Wednesday, March 31, 2021

The 6 Freedoms of the First Amendment and 8 Values of Free Expression put into Action

Now that we have generated some vocabulary to talk about the two topics, lets apply them to current events

You don't need to read it, I'll briefly explain it

"The Texas Senate on Tuesday gave initial approval to a measure that would prohibit social media companies with at least 100 million monthly users from blocking, banning, demonetizing or discriminating against a user based on their viewpoint or their location within Texas."

Now I shouldn't need to say this but that portion of the bill with at least 100 million monthly users is the key part. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press" but it's not congress that's been taking these people's posts down, it's been the private social media organizations who have the right to manage what is essentially their property, the site, as they seem fit... is what I would say if I didn't mention Public Accommodation

Public Accommodation is private property that has been opened to the public and is therefore treated as if it is government owned

The reason that "at least 100 million monthly users" is because anything less than that you could say isn't really "open to the population"

A really lowkey example I can think of would be something close to a yard sale
It's open to the public, and by that I mean the neighborhood, and by that I mean around 100ish people, but no one would consider it government property, for that reason in particular

Sooooo, now that popular social media sites have not only been opened to the public but are essentially run by the public, it is treated as government property and therefore cannot "abridging the freedom of speech or of the press"

To quote more from the post

"Experts have raised doubts about the legality of the measure. Hughes acknowledged that, if signed into law, SB 12 would almost certainly be challenged in court. He repeatedly referred to social media platforms as common carriers, though they have never been classified as such by law or in the court system. Common carriers, such as phone companies and cable providers, are private or public companies that transport goods or people and are barred by government regulators from discriminating against customers."
“Even though they’re private actors, because they are common carriers, because they chose to enter this business and offer their services, then they are bound by certain rules,” Hughes said."

You may be thinking "well the posts that get taken down are the bad posts, it's better that they're gone"
----------------------Not Really----------------------

Not only is it still illegal to take down someone's post against the first amendment freedom of speech clause, it conflicts with the 8 Values of Free Expression, mainly
the "Marketplace of Ideas Theory" by John Milton and
the "Stable Change Theory" by Benedict Spinoza

John Milton
Benedict Spinoza










 
which basically say,
"Put it all on the table, we want to good and bad so the best truth comes forth"

But I should also mention before
everyone goes out and says whatever they want, the first amendment is not an be all end all shield for you to say whatever you want. This is because of Speech Action Dichotomy and the use of Expressive Action, in a way.

The Speech Action Dichotomy basically explains that

Speech = protected by the Govt
                you can say things and spread your opinion and they can't stop you
Action ≠ protected by the Govt
                once you do* something physically, you aren't protected

For Example:
You can PEACEFULLY protest for BLM but the second you burn the American flag or steal a police car, you're done

Expressive Action is an action intended to convey a message to an audience and the idea of an action kinda turning into protected speech
For Example:
African Americans peacefully sitting on the lobby floor of an anti black library aka
Brown v Louisiana (1966)

What I am talking about is Expressive Action, but in reverse

For Example:
Threatening the President
That's a federal crime. It's speech, so you think it's protected but no, that is a speech with a clearly not peaceful action associated to it 
While there were a lot of people disagreeing with the measure, quote again
"Hughes in 2019 filed a similar measure that won Senate approval, but it ultimately died in committee in the Texas House."
Let me know what you think

Monday, March 29, 2021

The History and Workings of the U.S. Supreme Court

Did you know, That Supreme Court justices serve for around 16 years or longer

Maybe it's just because I'm young and that is 84% of my life but that's a BIG commitment taking into account where you're working, the literal end all be all of some of these people's but anyway, let's talk about some history and workings of the Supreme Court

Major Historically Events:

John Marshall Wiki


  • Presidents always try to shape the court by their nominations and the President at the time, Thomas Jefferson was having trouble finding people who wanted to be appointed to the position

    • Everyone wanted to be in the Senate, where the money was and still is today

  • Eventually, he found John Marshall who agreed to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

  • Marshall comes to the court and wants to increase the power and prestige of the court because all branches of law are supposed* to be equal

    • For background information, they were in the basement

  • And he got to, innnnnn (drum roll please)

Madison vs Marbry Wiki


  • In this case, blah blah blah, legal things, but the main take away is that Judicial Review was established

  • Judicial Review was basically the power of the court to review all actions of all departments of govt and deem them constitutional or not

  • The court elevated itself and given itself the power to have the last word on everything 

Under John Marshall's leadership, the court made the constitution "an effective instrument for nation building" and earned a lot of respect as a "coequal branch of government".....that was until....


Dred Scott Case Wiki


  • Dred Scott was a slave whose master took him to an anti slave state and sued under the terms that he couldn't be a slave in an anti slave state

    • The Constitution wasn't good at these situations because the southern states were holding the northern states hostage

    • The President wasn't going to be any help because he and his had slaves

  • Basically, in the end, Roger Brook Tonny said “African Americans are not citizens”

  • Upsetting A LOT of Americans

It wasn't resolved until after the civil war in the 14th Amendment and was considered

"The court's great self inflicting wound"

They called the 14th Amendment the Second Bill of Rights because while the first one protected citizens from federal power, this one protected individuals from excessive state power

That's the major historical bits but here's how the Supreme Court works today

Workings of the Supreme Court

Receiving Cases 

  • They receive over a hundred new cases a week, but take into consideration only about 100 a year

Addressing Cases

  • When addressing cases they do look at, their main job is to ask and determine "Did the court apply the law properly and is it constitutional"

Working as a Team

  • While the Supreme Court Justices all share different opinions and stand by different things, in the end they all have one objective and respect each other's commitment and strive to fulfil that one objective

The Trial

  • They hear cases in public with opposing lawyers given 30 minutes to speak their side in an oral argument while the supreme court asks questions along the way

Deciding the Trial

  • Once they hear the arguments, they all get into a room together and decide on a decision 

Written Opinion 

  • Once they've come to a conclusion, someone from the majority side writes the opinion on why the court came to the decision it did, the legal side of it anyways

Finalizing the Opinion and Releasing it to the Public

  • Once drafted, written, rewritten, agreed upon, etc, it's released to the public for the press to summarize and rerelease to the common public what the court did and how it affects millions of Americans

The trust that the people of the public have in the supreme court justice to maintain balance and justice keeps this system flowing the way it does.

A lot of useful info can be found here at the Supreme Court's Website


Thursday, March 25, 2021

*The Good, the Bad, and the Hate Speech: Theories on Why the Hate Speech is protected by the 1st Amendment*

When it comes to hate speech, it's really annoying, depressing, and it would be better if we just outlawed it

💥WRONG💥

Hate speech, regardless of its intent to push an agenda, be malicious, or just for the meme, is a key part of our society and the government body

While that may sound depressing at first, there are many ways that hate speech and speech related to it have been carefully governed around to have a bit of a positive effect while not breaking our constitutional right to free speech

In the quickest way I know how to describe this phenomenon and the easiest way to remember the advice

✨Let them do them and simply watch ✨

There are some theories on why the hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment and why it's a benefit to society for this to continue being the case, such as the following

1. The Participation in Self Government Theory sets the legal terms most simply The prerequisite for democracy is that

the govt gets its power only through the consent of the governed.

By silencing those who would spread hate speech, you are essentially taking away the key foundation that makes our country a democracy. We have to respect the system that our founding fathers fought and died to create for a dream of a better country, a radical idea for its time to preserve the rights of individuals. The first amendment is a mechanism for participation in self government, the ability to participate and talk to the govt makes us a democracy


Legal reasons aside, here are some reasons why hate speech is "progressive" in a round about way and why illegalizing it would really not be a good idea, even if the first amendment didn't protect


2. The Marketplace of Ideas Theory and the Stable Change Theory,        They both basically say to not censor hate speech and to display everything, t

the good, the bad, the ugly, the unpopular, the radical, the unimaginable, the complicated, etc

because in order for the real truth to reveal itself, those ideas and concepts need to clash with the hope that the good fair truth that we can all agree on will present itself and it’s not as if censoring the “bad” would do anything to make them go away. They would just fester, and grow, and possibly explode one day into, I don’t know, an attack on the nation’s capital for instance. So, it really is in the government’s best interest to let these people vent.


3. The Promote Tolerance Theory aka the anti helicopter mom theory 

It wants to expose the world for what it is, not only to prepare them for it, but to also promote a better, more tolerant world because when you expose someone for saying a slur or something hateful, not only are you acknowledging that this is the real world but also, you have

unleashed the hounds of social justice users on the internet and they are not kind.

Those impressionable enough to maybe side with this hateful radicalism will see the swarm of, there’s no better way to say it, consequences for not only thinking but acting on that hateful mindset and probably think twice about it. It’s not the hate speech that’s making society worse, it’s the consequences that these people and ideals get that create a more tolerant society in the long run. would also argue that by showing both parties it may encourage people to be more open minded.

A good place to look these theories and more is another blog poster right here on blogger by Prof.Smith Here's a Quizlet on it and Here's the Legal Information Institute page on it

In the end, let the haters hate

because when they do, they get the consequences of society and when they don't, they might start a riot







Wednesday, March 17, 2021

My 5 Top Sources of News and Information

Personally, It depends at what stage in research I'm in

For casual use, not looking for news, those days where you're relaxing yet the qualms of the world seem to leak in no matter what... Social Media is usually the source

Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Tiktok, YouTube, etc. 


I'm not looking for drama and I'm certainly not verifying the given information on these platforms but people tend to learn something and then post it to the world to validate their use of such a platform and it spreads like wildfire as others do the same. 

If it's not social media, it's probably my overly political friend and I mean OVERLY political. He'll debate people online about race, abortion, trump, with people who disagree for FUN

Anyway, after hearing about whatever subject information that's been flung into my face by an algorithm or my friend and I myself am interested enough to verify the information myself. There are a couple things I do. All starting with Google.  

I simply add some key terms into what I've heard about the subject into Google and depending on my search results I'll believe the information. 

1. If multiple reputable news sites have reported the same issue and all have the same information then
    it's most likely true

But what are reputable sites

Forbes.com, known for its listings of certain topics, made a list of

Top 10 Journalism Brands Where You Find Real Facts Rather Than Alternative Facts

Which Included: New York Times
                            The Washington Post
                            BBC
                            The Economist   
                            The New Yorker
                            Wire Services like The Associates Press, Reuters, and Bloomberg News                              Foreign Affairs                   
                            The Atlantic

In that order with some honorable mentions being

National Public Radio, TIME Magazine, The Christian Science Monitor, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, CNN, NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, etc. 

They have reasonings under each source to explain why they got their ranking or why they're good/bad

So look out for those names when trying to verify a story, BUT if you don't trust that method, another way you could go about it is to Wikipedia search the news source itself
Yes, there's a big stigmatism, "Don't use Wikipedia," and while I'm not saying use Wikipedia for your next big research paper, I am saying Wikipedia can give you a quick and simple answer to the validity of a news source. 
If Wiki says, "This is a notorious satire site" DON'T trust it
If Wiki says, "This is a beloved new source founded in 1940" It's pretty trust worthy

2. If I'm super super invested and my search results didn't satisfy me, I tend to go to fact checking
    websites like

Snopes.com, Polifact.com, Factcheck.org, The Washington Post's own fact checker, etc.

Their sole purpose is the look around for stories on the internet, fact check them, and then present to you whether the stories are true or false

I'm partial to Snopes.com myself, they indicate the validity of a story with a big green check or a big red X and explain why the story's true or explain why the news got it wrong

The last thing I verified on there was a picture of a polar bear boarding a train or bus in Russia. Snopes immediately hit be with that big red X explaining that the bear wasn't actually a bear but a puppet for a cause to "save the polar bears"

Pretty cool, Very Easy to navigate. 

There's my two cents:
    Don't blindly trust social media
    Don't trust the first results Google gives you
    See if other trustworthy sources have covered the topic
    Fact check the story