Final Post - Technology: The Good and the Bad

Photo Credits

Technology has always been seen as something that could be a savior of human life, and while there are many benefits to the technology we see today, calling it a savior would be a bit of a stretch in my opinion. While technology has given us many tools that have improved our life, there are many aspects of technology that have almost poisoned our brains.

According to Business Insider, many young people are struggling with communication skills as well as insomnia and anxiety/depression.

I definitely believe this information because I have experienced it first hand. The growth of technology has come to the growth of social media which is fun exciting but can turn dark and ugly very quickly. Social media has been a place to share some of our life events as well as our thoughts and feelings. When we are young, we are often wishing to be someone else, and with the growth of social media, many young people's mental health has decreased due to comparing themselves to someone else.

I think my relationship with technology could be healthier. Compared to three years ago, my relationship is far healthier than when I was 18. I have come to realize that technology is not the most important aspect of my life, but at one point it seemed like the most important thing ever. Every day I strive to not rely on technology as much. I have decreased my use of Instagram and am trying to decrease my time on Tik Tok.

I think that the technology I use is more misleading than making me smarter. If I want to inform or educate myself I typically turn to newspapers or google whether than social media. Sometimes I turn to twitter for more social justice news, but Instagram and Tik Tok are more for entertainment than education.

As I move towards adulthood, I really wish to develop a healthy relationship with technology and use it for good instead of bad.

EOTO Assignment - Citizen Journalism

Photo Credits

Citizen Journalism is exactly what it sounds like - ordinary, everyday people creating, reporting, and distributing the news. One of the fundamental principles of citizen journalism is that literally anybody can participate in it, and nobody has to be a certified "professional" to partake in it. Of course, there is good and bad that comes with that.

It has been said that journalists are the "gatekeepers" of information. Gatekeeping is defined as "the activity of controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something." As someone studying journalism, we are taught to have good news judgment, to verify facts, and to vet our sources. Since technology is ever-growing, there are so many different ways to receive and send news, making it easier for anybody to become a journalist. However, many citizen journalists do not take the time to practice traditional journalistic values.

A plus to citizen journalism is that we get to hear the voices of the individuals that are underrepresented or misrepresented. We get to hear first hand from someone living in poverty, or someone transitioning from male to female or a black family who has just lost their son to another police shooting. Allowing people to use their voice and share their stories firsthand, and not through someone else is a great outlet and many of us can learn a lot from their stories. However, with some good, there is always a whole lot of bad.

We have heard the term "Fake News" a lot since the last Presidential election. While I think a lot of it has been exaggerated by the President himself, fake news is still an issue that many journalists worry about. With citizen journalism on the rise, fake news seems to be on the rise too. This is due to the lack of verifying facts as we discussed earlier. The main problem with citizen journalism is that it is not always news and it tends to be more opinion than fact. Don't get me wrong, opinions should be shared, but they should not be disguised as news and fact.

As selfish as this may sound, citizen journalism also has an effect on me and my future. Ever since I was in the 7th grade and I discovered my passion for writing, all I wanted to be was a journalist. I took classes in High School, and I went around telling my friends and family that someday I would be the next Megyn Kelly (just not working for Fox News). I've spent the last 3 years studying what it takes to be a good and true journalist, and to learn that anybody can do this, with a degree or not, kind of crushed my dreams a bit. I know when it comes down to it, someone with a journalism degree is far more credible than someone who is not, however, I will have to spend the rest of my career fighting citizen journalists, and I gotta say I am up for the challenge.

They Are Not Protestors - They are Terrorists

Let's start by making two distinctions here: by definition, the word protesting means "the expression of disapproval of or objection to something" and the word terrorism is defined as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims".
For those who don't know why I'm defining two words that seem to have no correlation to each other - over the past week, there have been "protests" against the nationwide lockdowns due to the COVID 19 outbreak.

I know someone out there is going: "Well that's their right to protest as an American citizen!"
And you are 100 percent right. That is our right as American citizens to peaceably assemble. It is stated right there in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

However, here's my issue; this disease has taken the lives of 41,356 people in the United States alone. It can live on hard surfaces for several days, including your clothes. It can be passed through the air as well, so breathing near someone, even if you don't feel any current symptoms, can be potentially life-threatening. I have a problem with people who are too selfish to realize that this is bigger than them, that this disease can affect anybody. I have a problem with people thinking that the government actually trying to protect us for once instead of facing a mass extinction "isn't fair" because "they're taking away our rights."

Now for the terrorism part. I know it may sound like a bit of stretch, especially because many of these protestors were just carrying signs and there was no violence involved. However, in states like Michigan, some protestors have gone as far as bringing their assault rifles to their protests. While it is legal for a person to carry a firearm in public "as long as the person is carrying the firearm with lawful intent and the firearm is not concealed", I don't really get what the point of bringing your guns to a peaceful (and quite frankly confusing) protest is. Are they attempting to intimidate to get their message across? Well it's hard to assay, and I don't want to assume but that was definitely my first thought when I stumbled upon the photo below.

Not to mention the fact that going against the CDC's orders regarding a deadly disease is basically saying that you don't care about the consequences for you and most importantly other people.

On March 26th, around the time that the seriousness of COVID-19 began to rise, an article was published in regards to a woman facing terrorism charges for breathing and coughing on fruit in the grocery store. The woman claimed she had the virus and was going to get everyone else sick. While this is an extreme case, and I'm sure all these lovely protestors don't have the disease because they seem to think they are immune, they still can carry the disease without displaying any symptoms and that's VERY dangerous to just disregard that.

And all I can sit and think is what's the difference between that women coughing on fruit and these people gathering in large crowds standing right next to each other, and breathing on each other... what's the difference? If breathing on fruit when you think you're sick is terrorism then what's the difference between disregarding what the government and the CDC say when it comes to gathering in large groups and practicing social distancing for the time being? What makes disregarding what officials advise you to do to keep EVERYONE safe any different than breathing/coughing on fruit?
I'm still trying to figure that out. I guess I'll have plenty of time to contemplate it as I stay home and follow directions to ensure the safety of the nation.

Social Media and My Online Presence

Photo Credits

Since quarantine has taken over our lives, I've had a lot of time to be on social media... and I mean A LOT. But with that, there have also been a lot of moments where I questioned if I should just delete every account I own because I was so sick of some of the thoughts I was having within my own head.

In a day and age where everything we do is shared on some app, I find myself wondering if that's something I really want to be apart of. But then the next day comes around, and I see a pretty girl I follow has posted a link to ask her anonymous questions, and I find myself thinking: "Hm, should I do that too?"

It's a toxic cycle between "I don't want to be like everybody else" and "I want to be just like everybody else." It's comparing your body, or your hair, or the number of followers you have to somebody you don't even know. It's oversharing on the internet because you see everybody else doing it, and nothing bad has happened to them.... yet.

I would say my online footprint is right in the middle on a scale from low to high. I don't have a personal website, but I have several social media accounts, as well as two different blogs. The social media sites I use are almost too much to count, but here's my attempt:

• Instagram: I have posted anywhere from selfies to family pictures to party pictures.
• Twitter: I typically post a lot of my opinions on here, and I don't hold back. It's also where I go to post something humorous that may have happened to me, but this is where I sometimes overshare. I also have my main personal blog linked to my Twitter so I can promote the things I write.
• Facebook: I don't go on this one often. I usually only go on to update my family members about what's going on in my life and sometimes I go on to watch wholesome videos of families.
• Pinterest: I recently just got this one, and almost wish I hadn't. Every time I go on there I wish for all these things that I don't have. Sometimes it makes me feel bad about my life instead of feeling grateful for it.
• Tik Tok: This one is fairly new, but it's taken over the world. This is probably now the app I spend the most time on because it always makes me laugh. This is also another site that makes me compare myself to others. It's also a place where I can very easily get myself in trouble for posting something that might be oversharing... because once it's out there, it's out there forever.
• Linkedin: This is my final one, and honestly the least toxic of them all. Of course, I use this one to promote my educational and professional work.

I truly do think that too much social media makes people feel lonely and depressed. I know most days I find myself wishing for a different life and a different body, and it's all because of something I looked at on Instagram or Tik Tok. Sometimes I truly get scared that it's controlling my life because no matter how much I say I hate it and don't want to use it anymore, I always come back the next day. Of course, there are benefits to social media, but in moderation. It's a great way to connect, and it's a source of entertainment... it shouldn't be the main source though.

First Amendment and the Pledge of Allegiance

Photo Credits

For my first few years of schooling, I distinctly remember how important it was to stand for the pledge of allegiance. It was ingrained in my mind that if you didn't stand and you didn't recite the words that you were being disrespectful to your nation. On top of that, if you didn't stand and you didn't recite the words you would get in trouble and be reprimanded in front of the whole class.

Somewhere along the line, I ended up in high school where it was normal to stand, but we all simultaneously decided to stand in silence, with our hands by our sides instead of on our chests. It was met with defiance at first until it wasn't anymore because one of my good friends claimed: "I'll stand to please you. But I will not recite those words because I don't believe them, and that is my right."

It was one of the first times I ever realized that I had every right to decide if I didn't want to go with the norm or the majority.

In elementary school, I didn't think twice about it. I didn't even realize what the words I was reciting really meant. It wasn't until I got older that I looked into the words. I've never been a religious person, and I haven't quite figured out what it is I truly believe in, but I wasn't a fan of the fact that I felt like in a way I was being forced to believe in something I didn't really believe in. On top of that, I didn't think putting religion into our nation's pledge of allegiance made much sense.

To this day, I am grateful for my friend speaking up because ever since then I have felt comfortable enough to do the same.

Often, people think this issue is new. They think millennials are to blame, and that we are disrespectful. We've seen it with kneeling at sporting events and simply refusing to stand in school.

But the truth of the matter is, this issue has always been around.

In the case of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), Justice Robert Jackson was famously quoted for saying, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

Some of the major issues that the Supreme Court have had to look at include two things:

1. Whether students can be compelled to recite the pledge without infringing on their First Amendment rights and...
2. Whether the inclusion of the phrase "under God" - added in 1954 - violates the establishment clause

I think both of these questions are very important to uncover, and it continues to be uncovered.

Where I stand on the issue? I don't think anybody should be forced to recite something they don't believe in, and I do think it goes against the establishment clause.

I truly look forward to the day that we come to a solid decision on the issue.

Eight Values of Free Expression: Stable Change

From freedex.org

There are several values that come along with the right to free expression. The beauty of this is that each individual gets to choose which value is most important to them.

Personally, the value of Stable Change seems to be the most impactful and important in my eye.

The stable change value suggests that a society that allows angry and alienated citizens to speak their minds will be more stable, as people will be less likely to resort to violence. This value also suggests that allowing alienated individuals to speak freely helps the government to better monitor groups of people who could potentially be dangerous. It would ultimately be in the government's best interest to allow individuals to freely express themselves in this way.

There are pros and cons to this value, but ultimately I feel the pros outweigh the cons.

It is our right and our duty to be able to criticize the government. If a group of people, for example, African Americans, feel alienated from their government, they should be able to speak their minds and express that anger they feel.

However, on the flip side of that, we have neo-nazis or members of the KKK who may feel that they are being alienated and their voices are not being heard. While I may not particularly agree with any of the views these individuals hold, it is not my place to tell them that they cannot express the view they have. Where things get tricky is when hate speech turns to violence.

Again, while I do not condone a KKK member saying they hate all blacks, I can't tell them not to say that. However, a KKK member saying they want to lynch all black people is concerning, which is why I feel this value is so important.

Allowing these types of individuals to express their hate speech, or to express something that makes them particularly angry, we are able to see and weed out the potentially dangerous people. The people who say their speech is protected, by their violent words may very well lead to violent actions.

Cornell Law School discusses the balance between free speech and hate speech.

It's important to remember that this value doesn't condone hate speech, but condones allowing people to express their anger and their thoughts and feelings so we can determine who is more dangerous than the rest when it comes to turning hate speech into violence.

The History of the Emoticon

Provided by Wikimedia

The technology background that interested me the most was the history of the emoticon.

As we all know, emojis or emoticons are used frequently by technology users, specifically millennials. I never really understood truly how they came to be until this class.

The first use of an emoticon was from computer scientist Scott E. Fahlman on September 19, 1982. He came up with this idea by suggesting that ":-)" would indicate humorous posts on a message board an ":-(" would indicate serious posts.

It was efficient and way ahead of its time. Now, emoticons can move and take various different forms.

However, with every good thing comes some criticism.

Many people feel the use of emoticons has deteriorated how people communicate clearly and contributes to a "lazy means of communication".

It is a bit of a controversial topic I suppose, on whether emoticons hurt more than they help. However, I think it's all relative to how we develop when it comes to technology and communication.

I do agree that emoticons shouldn't be used in serious professional environments, but for certain projects, they can add a fun twist. 

And in terms of using emoticons to communicate in our personal lives, I can't think of a better way to express my thoughts and feelings... besides actual words of course. 

The History of Motion Pictures

For this week's assignment, I was chosen to research the history of Motion Pictures. This was actually very exciting for me because I hope to someday write and produce a film of my own and am planning on going to get my masters in writing for film and television.

In one of my first Journalism classes, Video Production, we learned about the first film ever made, The Horse in Motion (1878) by Eadweard Muybridge.

The film was essentially just a series of photos that were made to be viewed rapidly to create the illusion of motion. It was made with a device called the zoetrope, which was created by Eadweard Muybridge as well. He also created the zoogyroscope in 1879, which projected his motion pictures to an audience.

It wasn't until ten years later that the first motion-picture showing consecutive action, not just a series of photos was made. The film was called The Roundhay Garden Scene.

In 1890 Thomas Edison and his assistant, William Dickson, created a device that could record moving pictures. The device was the Kinetograph.

Then in 1892, the duo announced the invention of the Kinetoscope, which projected moving images onto a screen. Edison began holding public film screenings in 1894 that were referred to as "Kinetograph Parlors".

It's so interesting to look back and see how far we have come. The things we can do now while creating a film are so incredible, but it all started with a series of photos showing a horse galloping.

The beauty of motion pictures is that they tell a story. No matter how simple, no matter how short or how long, they tell a story.

Film has become a way to express emotions or educate in a creative way. However, it's also paved the way for propaganda.

As Tom Sherak, President of the Oscars put it:

“Film is a reflection of society, both present, and past. I think the film and its innovations sometimes have to catch up to society but sometimes it leads society too… Movies are a form of communication and that communication, those stories, come from societies - no just where society is presently and what it’s doing now - but where society has been”

Why Are Antiwar Voices Always Silenced?

As we learned in class, the Sedition Act that was first passed in 1798 and then again in 1918, essentially made it illegal to criticize the government. Of course, it was worded in a way that didn't explicitly say you can't criticize the government. Never the less, it was a clear violation of the First Amendment.

The act was later appealed in 1920, however, antiwar voices who criticize the government are still being silenced.

This country was founded on criticizing the government, so why do we suppress those who do?

In my opinion, it's due to the fact that nobody wants dirt thrown on their name, especially the United States government. No government is perfect, that's for sure, which is why many of them don't like when antiwar voices criticize their decisions or expose their secrets.

It could be much worse. We could live in a country where we are brutally tortured for speaking out against the government. Our country grants a lot of freedoms, that's not to say that these freedoms are always enacted correctly.

On the American Conservative, one of the first articles to come up is about how all the medicine we need to fight the Coronavirus is in China. According to the article "about 80 percent of our core chemicals for generic medicines comes from China."

The site exposing this leads for more and more people to criticize how the government is handling this outbreak.

On the other side of the coin, when people discuss anti-war ideas, a lot of the times they are seen as being "anti-American." This could be due to the fact that the government likes to lead us to believe that war, and the deaths of innocent civilians, is just good old American payback. But it's not that simple.

If we are going to shout from the rooftops about how the 2nd amendment was our "god-given right", then we should also shout from the rooftops that criticizing the government and its decisions is also our god-given right.

Facebook Leaving Consumers Exposed

Earlier this year, an unsecured online database had linked people's names to their phone numbers from the Facebook database.

A UK cybersecurity researcher Elliott Murray believed that the database contained the same data Facebook had claimed they had gotten rid of. The site was very quickly removed.

Upon reading this, of course, my reaction was fear. In this day and age, where technology literally rules our every move, privacy is a huge issue of concern.

A couple months ago, someone used my pictures and pretended to be me with some people that I used to work with. At the time my Instagram was public, so I can't imagine if someone could just grab my phone number like that at the time and the random texts I would be receiving because they thought they were once talking to me.

Facebook or any other social media app or website shouldn't have an unprotected database because it puts consumers at risk and leaves them exposed to numerous cybercrimes essentially. It's really scary to think that data that should be password-protected can be accessed by anyone that has a browser and the right IP address. Due to this, internet users are at extreme risk for scam phone calls that could potentially lead to Identity Theft. Having access to this kind of information helps scammers prove their "legitimacy" to you.

If your data gets exposed like this, you have to treat the situation the same way as if your information had been stolen/a data breached had occurred.  There is an Identity Theft Resource Center that offers a service called Breach Clarity that helps guide you threw how to handle your situation.

There are no previous legal implications that could be followed in a situation like this. However, with time and the more issues like this occur, I'm sure it will face legal ramifications at some point.

History and Workings of the Supreme Court

Today, we view the Supreme Court as a fair and just court, however, the road to this faith in the court was not that easy.

After the Constitution was ratified, the government moved to Washington in 1801. The Supreme Court arrived at an unfinished capital with a temporary workspace. They were not seen as equal to the other branches of government.

The fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, was the first one to strike down the act of congress as unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison. He earned the court's respect as a co-equal branch of government. This changed the way the court was viewed in the publics' eyes and in the other two branches of government's eyes.

This faith and respect in the court lasted about 50 years until Dread Scott claimed freedom under an act of Congress in the case of Scott v. Sandford. Roger Brooke Tany was the Chief Justice at the time, and under his court, they ruled that Congress had no power to ban slavery and that black people could never be citizens. This decision ultimately weakened the court's authority, which was a bit surprising to me at first. I know the country was very divided at the time, but I am shocked that people actually displayed their genuine reactions of disgust when it came to slavery, especially during this time. I just feel like people were even more scared to have a conversation about racism and especially with slavery going on, that it surprises me people were in open opposition to it.

Eventually, this issue was resolved by the civil war, and the constitution was amended to abolish slavery. I wonder what our country would have looked like if the Supreme Court had decided differently back then.

As I stated early, the court is now respected amongst many today. But how did we get here? Well, many of today's justice's say they have very specific ways of going about cases, but they have respect for each other and for the law and they take that all into consideration when picking cases and when making a decision.

I think one of the most note-worthy things about today's justices is that they take any case from any person regardless of background, sex, race, and situation/crime. This might be the reason for the respect we see today for the court.

Once justices come to a decision, they write an opinion that usually takes about four weeks. Once the opinion is released, it is given to the press to become public knowledge. It's interesting to think about how they might have handled this back in the 1800s. They wrote in newspapers and then wrote to their friends in other states and word eventually traveled, but that probably took months. Nowadays, once an opinion is released it is readily available for anyone in the world within minutes.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court has of course gotten more technically savvy, but they have also learned from their previous mistakes to be fair and just when it comes to enacting the law.

First Amendment Protests

As we discussed in class, the First Amendment gives us Americans the right to peaceably assemble. The keyword here, of course, is peaceably. We have the right and ability to question the government when we believe they are wrong, however, that does not mean we have the right to go out into the streets and set things on fire to show our distaste with the government. This is where the First Amendment gets tricky for many because they believe the amendment covers all types of protests, including violent. Many cases have come before the court regarding the First Amendment and peaceably assembling, today I want to talk about one specific case I stumble upon.

Tommia Dean, a student and cheerleader at Georgia university, along with four other cheerleaders, took a knee during the national anthem at a football game on September 30, 2017. After this, the girls were prohibited from appearing on the field during the national anthem at two subsequent home football games.

Dean filed a lawsuit in September 2018 against Samul S. Olens (the school's president at the time), and two men in the Kennesaw State athletic department (Sheriff Neil Warren and Earl Ehrhart). In her lawsuit, she accused the defendants of violating her First Amendment rights and specifically accused Sheriff Warren and Mr. Ehrhart of conspiring to cause these violations of her civil rights by putting pressure on the university's president to take action. Sheriff Warren and Mr. Ehrhart were dismissed from the lawsuit in February, however, an appeal of this decision to dismiss them is currently going on.

According to Dean's attorney, Bruce Brown, "The appeal is important because it calls into question when private parties can be liable under the civil rights laws of causing a public official or conspiring with a public official to violate a citizen's First Amendment rights".

This fall, Dean reached a settlement with the Georgia Department of Administrative Services and she was paid 145,000 in October

To me, this is a clear violation of Ms. Deans First Amendment Rights. What she did was an expression of opinion that maybe some may not agree with but she is protected under the constitution to express herself however way she wants (as long as it's peaceful) without fear of facing punishment.

To address the peaceable aspect of this case, it is clear that she followed the rule of "peaceably assembling" because no violence ensued from her actions and she herself participated in no violate actions. The beauty of this right granted to us is that we should not be faced with consequences when freely expressing ourselves. I'm glad to see that she was rewarded for the violation of her constitutional rights and I hope to not have to see something like this happen again.

More about me

My name is Taylor Irish and I am from Cape Cod Massachusetts majoring in Journalism and Criminal Justice with a Pre-Law track. After I graduate from High Point University, I am considering going to law school or beginning my career as a journalist. I hope to someday become a journalist who sheds light on civil rights issues and injustices within our criminal justice system.

My biggest accomplishment thus far is becoming a Guardian ad Litem in the state of North Carolina. Being a Guardian ad Litem entails that I represent abused and neglected children in the court. This is one of my biggest accomplishments because not only was I once one of those children, I now feel like I'm apart of something bigger than myself.

Something fun or I guess interesting about me is that I am technically from all over the east coast. I was born in Delaware and lived there until I was 12, and then I moved to Florida, and then I moved to Massachusetts, and now I go to school in North Carolina!