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.