Honoring Joe

In the past week, we've all heard or read numerous accounts of the legacy of Joe Paterno. It is obvious that he was adored by the Penn State community for all that provided for us. Now, sure the rhetoric of these speeches reveal Joe's importance in our community, but it was a different form of rhetoric, visual rhetoric, that made a lasting impression on me.

On tuesday, the viewing for Paterno was held at the spiritual center on campus for a majority of the day. Walking back from my International Relations class, I travel past the spiritual center along Curtain Road. It was here I first saw the line of students and alumni waiting to pay their respects. As I continued down my path, I was astonished to still see a line that extended into what seemed like eternity. Finally, the line ended at the Creamery, a good half mile away.

Later that night, at the library, I noticed two cardboard cutouts of coach Paterno. These cutouts were covered in Post-It notes thanking him for everything has done. Hundreds upon hundreds of these convered every portion of the cardboard cutouts. There were so many, that the cutouts eventually had to be replaced. Soon, these cutouts were covered with notes, and were replaced with even more.

When I left the library, the night sky seemed brighter than usual. Looking up, once would notice a vast beam of light emitting from the direction of Beaver Stadium. Every night since Joe's death, the stadium lights have been on, as if to say, "Joe, you're light may have burned out, but what you've built will always shine on."

When people talk about how Joe made a difference in so many people's lives, we believe it. But words do absolutely no justice. Seeing thousands, many of whom traveled hundreds of miles back to campus, to pay final respects truly showed me for the first time Joe's impact on the world. Even now I have trouble describing the awe I feel. The only thing I can say is that words are not enough to describe it.

Without verbal rhetoric, I would've taken all the praises as the truth, and would've known the partial truth. The visual rhetoric, however, is the only way to reveal the full impact of Joe's impact on the world.

SOPA and PIPA vs. The World

It is likely that anybody who used the Internet on January 18^th found they were unable to access numerous websites, most notably Wikipedia, which “blacked out” in protest of proposed legislation being pushed through both houses of Congress.

These bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) are intended to protect the copyrights of corporate companies from Internet piracy. However, the bill has received strong opposition from citizens, claiming that the bills border on censorship and infringe upon the first amendment right of free speech.

This may lead one to wonder what the bills would actually do that could possibly be that detrimental to the freedom of Americans. SOPA and PIPA would give the Justice Department the ability to block access and funding to any site that “enables or facilitates” copyright infringement. This is aimed at non-American websites, but also leaves the possibility of shutting down American websites as well.

This may seem like a logical thing to do, after all, piracy is a problem. And what better way to eliminate the problem than by removing access to it completely? The argument above indicates how word-choice can appeal to the logos of citizens and make SOPA and PIPA an appealing tool.

However, opponents of the bill point out that the wording of SOPA and PIPA are so vague, that it could lead to uncertainty of the fates of sites like YouTube. How could this be? Well, YouTube allows its members to upload their own content onto the site. If the content in a video contains copyrighted material, then the government would have the right under SOPA and PIPA to block access and advertising to YouTube. This is unlikely, as YouTube is an internet staple, though it could easily destroy an upcoming company before it can become successful.

Opposing arguments to SOPA and PIPA also use numerous rhetorical choices to make its point. First, the arguments appeal to the pathos and ethos of citizens. They appeal to pathos by enraging citizens by informing them that the government is attempting to spread its power beyond its means, an issue that has been a hot button topic as of late. Also, this is done by comparing America to places that have media censorship, like China.

They appeal to ethos by asking citizens if it is morally right for the government to take away a forum for expression just because a company doesn’t want to lose money. In these hard economic times, “exposing” greed is one of the easiest ways to destroy the moral image of a person (or thing), which is exactly what has occurred to SOPA and PIPA.

To continue the protests, websites that shut down encouraged citizens to call their representatives and tell them to vote “no” on both acts. Somewhat surprisingly, many members of Congress valued the opinions of the citizens in this debate, and have decided to vote no on both SOPA and PIPA.

This highlights a major point of rhetorical thinking in debate. In Greek and Roman debates, opinion was held in high regard during arguments. This has dwindled over the years, and opinion is rarely accepted as a valid argument (as compared to facts). However, opponents of the bill do not have factual evidence that the bills will cause citizens rights to be impeded upon. Rather, it is their opinion that the government will abuse their power if the bills are passed. By listening to the opponents, and voting against the bills, many in Congress are approaching the SOPA debate in a manner that better resembles the thinking of the Greeks and Romans.

Welcome

This is Mat Robida's blog, Rhetoric and Civic Life. In this blog, I will be discussing topics learned in my LA 101H course.