Category: Media Page 1 of 2

Description

My father (Republican, age 62) agrees with this law because it is America’s foundation. Likewise, he supports all the rights and recognizes it is the first amendment. Additionally, my mother (Republican/Apathetic, age 48) agrees with the law because it’s an American right. She approves of these freedoms but believes the press can promote bias and rumors. She did not recognize this “new law.”

My sister (Republican, age 25) explains that citizens must respectfully exercise these rights to maintain society and beliefs. She thinks none are excessive, and she recalls the first amendment. Furthermore, my brother-in-law (Republican, age 25) supports this law’s components because they lead to the marketplace of ideas and peace. He recognizes the first amendment. Lastly, my boyfriend (Unsure, age 20) embraces this law because it sounds correct. He approves each right and knows it’s the first amendment.

Analysis

Both groups had similar answers. The interviewees believe these freedoms are crucial to America. However, my mother found the press’s freedom excessive, while no one else did. My sister emphasized respect and limits, unlike the others. These cautious answers are from women. My mother did not realize the first amendment’s reference.

Interpretation

These opinions could arise from political affiliations or location. Particularly, my mother forgetting the first amendment could result from apathy. Overall, these patterns are supportive of the First Amendment. Each person has their reasonings regarding patriotism or personal gain.

Evaluation

The interviewees judged the freedoms based on an alternative America. Most subjects recognized the first amendment’s freedoms. Meanwhile, I was impressed with the answers’ depth but was slightly shocked. My mother, who is typically apathetic, was controversial.

Engagement

Moreover, these Midwest respondents coincide with the positive engagement discussed in the study. Indeed, the survey is correct that girls are more hesitant than boys about their freedoms.

This past week was free speech week. I took this as an opportunity to work on an extra credit assignment and challenge myself. Yes, I was born in America and have learned about my rights in every history class, but I rarely consider my fortune daily.

This week allowed me to consider how I exercise this freedom. As an American, I consistently utilize free speech, but as an aspiring journalist, I would not have a career without it. Not only did I acknowledge this fact, but I pushed myself to analyze the cracks in this amendment. In the online world, opinions run rampant, and I truly pondered my thoughts on where one should draw the cyber line. Furthermore, censorship has been on my mind. I searched for the answers to whether one’s rights should infringe on another’s.

Clearly, I have had quite the learning experience. Unfortunately, I will never have every single inquiry answered, but I will still search. Curiosity is crucial to human nature, and I choose to embody this virtue like a right. This week’s blog posts have urged me to be the one who asks the tough questions. I have a voice, and others will hear it.

In the technological age, an uprising has occurred known as cancel culture. This process is when a public figure says or does something questionable worth “canceling.” Internet users, in turn, spread the news of these actions and demolish their careers and reputation.

No one should ever cross certain moral lines. Indeed, there are serious issues worth canceling that are outright disgraceful. Although in other circumstances, a minor statement ruins someone’s entire life. Just because one disagrees with another does not mean they are terrible. They are just sharing an opinion–a right they are entitled to.

So, how far can free speech reach? As I have discussed in my previous posts, free speech boundaries are blurred online. We have become so accustomed to our own online bubbles that an opposing opinion is earth-shattering. Unfortunately, we cannot handle it and immediately want to erase a converse online presence altogether. We are sensitive to differences but insensitive when it matters most.

We must push ourselves outside our comfort zones and listen to those we do not necessarily agree with. The beauty of America and free speech is that we are entitled to our words. Notably, the basic idea of a cancel culture is not entirely wrong. We, as consumers, must cancel immoral thinking and disinformation while ultimately spreading the truth.

A couple of years ago, I heard the grade above me discussing essays they were writing over whether social media should be censored. Since then, I have pondered the answer to this question. Should social media abide by specific laws? Should it be more strictly patrolled than it is now?

Sure, there are requirements for making online accounts. One must be a certain age and sign up according to the guidelines. Unfortunately, it is easy to lie and surpass these rules. I do not know anyone, including myself, who did not create accounts because the app said they were too young. Their parents may not have allowed them, but they never claimed otherwise.

Additionally, there are consistently reporting buttons. Many platforms have icons that look like flags, so the consumer understands the importance of exposing inappropriate content. Although the tool can be helpful, it takes a lot of work for the post to be reviewed. In fact, I have seen it take days or even never.

Coupling these ideas, how can the Internet we know and love be safe? Young kids can discover dangerous material exceptionally quickly. TikTok For You Pages are not foolproof, nor are YouTube video suggestions. Furthermore, more inquiries arise. Is this a parents’ issue or a world issue? No matter how protective parents can be, the online universe is hazardous for impressionable minds. It is up to social media providers to assist in sheltering their innocence.

If stricter bylaws were to be enacted, would free speech be hindered? Social media is not a kid’s playground. Indeed, It is adults’ right to share their opinions on their pages. They are of age to own their accounts and should be able to post as they like. We cannot live in a censored country, but we can live in a secure one. This idea factors into an online presence.

With the addition of advanced technology, there are countless outlets for free speech. Social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter, allow users to share their opinions with the click of a button. They get their point across, whether it is a status update, video, or picture. In fact, many controversial opinions are shared daily that produce various comments. Other users can reply to the posts, using their voices to agree or disagree. As a result, influencers can direct an entire following to think a certain way. Even more so, political figures can express their views through personal accounts.

When an event happens, or a new law is passed, many people re-share a popular post to their stories. These actions can raise awareness of current events and encourage research. Especially when someone familiar is discussing a particular topic, their friends could be intrigued. For instance, when I see a friend sharing a political opinion or discovery, I immediately go to the post and read about it. This repost educates me and helps me form my own viewpoint. These actions all occur because of that original post.

Social media allows us to connect with information faster and more efficiently. On the same note, free speech permits us to upload our thoughts without fear of having to delete them. The Internet world would not be what it is without free speech, and these ideas are intertwined more than one may imagine. Fortunately, U.S. citizens can find their favorite hobby–scrolling–actually becoming beneficial.

This past week in Intro to Media, we discussed censorship. Books can be challenged when readers claim the novel’s content is inappropriate. Finally, the book will be removed and banned if agreed upon. As a result, this degree of interference provoked my thoughts. Is censorship okay? If so, should there be limitations? These are questions I have processed and concluded.

The idea of censorship is not wrong. In fact, within certain constraints, it can be a helpful tool. Not every single thought should be published for the public. Some people are very disturbed and could represent that in their topics and themes. Easily influenceable consumers, like kids or the deranged, could view this insight as acceptable. They could follow in the writer’s footsteps, leading them down a dangerous path.

On the other hand, does this take away authors’ rights, or does it create a safe environment? A reader’s disagreement with the producer’s opinion does not invalidate their beliefs. For instance, religion and politics are personal viewpoints for all citizens. They should freely be able to practice these outlooks. A Republican should not challenge a Democratic novel, or vice versa, simply for its angle. Additionally, religious texts should not be quieted just for differences in worship. One cannot censor how another chooses to live and fulfill their purpose.

Overall, censorship is a weighty and controversial topic. I see the positive and negative in its decisive role. Just like anything else, censorship is relevant in doses.

Journalists are America’s voice. Whether they specialize in broadcast, print, or digital media, their job is vital to our democracy. Their political stance assists opinions and opens the door for conversation. Conversely, their objectivity benefits the truth. Because of reporters and writers, consumers are updated locally and globally. At the end of the day, journalists publish to the world what others are afraid to whisper to their closest friends.

As a direct result, journalism would be impossible without free speech. Our news would be recycled words and the same voices. Even more so, information would not be accurate, but rather a fairy tale. Hesitancy would hollow the tree of life-giving integrity, and America would rest on a foundation of conformity.

Thankfully, the first amendment allows journalistic expression, and I plan to utilize this. No matter my route in this field, I will exercise free speech. I will write my viewpoint if it is typed on paper or visualized on a screen. For example, I may take a fashion path where I can critique outfits and discuss trends. On the other hand, I may become interested in politics, where I convey controversial topics. Either way, free speech is the pen I will write with, and my audience can exhibit their right to respond.

As students, we learn about free speech from a young age. We learn about the Revolutionary War, how America was born, and our rights as American citizens. Yet, when I discovered these crucial lessons, free speech always stuck out among the rest.

I am the youngest sister and a perfect storm of my parents’ temperaments. Therefore, I have always been quietly outspoken. Any emotion I feel is written all over my face, and my anger does not fully appear until it is already overflowing. Furthermore, I experience every circumstance intensely. When I am hurt, I am demolished. When I am happy, I am elated. When I love someone, I will die for them. With these ideas in mind, it is necessary to my being that I can express my thoughts. My feelings would not be authentic if I did not have free speech.

I stay very true to my morals. For this purpose, I am unshakeable in what I believe. Once I make up my mind, no one can change it. Free speech allows me to maintain a moral compass through my core beliefs. Honesty, determination, and loyalty are integral to my character. Thankfully, I have the freedom to share these virtues openly.

Lastly, my love for reading and writing is another aspect of my individualism. Since I learned how to read, I had a book in my hand. From comprehending these tales and interpretations, I recognized my journalistic calling. It is critical that these authors properly convey their ideas. Their words left an impression on me that would have been impossible if freedom of speech was not legal. Nonetheless, I will follow in their footsteps. I am the sum of the knowledge I have absorbed, and my opinion matters.

Free speech is imperative to human expression. My identity is tied to communication. Like my name or my genetics, it is another part of me.

The song I added to the class playlist is Cherry Wine by Hozier. I first listened to this song in April 2021, my junior year of high school. COVID had severely affected my school year, and I was a virtual student. Consequently, I faced isolation and struggled socially and mentally. Additionally, I would become stir-crazy and needed to get out of my house. Unfortunately, being in crowds was difficult because of my infrequent social interaction. I was lost, and my only escape was driving. After I finished my school work, I would drive my Jeep Cherokee all over town. Sometimes I would stop at my local lake’s overlook and think. I wanted my life to change, but it was out of my hands.

After many months of nightly trips and tears, I heard this song. It signified a new turn of events. I could not control every aspect of my life, but I could fix some of it. I decided to let go of the past and those who hindered me. I remember driving around, this time in the daylight, and I said a prayer as Cherry Wine played on the radio.

“God, give me strength,” I said aloud. Then, I let go. I released my anger, frustration, regret, and sadness, and I could finally breathe again. Indeed, God gave me the courage I had asked for. I am much better because I left my fate in His hands.

Others should listen to this song because it may tell a story for them too. They may gain a connection, and it may even bring them out of internal darkness.