Blog Post 5: Protect Dissent

One of the eight values of free expression is to protect dissent. This means that the First Amendment also protects the views of the minority. This means that even if 99.9% of Americans believe one thing, the beliefs of the minority of people are protected. This also means that you are allowed to disagree with the government and anyone else in the world, you are entitled to your own opinion. 

It is important to have your own opinion especially when it comes to making political decisions about who should be in office because you want your beliefs to be represented. It is also important to learn about opposing opinions so that you are well rounded and understand the beliefs of the opposing group. Just because you believe one thing doesn't mean you should close your ears to opposition because you may be exposed to beliefs you have not yet thought of or considered. The new information may alter or change your original beliefs. 

This interview with author Ralph Young dives into his views about dissent and how it has shaped the United States. Young wrote a book about dissent, The History of an American Ideal, where he spoke on this topic. 

Young defines dissent as, “resisting the powers to be, going against the grain.” He also mentions that the “powers to be” changes as time goes on, so dissent is not stagnant. One example Young points out is when slavery was abolished. There were many people pleased and excited about this abolishment, but the Ku Klux Klan was against it. Their dissent is protected. 

With every new rule or law, there are people who are against it, no matter who it benefits. It is impossible to make every single person happy in every single way. Oftentimes people are upset and dissentful because they feel threatened. For example, when women were given the right to vote, there were many upset men. Many of them were not happy about the law because they were worried that women might use their emotions to make decisions rather than focusing on facts. 

Another question asked of Young is whether or not dissenters should drive for violence. Young said, “I think most of us would agree that nonviolence is the way to go - that violent dissent usually does not win many converts to your cause.” This is true for me, I am not a violent person, and seeing violence like the looting and negative events of Black Lives Matter protests makes me upset rather than providing a desire to join the movement. 

The rest of the interview is worth reading to read about specific ways America has been impacted by dissenters. There are many events, like women's suffrage, that wouldn't have happened without the work of dissenters. 

Not everyone is going to agree 100% of the time and it is important for Americans to know that they do not have to always go with what the majority thinks. Be yourself and stand behind what you believe. 

For more interesting reads on dissent in modern American history, check out this webpage!

Coded Bias Reflection

Coded Bias is a documentary film about a student at Massachusetts Institute of Technology named Joy Buolamwini, an African American female. In a Media Lab course, she was creating an inspire mirror that would show graphics on the mirror to inspire the user such as a lion on her face. The mirror used artificial intelligence algorithms for facial recognition. At first, the AI could not correctly detect her face unless she put on a white mask. Buolamwini considered potential issues with lighting or angles but reached the conclusion that it was an issue with the algorithm itself creating racial and gender bias. 

The algorithmic issue sparked an interest in Buolamwini because of the discrimination towards women and people of color that do not fit the white male standard. She learned that AI began at Dartmouth College in the math department. The board in this department that worked on the project consisted of a group of all white males, so the algorithms were best fit to detect the people who created it. 

Facial recognition is widely used these days. I use facial recognition without thinking about it every time I use a filter on Snapchat. I have never thought that the information Snapchat received from recognizing my face could be used in other ways. Many iPhone users with the latest iPhones use facial recognition to unlock their smartphones, but don't think about other ways this data could be utilized. 

Buolamwini examined the use of AI and facial recognition in a variety of ways. She discovered examples in the United Kingdom and China where the police were using AI to find criminals on the street. She found that the algorithms showed bias toward non-white males and provided many inaccurate results that labeled individuals as criminals or at high risk for committing a crime. 

She also found an apartment building in Brooklyn, New York that went from using key cards to facial recognition to enter the building. The facial recognition was also used in security camera videos to figure out who was involved in various situations. The people living in the apartment building were against the AI system because they felt uncomfortable and did not like the feeling of being watched all the time. 

Many businesses also use AI in their hiring process including IBM, Amazon, and Apple. These algorithms show gender bias in the process of hiring. One example included when Amazon first started using AI to sift through applications. The algorithm was prone to gender bias and automatically deleted applications from people who listed women’s colleges, women’s sports, etc on their resume or application.

As a female applying to internships and soon to be looking for a full-time job, this information is concerning. While Buolamwini’s work has brought the issue to the eye of many employers who showed this gender bias, there are likely many companies who have no idea the bias is even happening. Does this mean that by selecting that I am a female in the demographics section when applying for a job I am potentially setting myself up for rejection? 

Buolamwini’s determination throughout the film was inspiring. When she first noticed the bias, instead of complaining, she started digging. She asked questions and put in the work to get answers. When she found the answers and issues, she went to companies like IBM to present her findings. Her determination generated a change where these companies stopped using the AI technology to reduce the amount of racial and gender bias. 

She also noted that she realizes she is a female woman of color and people are going to try to discredit and defund her work. Women in technology are often underestimated because they are not part of the majority, but her determination and passion drive her to push through such challenges because she is making a difference. 

Information is constantly being gathered through artificial intelligence and facial recognition. We do not know how this information is being used or to what extent it can be used. Even now there are still no regulations on these algorithms, so there are no limitations. Buolamwini emphasized that we need a regulatory organization that makes algorithms work for all of society and not discriminate. 

More and more types and styles of AI will continue to enter and transform our world. What will people in power do with this information? I guess we will have to wait and see. 

 

Blog Post 4: Antiwar Websites

These days the United States has military operations in countries all over the globe. Their involvement typically creates controversy between political parties and people share their opinions on military involvement in varying ways. ANTIWAR.com and The American Conservative are two websites that share articles about the US military involvement from an antiwar perspective. 

Looking at ANTIWAR.com I selected an article from today’s posts on the website about how Democrat Senators have a $350 billion plan to advance US industries and stray from relying on Chinese supply chains. The funds would supply research and investigation into various industries to figure out the best way to make this change from relying so heavily on China. 

This article was very informative written and provided the information regarding the topic as factual information. At the bottom of the page there is a “Click to Discuss This Article” button. After clicking, many comments come up as discussion for the article where readers can share their views and opinions. 

Since this article was very recent and posted today, there was only one comment. The user said, “Shouldn't that money be targeted for helping small businesses and the unemployed? Shouldn't that money also be targeted for battling Covid?” The user continued their comment mentioning that this bill seems to mostly benefit the large companies that are doing fine right now rather than the small businesses and entrepreneurs that are suffering. 

The American Conservative website has an entire section for realism and restraint which has anti-war related articles. The article I viewed was, “The West Shouldn’t Intervene in Belarus.” The article spoke about how Belarusians are protesting and an article was written by the New York Times about supporting the protesters. The article encouraged US and EU leaders to resist the pressure so that Putin does not send military into Belarus. The goal is to keep from creating any more turmoil. Other topics show their anti-war opinions such as the articles titled, “Get Out of Syria” and “Are We Deliberately Trying to Provoke a Military Crisis With Russia?” 

Both of the websites mentioned above are filled to the brim with articles on military involvement and antiwar opinions, but I have never heard of these websites before today. 

On a typical day when watching a television news broadcast, the stories shared include relevant weather or storm updates such as a hurricane, recent retail news about major companies like Amazon, celebrity news, and other top stories. In the current world situation there are daily stories about coronavirus updates and the return of sports. 

Looking at the CBS News website, there are no articles that resemble the ones I viewed on the ANTIWAR.com or American Conservative website. The one story I see that mentions Putin is about the poisoning of Alexei Navalny, a Putin critic.

We don't hear these opinions on mainstream news because they typically have to stay neutral. Some news stations might lean farther to the left or right and share those opinions, but for the most part they state factual information. Another reason we might not hear these voices from mainstream news is because they cover all topics rather than being solely devoted to one topic like the antiwar websites are.

The writers for the antiwar websites dive into the topic and get into the details while mainstream news cover all their bases with an overview of topics targeted towards their viewers. People who look at the antiwar websites are likely interested in those topics and want to stay informed on military involvement while the typical American might watch a mainstream news channel to have an idea of what is going on in the world in general. 

This is true for other topics as well. If I wanted to learn more about a specific topic or organization then going to their specific website or blog will provide more details than hearing a story about it on the news. For example, if I wanted to stay up to date on everything in the Black Lives Matter movement then I would go to their website versus just hearing about one protest on the news.

Blog Post 3: Black Lives Matter Protest

The First Amendment provides six freedoms including freedom of religion, from religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. These freedoms allow Americans to speak up and show their expression, but there are limitations. In the past few months, the Black Lives Matter movement has shown up across the country in several protests and other events. While many protests stayed peaceful to serve their purpose, other protests involved looting stores, destroying cars and statues, disrespecting police officers, and more. To what extent does the First Amendment cover these actions?

The Speech/Action Dichotomy provides insight to respond to that question. This dichotomy explains that speech is protected, but action is not. The exception here is that sometimes action moves over to the speech category and is protected because the action is expressive. 

This article is about a Black Lives Matter group from Bay City and the Refuse Fascism Detroit Area group planning to be outside of a Trump rally on Thursday, September 10th. The rally took place at MBS International Airport where President Trump planned to speak from the aviation company Avflight Saginaw. 

 

The Black Lives Matter groups planned their anti-Trump rally and named it the “Dump Trump Rally.” This rally was planned to start at 4 pm which was the same time the doors opened for the public to enter Trump’s rally. Their goal was to voice their opinion on anti-racism and claimed that Trump is trying to ban their efforts and that he supports fascism and divisiveness. 

 

The Airport Manager James Cander explained, “We were going to try and set up an area for First Amendment activities, but once we heard there was 5,000 people, the space in is just too confined and with the restrictions involved we just couldn't find a good location for it.” This quote shows that people see these protests as using their First Amendment rights. As long as the protests involve speech and expression they are not breaking any laws. 

A second article shared the events of the protest. Luckily, in this case, the protest remained peaceful and there was no violence, just First Amendment protected speech and expression. The protesters shared their opinions opposing Trump and their belief that he is ignoring the COVID-19 pandemic and racism. The only altercations that occured included verbal arguments between supporters of Trump and protesters. Since these arguments were verbal, both parties used their right to freely speak. 

 

The articles themselves display the freedom of the press as the articles share supporting quotes from both sides of the arguments. While the quotes may not be the writer or organization’s opinion, they have the freedom to share both views. Both rally’s also show the freedom of assembly. Both sides are free to gather and express their opinions and views. 

This protest and rally are both good examples of proper use of the First Amendment to speak and expressive opposing opinions.

 

 

Blog Post 2: The US Supreme Court

 Introduction

 

After reading about the Supreme Court through the History.com website, I gained an abundance of knowledge about the history and work of the Supreme court that I will share with you today! I already knew that the Supreme Court of the United States is at the top of the judicial brand in the United States government, but the website included some facts and details that I was not familiar with. 

 

The Beginning of the Supreme Court

 

Article Three of the US Constitution created the Supreme Court in 1789 and the Judiciary Act in 1789 gave guidelines for the structure. The Judiciary Act declared that the court would have six justices that serve until they retire or pass away. The court's first assembly took place on February 2, 1790 where they began to develop organizational guidelines. Their first decision took place on August 3, 1791 for the West v. Barnes case that involved a dispute where a farmer owed money to a family. 

 

Supreme Court Justices

 

While the first Supreme Court was made of six justices, it is now made up of nine. One of the nine justices is deemed the chief justice who oversees the court and schedules meetings. It is also the chief justice’s duty to lead cases involving impeachment of the president. John Marshall is a notable chief justice whose name always comes up in any US history course I have taken. One of his famous cases is Marbury v. Madison where he ruled that the court can review acts by the government if they are not in line with the Constitution. 

 

Supreme Court Cases

 

Throughout the years, cases taken to the Supreme Court have made many decisions that have lasting impacts on the country. Many of these cases also help citizens understand their rights and possible limitations regarding the first amendment. For example, in the case of Engel v. Vitale the court ruled that prayer in public schools violates the first amendment. Sometimes the rulings on such cases get taken to a deeper level like in the case of Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. In this example, the court ruled that students cannot say prayers into the school's speaker system. 

 

Conclusion

 

Overall the main takeaway is that the Supreme Court is important for the checks and balances system in the United States government because they check the actions of the executive and legislative branch. Additionally, Supreme Court decisions can make a big impact on the country and our understanding of our rights. There are still some things that have never been investigated or questioned relating to the government and taking cases to the Supreme Court offers citizens the chance to have their voices heard on a larger scale and potentially create change. 

 

Interested in reading about wacky supreme court cases? Check these out!