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