The Massive Shift in Anti-War Popularity

The historic draft card burnings during the Vietnam War were arguably the strongest symbols of anti-war sentiment in sixties and seventies. The Vietnam War lasted for twenty years, and strong anti-war protests persisted throughout most of the war. Additionally, the media covered and backed most of these protests, and the two dominated the public cover of the war being a terrible mistake. With all of this news coverage and prominence back then, why is has dissent diminished so heavily?

Yesterday's Vietnam is today's Middle East. The United States became involved in the Iraq War in 2003. After pulling troops in 2011, Obama redeployed American troops in Iraq in 2014. In that year and the next few to come, anti-war sentiment was almost non-existent. Media covered the events of this war religiously and mainstream media failed to denounce it. Additionally, the Afghan conflict which lasted for over eighteen years received backing by most Americans and the media because of a burning hatred for terrorist organizations like Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Both of these Middle-Eastern conflicts were foreign wars just like the Vietnam War. Where is the dissent now?

While mainstream media fails to recognize it, the anti-war opinion is clearly voiced in two sites in particular. Before this week, I had never heard of them because mainstream news covers only one side of armed conflict. Primarily, The American Conservative is an interesting site because a common stereotype directed at Conservatives is warmongering. This site, along with Antiwar.com are prime examples of strong dissenting voices that are suppressed by mainstream news. These sources emphasize restraint and awareness for covering war. They are part of the modern day anti-war movement, a movement that has little backing currently but should be given more spotlight in mainstream news. A purely one-sided sentiment which does not denounce foreign war is a dangerous stance.

The Internet is The Modern Marketplace of Ideas (8 Values Post)

As consumers, we are always looking for the best products for the best prices. This is an inherent part of business, one in which every member of society is looking to maximize profit. The economic marketplace is full of products, ideas, information and services, some of which are better than others. These superior products sell better than inferior ones, and this competition drives producers to push their limits to make a profit. This idea is known as the "Marketplace of Ideas" and denounces censorship while arguing that truth will win over falsehood in a free competition of ideas.

A chart from Stodd's Learning Blog depicting the "marketplace of ideas"

Currently, the most prevalent hub that facilitates an extremely wide range of ideas is the Internet. The Internet allows for people to connect around the world and exchange ideas, services, and a multitude of goods. Individuals can shamelessly express themselves, voice their opinions, and promote their own personal interest, whether that be a point of view or business. Here, competition is the judge of truth and deception. In other words, the Internet is a modern marketplace of ideas. 

Notable philosophies from scholars such as John Stuart Mill and John Milton disagree with governments regulating this marketplace of opinions and ideas. Their arguments lie primarily in the fact that the government does not always know the truth, and that the best way to reveal the truth is through competition in the marketplace of ideas. In this case, protecting the open flow of concepts in the Internet is of paramount importance, and the government ought not to be involved in this exchange. 

Competition improves the marketplace, including the producers and consumers

A particular example of government encroachment is in the 1997 Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union case. This dispute arose from a 1996 act known as the Communications Decency Act which attempted to regulate primarily pornographic material, but could have been expanded to envelope more spheres of Internet interaction. The Supreme Court unanimously struck it down as a violation of the First Amendment as it restricted content protected under freedoms of speech and expression. 

 

This precedent is very important to the modern marketplace of ideas because it treated speech and exchanges on the Internet as First Amendment freedoms of speech. Had this case gone the opposite way, almost anything could eventually be lawfully censored by the government. Keeping the internet as a hub of ideas will both propel markets and encourage competition and drive which will lead to greater quality for consumers.

Facial Recognition In The Hands of Big Brother (Extra Credit)

Picture a dystopian world, one in which cameras lace every street and scanners survey every human being. Simply by looking at your face, a facial recognition system can identify who you are. Privacy is no longer a right, but a luxury. This type of society sounds dreadful. Luckily, there are people such as Joy Buolamwini fighting to place restrictions on big tech companies attempting to use unfettered facial recognition. The documentary "Coded Bias" covers the work of individuals trying to hold the daunting power identity verification at bay. 

"Coded Bias" directed by Shalini Kantayya

How does face recognition work? These systems begin with programs which scan a human face and identify the human sample. Currently in China, face recognition is required to make transactions and use the internet. This means that the Chinese government has access to millions of people's information and can identify citizens through security cameras. This process is well known by the Chinese and the rest of the world. The most startling comparison for myself in "Coded Bias" was the fact that the difference between Chinese facial recognition and American facial recognition is that Chinese citizens know that they are being monitored.

A facial recognition program being used for surveillance

Anyone who has had a Facebook or Instagram account is at risk to these scans. Big tech companies hold information about consumers and can pair a face to these statistics. Looking at Facebook in particular, the site uses facial recognition to notify users if they are in another person's post. Additionally, transit systems hold high-resolution photos of citizens that can be used for state sponsored surveillance. The harsh reality is that if organizations are using this type of recognition in social media, facial recognition could turn sour in the wrong hands. 

Violent Riots Do NOT Equate to Protesting

Recent events in violent Black Lives Matter protests have shown that no one is above the law (except Nancy Pelosi evidently). While most BLM protests are peaceful and lawful assemblies protected by the first amendment, there are still quite a few violent protests that haunt American cities. If violent protests are often called forms of expression, are they legal? Absolutely not. 

A photo from USA Today of arsonist at BLM protests

While mainstream media rarely condones and even covers examples of BLM violence in current events, The Washington Times provided an example of rioters responding to police shooting an armed man in Lancaster, PA. "Activists" started fires, threw bricks through windows, and looted multiple businesses in response to police action. Media covers the peaceful side of protests, but these acts of violence should receive equal attention and strict condemnation. Destruction of property, arson, and theft are criminal acts and are not to be confused with assembly or freedom of expression. In fact, it is an insult to the law and peaceful protests to even compare the two.

BLM protestors and police unite in NJ

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Peaceable assemblies include peaceful protests, not violent acts like looting and pillaging. The Constitution condones said violent protests, and these rioters should be punished harshly under the law. Change is made through nonviolent and symbolic resistance, a sense of strong unity that shows the world that the resistance is above their oppressors. Violence only breeds violence, and this fire will only be put out when activists turn away from looting and America condones it publicly. 

This has been Mac, please come back!

The Four Most Notable SCOTUS Case Decisions

 The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has the "ultimate jurisdiction over all laws within the United States" (History.com). This means that they have a great amount of power in United States government activity, especially in setting precedents for later cases. Established in 1789, they have grown to review over seven-thousand cases each year. Of these thousands since their creation, the Supreme Court has made certain notable decisions. These are in my opinion, the four most significant SCOTUS case decisions.

1. Marbury v. Madison (1803)

While the details of the case are nothing special, this case led directly to Chief Justice John Marshall setting the precedent of judicial review, a principle in which SCOTUS would review the constitutionality of law created by Congress. In this case, John Marshall single-handedly defined the relationship between the judicial branch and the federal government. Judicial review is a crucial check over Congress which is used currently.

2. Dredd Scott v. Sanford (1857)

In contrast to Marbury vs. Madison, the contents of this case are of great importance. In this instance, Dredd Scott was a slave in Missouri until he fled to the free state of Illinois. He later claimed in Missouri that his residency in Illinois made him a free man. The respondent, Sanford, provided that Scott was a slave and therefore property, not a citizen. SCOTUS ruled in favor of Sanford, furthering that Scott did not have the right to sue the Federal Court. Justice Taney then ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that slaves were not free in free states.

3. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)

Brown v. Board is arguably just as an important case as Dredd Scott v. Sanford in dealing with racial issues. Multiple parties argued that denial of white public schools and facilities that were prohibited to people of color was an illegal form of segregation, especially because the colored facilities were of greatly inferior quality. Local courts upheld the "separate but equal" doctrine. In an unanimous decision, SCOTUS ruled that the "separate but equal" schools were of different quality and unequal, violating the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment.

4. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Mapp vs. Ohio surfaced after a woman was convicted of possessing something illegal, a conviction obtained with an illegal search by police. Police originally had the intent of searching for a fugitive when they came across her illegal materials. Mapp vs. Ohio determined that the materials seized by the officers were protected from seizure under the Fourteenth Amendment. This meant that evidence obtained illegally could not be used in cases. 

In conclusion, the SCOTUS has great power to determine the course of justice in the United States. Even though they have made many unexpected and immoral decisions, they are in many ways modern guardians of the people against tyrannical laws. 


This has been Mac, please come back!