Blogging's important role in society

Personally, for me, blogging has been the most fun as well as best learning experience throughout the semester. This is because I was able to speak about my ideas and beliefs through mass communication. First, I'd like to acknowledge what blogging has meant and has done for society in the 21st century. The internet in general has changed society drastically and continues to do so on a daily basis because people are expressing themselves and interacting themselves with others through a computer monitor. A Worldwide Web filled with endless things to do, look at, and participate in. Blogging has come about in this age as one of those activities to interact and participate in.

Blogging has made it so that instead of spreading ideas on telephone polls or in person, people can rather express themselves online to an even greater platform of people. Blogging is the use to exercise First Amendment rights in an effective and efficient way while all at the same time connecting to an ever-growing database of people. Blogging allows individuals to communicate thoughts internationally, something people could not easily do before the use of internet and especially worldwide blogging. Blogging has paved the way for expediting the way things should be done in society. If activists in the past, like MLK Jr., had internet and blogging as a resource then his ideas would have rapidly caught on fire spreading around the U.S. and especially the world in a much more prolific manner, perhaps even getting what he wanted to achieve done faster. Blogging has truly made First Amendment rights easier because people can even anonymously or openly blog their feelings without retribution or consequence, which advocates for one of the main points of the First Amendment: Freedom of Speech.

What the First Amendment really means

In society there are many who have different and sometimes even opposing viewpoints of the first amendment. Some live their lives following the first amendment, while others don't pay much attention to it. However, there are some that seem to totally dismiss history and altogether are not even sure of what the first amendment represents. The first amendment is the trademark to the bill of rights and constitution and those who don't know it typically don't have the strongest background in history nor did they ever often take interest in it. When interviewing a randomly selected population of people, only 7/10 knew something remotely about what the first amendment means but sadly there was only 1/10 that knew EXACTLY what the first amendment means.

The first amendment is the main representation of freedom in this nation. The first amendment has 6 clauses of freedom that are the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom from religion, the freedom to petition, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom of press. The first amendment is something that should be taken very seriously in this nation and was the first step in giving citizens of the United States their freedom to live a happy and non-constricted life. Furthermore, the first amendment is supposed to be read as it is described in the text and not left up to much interpretation. The first amendment is something that has shaped the course of history and will continue to lead the infinite future and the peoples' freedom. 

In all, the First Amendment is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 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.

Apple versus the government

A Couple of years ago, one of the people connected to the San Bernardino shootings had a password on his phone as well as encryption. The phone very likely contained top secret details regarding the plot of the shootings. The FBI pleaded for apple to essentially create a backdoor into the iPhone to unlock it and retrieve the data. Apple simply refused. Apple refused because they felt that it would jeopardize the national security of the people and violate their first Amendment rights. They felt that by showing the FBI that there's a way to get into the iPhone, and by the way this is technology that apple claims has not even been developed yet, then it will keep the people of this country unsafe. The FBI, however, argued that unlocking one phone will not hurt everybody in the United States but apple claims that the minute a back-channel is created that people will be under surveillance like never before. FBI then took it to court.

Apple continued to argue that win or lose the court case that they would not give up the backdoor to accessing the phone. When people buy an iPhone, Apple promises to keep all information on there secret. It also became an extremely important political argument because it would violate the first amendment if apple were to give up the information on unlocking the iPhone. Furthermore, apple deemed it unlawful and the people of this nation began to converge around them as well arguing that they don't want their personal information looked at. Apple also argued that the FBI should be able to figure out the details that they need to know on their own since they are in fact, the FBI. It was the decided in a twist of events, on Tuesday March 1, 2016 that the courts deemed Apple the win and now Apple will no longer have to fight the FBI on even attempting to create a backdoor to the iPhone
and thus jeopardizing the first amendment and national security of the people.

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/29/apple-wins-major-court-victory-in-its-battle-against-fbi-in-a-case-similar-to-san-bernardino/

Free Speech during wartime

During times of war, free speech has evidently taken a back seat. The purpose of this blog post is to demonstrate how our free speech can be limited by the government and/or supreme court during times of war. The supreme court even once declared "that the government could restrict speech more in time of war than in times of peace.

During the revolutionary war, those who were considered loyal to the King of England were then claimed to penalties by the colonial leaders whereas they passed laws that it was treasonous to support the British King, hence restricting your liberties greatly under the constitution. The sedition act of 1798 made it a crime to write, print, utter or publish "any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings about the government of the United States".

During the Civil War, Lincoln also made it a crime to talk about military movements without his approval as he proceeded to also cease telegraph lines from operating and ultimately shut down newspapers.

During World War I, the sedition act of 1918 prohibited any "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language intended to cause contempt, scorn … as regards the form of government of the United States or Constitution, or the flag or the uniform of the Army or Navy … urging any curtailment of the war with intent to hinder its prosecution; advocating, teaching, defending, or acts supporting or favoring the cause of any country at war with the United States, or opposing the cause of the United States".

During World War II and the day after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt censored all news and communications throughout the country as well as seizing all news that talked about overthrowing the country. 

Due to 9/11, free speech became very limited courtesy of the USA Patriot Act which allows the government to intercept and obstruct terrorism. It also gives officials the right to "read business records, library records, health-care records, logs of Internet service providers and other documents and papers without the traditional protections that individuals have". 

All in all, during wartime we see freedom of speech take a second back stage seat as security of the nation precedes it. Wartime is an example where one's first amendment rights can be violated. 

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1597/free-speech-during-wartime

How the First Amendment has effected the Digital Age

Technology developing through the years as well as online social media has heavily effected the First Amendment. Likewise, we have seen the First Amendments effect have a greater impact than ever before with the age of technology. The First Amendment has such a widespread effect over the United States that Facebook likes and Twitter posts are actually protected speech. The way free speech standards are being shaped over the past couple decades as a result of technology clashing with modern privacy concerns has even caused colleges to create safe places where students can go to avoid arguments. The First Amendment in the digital age has come to amplify everything: it amplifies expression through making speech more powerful and sometimes more impact-fully hurtful.

Recently, Facebook has undergone data scandals for advertisers and third parties spying on peoples messages and tracking their posts (their speech). They then used this to take advantage of that speech by throwing spam at the advertiser and pushing paid programs upon them, which was found to be illegal. This raises the question over how one's freedom of speech can be dangerous and taken advantage of. So, in the future, will there be changing laws that protect you while you're expressing your speech on the social media platform? With the rapidly changing era we live in of the digital age, the First Amendment's reach is being ever expanded and molded into ways that protects users from being taken advantage of while expressing their constitutional rights.

http://www.govtech.com/data/Can-the-First-Amendment-Survive-the-Digital-Age.html