America and The War on America

 America: The War on America

What do you think of when you think of war? Violence? Money? America? Often we hear in the news that the United States might go to war with this country, or is at war with this country, but do we ever hear that maybe we should not encourage war with anyone? Most media is out promoting war and fear mongering in order to get Americans rattled or to expect war. Both the American Conservative and Antiwar.com focus on news as it should be. I focused on reading articles and headlines on American Conservative because it was less busy of a website and easier to focus on the headlines themselves. There are many news sources out there that focus on promoting wars and encouraging them, these websites do the opposite. To better understand why we may have to seek out random websites such as these two, I will pick articles from each and try to break them down compared to what you may see in the mainstream media. The picture below is one that I thought fit well with this topic and had to include it. War itself is good for the media, good for politicians, and good for the countries we fight against, not for the common folk. Us as Americans suffer from war and fear but that is one thing that most media loves to encourage. 

The American Conservative

(Source: The American Conservative)

The article that I chose to observe on this website is titled "Why is America 'Contingency Planning' For War With Iran" ( Boland, 2021) In this article the main focus seems to be that America has recently made a deal with Saudi Arabia to use some bases in case of a war with Iran. The author really tries to dig down as to why they would label this as a 'Contingency plan' for a war that has not happened yet. For me I think the main reasoning for such a plan would have to be the fact that our relations with foreign countries will not look good in the next four years. If we as a country have to plan on having a war, then why not start the war as bad and dark as that may sound. Why isn't our focus on foreign relations like our last President did? The answer is in the mainstream media and this article, because the media loves to fearmonger. This article does a good job of trying to do the opposite but instead understand why we would want to encourage a war. We have seen this tactic not only about war, but most recently the virus and using scare tactic for political leverage. The more they make us afraid, the more they make money and the more they make political gains. Seeking out an obscure website such as this one to find news that discourages war only makes sense because of the world in which we live in. The media looks for popularity and money which would not be brought by anti-war tactics. I believe there should be more in the media such as The American Conservative but for now we will have to seek out obscure websites for this kind of news. 

Anitwar.com

(Source: Anitwar.com) 

The article that I chose on Antiwar.com is titled "Iran Says It Will Not Comply With Nuclear Deal Until US Lifts Sanctions" (DeCamp, 2021) What this article brings to my mind is what this country looked like from 2009-2017 when we were bowing down at the feet of other countries. Iran does not want to comply with us until we give up the sanctions that we have on them. This topic itself is one that focuses on what could happen with our country and Iran over the next few years. In the mainstream media it would be an article titled "US to Comply with Iran and Lift Sanctions" The media wants us to go to war, they have always encouraged war and have often forgotten we still have soldiers fighting in Afghanistan who have been there for three quarters of my life. This article gives us as the reader all of the information that we need to transcribe it for ourselves instead of telling us what we need to think. The article never says it is likely that we will lift sanctions, or that we will be going to war unless we do this. That's what I like about this website and its goal to not steer our thoughts in one direction but to leave that part up to us. 

"Every War in The Past 50 Years is a result of media lies."

- Julian Assange

Sources

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-is-america-contingency-planning-for-war-with-iran/

https://news.antiwar.com/2021/01/29/iran-says-it-will-not-comply-with-nuclear-deal-until-us-lifts-sanctions/

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-american-conservative-is-looking-for-a-ceo/

https://www.antiwar.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-war_movement

http://www.picturequotes.com/media-and-war-quotes

Are There Limits to the First Amendment?

 

The First Amendment and Censorship

(Source: Dolan Law Firm)

What is the 1st Amendment? and Why is it so important?

We all know that this country has its founding principles and guidelines put in place that we have followed for hundreds of years. The Amendments are often those principles that we all live by each day in particular, the 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, and many others. Recently the one that has been in the news a lot is the 1st Amendment, which includes a larger umbrella of freedoms. These freedoms include Speech, Religion, Press, Protest, and Petition. This has been a particular "hot" issue lately because it has been spoken about along with the term censorship. Only the government can violate the Constitutional rights meaning without government involvement, no Constitutional claim can be made. What is such an issue with this statement is that by this definition, the 1st Amendment does not reach private sectors. There are many factors that fall under the umbrella of the 1st Amendment which we will look into further to better understand current news stories. 

State Action Doctrine (Protected vs. Unprotected Speech)

Protected (Speech) 

VS

Unprotected Speech (Action = Harm) 

(Incitement) 

These two words or types of speech lead to the term "Expressive Action" which is an action intended to send a message to an audience or speech that causes imminent lawless action. 

By this definition a speech would have to be the cause of violence in order for it to fall under the unprotected speech category which often becomes a gray area. This recently occured with the Capitol Riots and Trump, where people claimed that his speech caused those individuals to storm the Capitol. When I first heard about that and people claiming it was his fault I had to look at both sides of the situation. On one hand maybe people could make the claim that he got the hopes up of many and they broke when nothing "happened" but on the other hand he simply wanted them to rally like they always do and some individuals broke the law. By no means do I condone the riots but to say Trump caused them under the "State Action Doctrine" is improbable and lacks the necessary evidence. 

The Three Bedrock Principles

1. First Amendment protection is not absolute

2. First Amendment is not a shield against laws of general applicability

3. Freedom of the press is a "fundamental personal right", not an institutional right

Why do the 1st Amendment and its principles matter today?

There are many reasons to be worried about our freedom of speech and censorship in the current world because it is a hot topic with the big tech and their involvement in our lives. I found an article in Forbes that spoke about the 1st Amendment and how under the 1st Amendment what happened to Trump was justified. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomspiggle/2021/01/12/why-social-media-companies-can-censor-trump-and-why-your-boss-can-censor-you/?sh=62e05b8a7b79

This article states that "Trump's First Amendment Rights were not violated," (Spiggle, 2021) Although the statement made is true, I still do not believe it was justified that they banned his accounts on both Twitter and Facebook because it now becomes an issue on how much control these private companies have over "We the People." Twitter claimed that Trump incited violence and according to this article they say that he violated their community guidelines. From what I know he simply tweets messages out and more often than not he is not violating guidelines, but simply stating objecting opinions. You can argue that it is the private sector and is not protected, but by that statement itself censorship is happening. I have this discussion with people often and like to remind them the differences between a news station, and a social media platform. 

(Source: Comparitech)

Social media is user-created content meaning we the users put up the content or share other content. A news station gives us the content and we read it which means if it something we don't agree with we do not have too much of a choice. On social media we post things and we probably see things we do not agree with. For the most part the content on social media that one would post would not get them silenced on a platform. The issue I have with this article is that they are telling us why social media companies can censor us but they forgot the issues of only censoring what they might disagree with. I do however agree with his statement saying "The more complicated answer probably adds other considerations, such as politics, public perception and company profitability." (Spiggle, 2021) This statement itself gives us the answer in relation to the "State Action Doctrine" which states protected speech vs unprotected speech. 

In this scenario Trump gave a speech directed at his following, a riot occured, and suddenly social media companies were more worried about profit and public perception than anything else. If social media companies continue to want to censor others and filter the news we see on their platforms, than I see no reason they can't be held to the same standards of a news source. I also like to consider "The Three Bedrock Principles" and the third one in particular which states that the freedom of the press is a "fundamental personal right" and is not confined to the newspapers. By this principle I do not see how social media companies feel they can censor our freedom to share our opinions on their platforms. 

This article and discussion leads me to a famous quote by one of the Founding Fathers;

"Let us dare to read, think, speak and write." 

- John Adams

At one point are only a few of us allowed to think, allowed to speak, and allowed to write? I think that is an interesting question and one that scares me for our future. We can all have opinions but some opinions may never be seen by those who need to see it most. 

Sources

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomspiggle/2021/01/12/why-social-media-companies-can-censor-trump-and-why-your-boss-can-censor-you/?sh=62e05b8a7b79

https://ammo.com/articles/first-amendment-quotes-founding-fathers-freedom-of-speech-freedom-of-press

https://dolanlawfirm.com/2017/08/13495/

https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/guide-to-online-censorship/

The History of the Highest Court

 The Supreme Court

Some of the biggest moments in history have been decided in the highest court or the Supreme Court and have shaped our perspective of the law. It is the most powerful judicial body on earth and is solely based on the Constitution. (Stephens, 2013) 

There have been only roughly 100 Supreme Court Justices since the establishment of the court itself and there is a strong focus on the confirmation process itself. John Marshall was named Chief Justice in 1801 after the Act of Congress was deemed unconstitutional. The court now roughly takes in 100 cases each year while actually receiving thousands. This is crazy to think about as often you hear about a few big cases each year that catch national recognition, often on key topics. Although I had not known much about the Supreme Court previously, I always found it interesting how much power they had in controversial topics of discussion.

(Source: AP News)

Public Faith and The Constitution

There are two major factors that shape the highest court and that is public faith and The Constitution. The power that the Supreme Court has is only as strong as the faith that the public has in them and the document itself. I know for myself I look to the Supreme Court to make the right decisions in determining some of the most controversial topics from abortion to voter fraud. Although there are times we may not agree with their decision we have to understand it is the right one based on the Constitution and upholding the rule of law. The 14th Amendment itself told the court that they could not control state power, meaning that you are not only a citizen of the United States but of the State in which you reside in. Because the court relies on public faith and the Constitution we may sometimes disagree with their decisions. 

    

We have to understand that they are working under the rule of law and for the people. I often look to the first line of the Constitution when I think about the law and our country "We the People." Our country is made up of us the people and is directed by those in government who serve us and this country. I think there is a disconnect with politicians who decide that they do not work for the people, but instead themselves. This is one constant within the Supreme Court itself with the goal to serve us, the people. 

(Source: National Center for Constitutional Studies)

A Self Inflicted Wound

Although the Supreme Court is often on the right side of public opinion, there have been many cases where the public has not agreed with their decisions. One case that caused a stir was the Dred Scott case, a case in which Scott claimed freedom under Congress. In this case the Supreme Court said that they could not determine that which caused uproar among citizens. (Stephens, 2013) Current day they have not faced issues such as this one, but instead have people on both sides of the aisle who agree and disagree with the courts decisions. 

Present day and The Supreme Court

Today the Supreme Court has the history of detachment on their side which makes it easier for them to make decisions.  The feelings that occur about many of these decisions are minimal and often cause very little backlash for the members of the court. I know for me there are times I disagree with the court but know in the back of my mind they are making the best decision for the country. Do you often feel that you disagree with the courts decisions? Is it harder for them to make decisions knowing the social pressure from both sides? Or is it easier because they know they care about the Constitution and the founding principles. I think these are questions we all consider when we hear about a new case on the news that is being taken up with the Supreme Court. 

 

My Daily "5"

Whether you are Democrat or Republican, there is one thing that we as individuals can agree on; News sources have biases. There are more biased news sources such as CNN or Fox News and then those that are more neutral such as the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. This data was brought to me by the interactive media chart. (Ad fonts Media, 2021) Because of these biases I find it important to study various sources of news daily. Here are the sources in which I receive daily news or what I consider my daily "5"

The first source in which I receive my news is Fox News and although they are right-biased, I align with their values and politics. What makes Fox News different than other news stations is that they are more unfiltered than other news sources and speak fact instead of fiction. I have the app on my phone that sends notifications to me which also adds to the convenience factor of the source itself. What I like about their news station specifically is the fact that they offer plenty of shows allowing you to hear from various perspectives. Not all of the people that are brought on the show lean right which allows for an outsider perspective. 

My next source in which I check my news is CNN which may be surprising seeing that my primary source of news is Fox. I check out the news on CNN after looking at Fox because I am aware that both stations have biases and I like to see the same story on both pages. What I find to be the most interesting is how different the headline of the same story may be from a Fox News article. It just shows you that there are biases, but seeing both sides allows for you to obtain all of the information that you need. I recommend looking at both sides of the aisle when getting your daily news. 

Instagram is my next source of news and that is because I can see multiple sources of information all in the comfort of one app. I follow various accounts that post news, but also rely on what my friends post to get current news updates. With something like Instagram, everyone is allowed to post what they want regardless of if it is completely true or not. Although this is a problem for many people, it allows you to see how quickly news spreads, true or not. I can differentiate the differences between the real news I see and the fake news most of the time by who posts it. It is good because now even news sources will break news on social media before it breaks anywhere else. 

Recently I have also been getting my news from the recently popular news source, Newsmax. I have been watching them lately because even the sources that tend to lean one way have been biased towards their own viewers. Their goal is to provide news as the facts without bias and that is what they have done thus far. Their headlines are as cut and dry as they can be which leaves it to us as the viewers to interpret it as we see it. I think even if you lean left it is worth taking a look at Newsmax for your daily news. 

My final source of news is the New York Times because I have always seen it as a trusted source of both US news and world news. They tend to deliver the news as it happens and is usually one of the first places to come out with a story, while also having accurate news. I recommend this to anyone looking for relatively unbiased news in a timely manner. 

Having 5 daily sources of news each day may take an extra 15 minutes in the morning, but it allows you to see how perspectives of news from all different angles. Next time you go to open your go-to app for news, try opening up a few more and broadening your news