting off of reproducing the copyrighted work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If schools really wanted to teach it, it would be well within fair use laws for them to show the whole thing. No, not a chance. Even a few paragraphs would likely get them smashed, especially if they're the most interesting of the speech. > First one that comes to mind is its length. Have people stopped studying books or something? > Secondly, there is a lot of religious imagery in the speech. I could certainly ima…
>> If schools really wanted to teach it, it would be well within fair use laws for them to show the whole thing. > > No, not a chance. Even a few paragraphs would likely get them smashed, especially if they're the most interesting of the speech. > Actually we had to memorize a significant portion of the speech for my eighth grade AP English class, in addition to watching the speech, and talking about the context. Thi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, I thought the same way. To quote the Beatles: We all want to change the world / But when you talk about destruction /Don't you know that you can count me out But when you want money / For people with minds that hate / All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Easy for John Lennon to say as a misogynist white man who had all the money and privilege in the world.
Get off your high horse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> If schools really wanted to teach it, it would be well within fair use laws for them to show the whole thing. > > No, not a chance. Even a few paragraphs would likely get them smashed, especially if they're the most interesting of the speech. > Actually we had to memorize a significant portion of the speech for my eighth grade AP English class, in addition to watching the speech, and talking about the context. Thi…
If that were true, there wouldn't be a market for textbooks.
The copyrighted works we were shown and given access to in class were supplements to the textbooks we were using.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And who works for the King Center? MLK's kids. So yes, royalties go to the King Center, which at least in part, go to his children, including MLK III. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_III
And this is bad...how? They are working to further MLK's goals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If schools really wanted to teach it, it would be well within fair use laws for them to show the whole thing. No, not a chance. Even a few paragraphs would likely get them smashed, especially if they're the most interesting of the speech. > First one that comes to mind is its length. Have people stopped studying books or something? > Secondly, there is a lot of religious imagery in the speech. I could certainly ima…
>> If schools really wanted to teach it, it would be well within fair use laws for them to show the whole thing. > > No, not a chance. Even a few paragraphs would likely get them smashed, especially if they're the most interesting of the speech. > Actually we had to memorize a significant portion of the speech for my eighth grade AP English class, in addition to watching the speech, and talking about the context. Thi…
You're wrong. Educational programs have a specific exemption for performing or displaying lawfully acquired copyrighted works in a classroom setting: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/110 but that's the extent of it, they most definitely are not allowed to reproduce copyrighted work whether profiting of it or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, YouTube was my first answer to this. We need more Huey P. Newton and Malcolm X for the issues of today (regulatory capture and the shredded constitution, political campaign finance, income/opportunity inequality being the main meta-issues), I think, rather than more MLK.
You're saying we need more people who physically harm others?
At the end of the day, having ceded the monopoly of violence to the government, it becomes very difficult to merely ask nicely to have your freedoms restored. More Malcom X's would probably have helped the Occupy movement, least of all because the "We are oppressed, we're starting to fight back" is a narrative familiar enough to the American psyche.