Instagram and the Struggle to Create

Instagram is the go-to platform for many photographers who want to share their work for fun or to market themselves to their community. Lately, a lot of photographers will strive to become “Instafamous” on the platform by getting the most engagement on their creative content. I have fallen under the spell of Instagram notoriety many times and I can definitively say that it can be unhealthy for my mind AND business.

Instagram, like every other social media platform, can become addicting and narrow our perceptions on what we see as quality content. Social media is where people advertise happy moments and fun adventures, not reality. It is essentially a highlight reel. This has led many users, including myself at times, to assume that our lives are boring.


This is especially the case for photographers who see other creators traveling the world or working with big-name brands to create amazing content that goes viral. Many of us smaller accounts envy the larger ones as we wish we could achieve the same success because we somehow decided that the measure of our skill and creativity is the number of followers we have on social media. This is a highly contagious and toxic trap that you should avoid falling into at all costs. We have all been there, but for someone like me who puts content on social media t advertise myself and my brand, this mindset can seriously affect my business and my mental health.


Speaking of business, there are some companies who will use your Instagram post in their advertisements without your permission. According to a New York court ruling, posting content on Instagram essentially grants the platform to sublicense your images. This is a serious problem for photographers who make a living off the images they produce; we do not just hand them out for free to companies. Posting images on your public Instagram page grants Instagram licensing rights to your photos and they therefore can sell your images to other clients.

Now, for most people this is not an issue as they post content on Instagram for the fun of it and do not care to license their images, but for professional photographers, we have to be careful about what we post on social media. We cannot post any of the work we create professionally and cannot control what our clients post. There are a handful of alternatives to Instagram that I personally recommend.

500px is a photography-centric platform built for professionals and creatives specifically in mind, and Flickr has been around for a while and is trusted by many professionals. I have accounts on both platforms, though I use 500px more frequently as it is more engaging.


Mental health is a clearly important issue and has affected me with social media as a direct cause. Rather than be motivated to go create engaging content, I would sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that I will never be as good as some of the people I follow, and in turn completely lose any motivation. My solution? Get off of social media for a day or even week and go to an art museum or walk around the city to get motivated, breath some fresh air, and find inspiration. Reality is often more interesting than what you see on a screen.


Note that when I started this post, I said that social media “can” be unhealthy for my mind and business. There are times when other people on the platform have engaged with me about my content or a mutual interest and that has been very educational and interesting. Other times I have had potential clients see the kind of work I have on my page or my website and they have reached out to me for jobs. Technology helps me reach more people and maximize my business. It also helps me meet new people and expand my horizons.


Everything in moderation, though, as there are always unintended consequences with technology and social media platforms host a variety of people with different opinions and objectives. That being said, just have fun with it. Do not take social media too seriously because it is not meant to be taken seriously; it is meant to be fun.

Sources:
https://fstoppers.com/legal/new-york-court-rules-posting-instagram-photographer-gave-her-exclusive-licensing-477136
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/03/how-instagram-changed-our-world

The Father of Photojournalism

Matthew Brady was an American photographer best known for his work on the American Civil War. He studied under Samuel F. B. Morse, the American pioneer of the daguerreotype technique, and owned a studio in New York City. He received permission from President Abraham Lincoln in 1861 to document the War and travel the battle sites.


This move by Lincoln is extremely surprising as he was never a supporter of the war effort and never wanted it to have taken place, so for him to allow a photographer to document something for which he felt shame is unprecedented. Nevertheless, this sealed Brady’s spot in history as the “Father of Photojournalism.”


During the War, he maximized his efforts by employing the help of assistants who went around to the different battlefields and documented the soldiers both living and dead. He opened a gallery in his New York studio called “The Dead of Antietam” and this was the first time the public was able to witness the harsh realities of war. They were at first intrigued, but after the end of the War, the interest faded as people wanted to forget the conflict.


The growing disinterest by the public and the refusal by the government to purchase the plates culminated in the bankruptcy of Brady and his studio. He eventually died poor and in debt in New York City in 1896.


Tragic as this story is, it set a massive precedent for Americans as the interest in war photography grew during both World Wars and interests the public even today. Controversy surrounds this form of journalism as either informative or gruesome. It is an influential aspect of our country’s history as seen in the World Wars and especially the Vietnam War when war photography gave rise to anti-war protests across the country.


War photography may be morbid at times and representative of the darker side of humanity’s inability to live peacefully, but ultimately it informs the public about the facts of war so that they can in turn make their own informed decisions on the matter.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathew_Brady

Street Photography Laws

The newest category of photography I have dived into is street photography. Street photography consists of taking pictures of urban architecture, people, and objects in interesting situations or lighting. However, there are a slew of laws surrounding what you can and cannot take pictures of in any given location.


Every photographer has the right to take any picture they want in a public setting, within reason of consideration of ethics and private property. Public property is public, and we all pay taxes for it, so every photographer has the right to shoot any scene in a public space. Private property is another story as once you set foot on property owned by an individual or organization, you are subject to the rules and regulations that they set. If you walk into a mall, restaurant, or amusement park and an employee states that you are not allowed to take photographs, you are legally required to not use your camera.


Obviously, you need to do your homework before traveling somewhere so you can be aware of your rights and what rules are in place where you are going. Street photography laws are different in almost every state but the right to photograph in public spaces and copyrights to your images are consistent under “Freedom of Panorama.”


Some public spaces may have regulations surrounding the use of flash, disturbing the flow of traffic, or causing safety hazards. Again, do your homework as these regulations are specific to every state and country. Some buildings or spaces are protected such as the Eiffel Tower at night because the light show is protected. The worst thing you can do is get yourself arrested in Budapest for photographing a police officer without a permit!


If someone approaches you asking what you are doing or to remove the image, be honest and courteous and tell them who you are and what you are doing. If they insist then you can remove the photo to avoid any potential conflict, but they cannot legally force you to do this. No image is worth an altercation in my opinion.


If taken in a public area, the copyright of the image is yours and you can display the image however you want, unless it is for commercial purposes. In that case, you will need a model release for any identifiable person in your future advertisement or promotional material.


Make sure you read up on your rights and restrictions before you go out to shoot. Street photography is intimidating enough, so do not make things harder for yourself by breaking the rules and displaying poor ethics.

Sources:
https://expertphotography.com/street-photography-laws/
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Valor por Tamaulipas

Citizen journalism is a highly interesting and relevant topic in our current climate of a globalized economy of information. First, what exactly is citizen journalism? It is exactly what the name implies: ordinary citizens acting as reporters of local news to which they have firsthand access. Primary sources of newsworthy events are important, but in many cases, there are issues of bias, risk of libel, and copyrights. Anyone can be a citizen reporter but will obviously have an angle in what they report or could put out damaging information to an individual in mainstream media. 

One of the best examples that came to my mind of citizen journalism is the Facebook page “Valor por Tamaulipas” in which an anonymous administrator posted security-related information about drug-related violence in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas. The page was founded on the first of January in 2012 and underwent a series of threats from both local cartels and government officials as it was bringing their wrongdoings to light. For context, there are two transnational cartels based in Tamaulipas: Los Zetas and the Gulf Cartel. Both of which have been at war since 2010 and are some of the biggest players in smuggling across the Texan border. Mexico has been an extremely dangerous place for journalists who report on drug-related events and approximately 100 journalists have been kidnapped or murdered since 2000.

One of the cartels, supposedly the Los Zetas and affiliated government officials, posted fliers around the state offering 600,000 pesos for information on the identity of the page’s admin or family members. After a string of other threats and released videos of murders and people asking for the admin to reveal their identity being tortured, the admin released a statement placing blame of these killings on the government officials whom were corrupt or afraid to act out.

The admin released one final statement in December of 2014 announcing their retirement from the page and that it along with sister sites would be under new management. The reasons behind the admin’s retirement are unknown and stated simply as “personal.”

What are the implications of a Facebook page administrated by an unknown ordinary citizen exerting a level of control over an entire criminal empire in their state? There is a level of power that comes with citizen journalism and anonymity. Anyone can shed light on news they find worthy of dissemination, but this can lead them down a very dangerous road if they are not careful. People died because of the content posted on Valor por Tamaulipas. Citizen journalism can ultimately act as the leveling field for the rich, poor, old, and young to be cut down to the same scrutiny of the public and the law. I personally believe that my generation will be the most proactive with citizen journalism than any other generation in history because of our access to a camera and skill with social media. It has become easier for people to discern between fact and fiction in politics, and it will be up to us to bring these discrepancies to light and inform the public about how local cities and towns are affected by crime, policies, and social issues.

Sources:

https://www.socialmediatoday.com/content/rise-citizen-journalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valor_por_Tamaulipas#cite_note-18

Digital Privacy

Privacy online has been a hot topic for the past few decades as technology becomes more accessible and commercial. Kids as young as 3 can have iPads or other brand tablets to play fun or educational games on, thus growing up to be accustomed to technology and seeing easy access to devices as the norm, not a luxury. This leads into a growing concern for what kind of information people put on these devices and the shared platforms such as social media or even email.


Concerns over hackers, stalkers, police, and multiple governments having access to our personal information rise as we discover the usage of license plate readers, facial recognition, and other penetrating technology. Tech companies have to build encryption features into our devices in order to prevent this from happening, but it is nowhere near impossible to hack devices and find banking information or private messages for blackmail.


There are two aspects to the information out there online about us: voluntary information and involuntary information. Voluntary information is what we post about on social media or put in our bios on our accounts. Involuntary information is someone being able to take a picture of another person and use face recognition to find out everything about that person’s life before even saying a word to them.


All this information is stored by those who find it since it is so affordable to do so. The government and security organizations keep information on innocent people, not just known criminals, just in case they may need to locate that person in the future. GPS systems in cars show our every move, location services on our Internet browsers show advertisers where we are and what to show in ads, and CCTV tracks every store that we walk in and out of. All of this can surprisingly be hindered by purchasing the right products. Microsoft and Apple products are generally safe and have high levels of encryption that make it difficult for hackers to get on to your devices.


All it takes to lessen fears about your information being stolen is choosing the right technology and being aware of what information you are posting about yourself and what others are posting about you. Ask your family members to ask your permission before posting anything that involves you in some way. Think twice about the image you post on Instagram or late-night tweet you post on Twitter. Talk online like you talk to your mom!

Sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fu1C-oBdsMM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt4o-R9wzrs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni4FV5zL6lM

My Online Footprint

Most people do not even consider the fact that all of their information is out there for anyone, with or without good searching skills, to find. In lieu of the information found in a handful of articles from Bloomberg News, The Atlantic, and Fast Company about our lack of privacy online, I decided to do an audit of my online footprint. Even if we are not on the Internet at all, others are pushing out content about us sometimes without our knowledge.



How big is my online footprint? Well, I am a socially active 21-year-old, so it is pretty big. I am active on multiple social media platforms and I even have a professional website for my photography business. I have multiple accounts on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Vero, Pinterest, 500px, Flickr, and probably a few others. Some of these platforms I do not even use anymore. On my business accounts, I have my email up in my bio so that potential clients can reach me. On my website, I have links to my business accounts and my email and phone number live on my contact page. This probably freaks out some people, but it is the easiest way for clients to get in touch with me.



On my social media sites and website, visitors can access some biographic info about myself so that they can get an idea of who I am, and I can create some trust with my audience. My social media sites, more so than my website, give a look into my daily life and my personality. The whole purpose of social media is to be social and put yourself out to the world in order to make connections. Obviously, some companies such as Facebook and some ad agencies take advantage of this by digging deeper and trying to use private information for profit. This is what turns most people off from the Internet, and under no circumstances is that just “the risk that you take.” Your life is your own and you can put out whatever information you want and keep private information private as is the law.



I put out the information that I feel comfortable revealing to people and fully understand the risks of using social media, though I am one of the few people who see social media as a fun outlet for me to be inspired by others’ creativity or philosophies as long as I do not take criticism too seriously or spend too much time online. My personal motto is “Everything in moderation” and this is one of the many situations where something can be fun and engaging when handled in small doses.

Sources:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90315706/kids-parents-social-media-sharing
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/01/facebook-users-still-dont-know-how-facebook-works/580546/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-03/millions-of-facebook-records-found-on-amazon-cloud-servers?srnd=premium
https://www.fastcompany.com/90359992/an-ad-tech-pioneer-on-where-our-data-economy-went-wrong-and-how-to-fix-it

Virtual Reality and the Diffusion of Innovation

Virtual reality headsets for video games have been in development since the early to mid 1990s but did not pick up steam until 2012 with the Kickstarter for the first independently made VR headset: the Oculus Rift. This innovation launched the world of video games and even cinema into new territories as people were now able to experience things seen in movies and games in first person and react in real time.


The Diffusion of Innovations theory describes how and why new ideas and technology spread and even at what rate they spread according to Everett Rogers. There are four proponents to the spread of new innovations, and they are the innovation itself, different communication channels, time, and an established social system. In America, innovation is par for the course as I mentioned in my previous post about the Promotion of Innovation as the most important of the Eight Values of Expression.


The spread of innovation can be categorized in innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. The innovators are those who created the technology and the early adopters are the first ones to accept the innovation whether it be in use or independent development. The early and late majority are those who adopted the technology during its peak innovation and profit. Finally, the laggards are those who adopt the innovation after its peak transmission when it is either phasing out or becoming mainstream.


In the case of virtual reality, the rate of adoption is still pretty high as we have not even reached peak transmission because the technology is still new and only in the past few months has there been a completely affordable and easy-to-set-up headset for people to purchase and a full triple A game developed solely for VR. All of which has happened in the past year. Virtual reality is a completely new innovation following the advent of 3D visuals in cinema, striking me as the logical next leap in technology.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality#Technology

To Promote Innovation

One of the eight Values of Expression is to promote innovation. Innovation is the act of creating a new idea or invention, or simply envisioning a redesign for an already existing concept or product. This reflects the beliefs of the man who developed this argument, Jack Balkin, as he argues the interpretation of the Constitution is fluid. A society that promotes this also promotes freedom of speech as the two are related as the First Amendment allows citizens to fulfill themselves in a variety of ways.


Personally, I believe that this is the most important of all the values because an innovative society is one full of creative and educated individuals who can live life to the fullest and happiest extent. I am a creative person and so I enjoy promoting and seeing others promote a society of innovation as it allows me and others like me to freely express ourselves. The concept of freedom of speech also allows me to be expressive as I can portray my values and beliefs through my creative outlet.


According to Balkin, originalism and living constitutionalism can be intertwined. Living constitutionalism is the idea that the interpretation of the Constitution is dynamic and can be altered from generation to generation as the future generation almost never holds the same beliefs as the previous one. His concept of originalism is along the same train of thought as the original meaning of the Constitution does not determine its meaning to later generations. How does this relate to how freedom of speech lets people be creative?


Freedom of speech is not literally about speaking; it relates to all the different ways in which a person can communicate. I am a photographer and I communicate visually more often than with words. Therefore, the First Amendment protects my right to photograph and present what I want if I follow the assorted laws of private property, etc. This goes for anyone who expresses themselves through any assortment of mediums such as painting, music, social media, and so on. This is also one of the most anticipated elements of America for immigrants as the “Land of Opportunity” because of these rights that they can have to live their lives to the fullest and be successful in their endeavors.


I believe that the for our society to be as adaptable and innovative as possible, we need to interpret the Constitution within the context of our time so as to maximize our rights.

Sources:
https://lawliberty.org/jack-balkin-on-originalism-and-living-constitutionalism/

The Birth of an Online Culture

Instagram began on July 16, 2010, and the world of social media has never been the same. Thanks to Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger, the world has had an image-based social media platform used by over 500 million people.

Instagram was officially released on the iOS App Store on October 6th of the same year. The Android version was released on April 3, 2012, and just to show off how popular it became within the span of a couple of years, there were over a million downloads that day.

Side by side above are the first and current icons for Instagram. I remember the first icon and how the overall user interface looked and worked, but a lot has changed since Facebook bought Instagram for $1 billion on April 9, 2012. From then all the way up to now Instagram has been through multiple interface changes that its users have either really loved or REALLY hated.

Instagram is one of the most dominant social media platforms today with over 40 billion shared photos over the past decade, with 95 million shared daily. When video was first introduced, a whopping 5 million videos were uploaded in the first 24 hours!

Where there is a versatile social media platform, there will always be those who manage to work the algorithm in their favor. We know these people as Instagram "influencers" and they can make up to $100,000 dollars for sponsored content! Influencers are known for creating content around specific topics or themes while building communities on the platform.

Instagram has become extremely popular with those between the ages of 18 and 35 because of the fast-paced rate of content and visual nature. The rate of usage on the platform grows every day and there is no sign of the platform slowing down. Now excuse me while I go take a picture of my food and post it with 20+ hashtags.

Sources:
https://time.com/4408374/instagram-anniversary/
http://www.pastbook.com/txt/25-instagram-facts-that-you-want-to-know/

Antiwar Advocates Being Quieted

Back in 2004, the antiwar group Project Billboard attempted to put up a graphic critiquing the war in Iraq in Times Square but were unable to as the leasing company, Clear Channel Communications, backed out of the deal months after an agreement was reached.

According to President Paul Meyer of Clear Channel Communications, the company was not opposed to the message rather the bomb image Project Billboard planned to use. The company proposed that Project Billboard replace the bomb with a dove, however, Project Billboard refused and filed a lawsuit against Clear Channel after claims that Clear Channel rejected the dove too.

Project Billboard Spokesman Howard Wolfson claimed that Clear Channel, with strong ties to the Republican party, had a clear political agenda that should disgust New Yorkers. Clear Channel has been called out before for censoring musicians on their radio stations who oppose the war as well. Some argued that these connections were very loose and that independent stations acted of their own accord rather than by decree from the head company.

Is this a case of censorship or are the claims that New York is sensitive to images of bombs and discussion on war true? Personally, I try to avoid shying away from important conversations to have and the fact that the U.S. as been at war with Iraq for almost two decades is certainly an important conversation. I have almost forgotten why we are at war in the first place, as I am sure many other Americans can agree. In the case above, it is clear that antiwar groups are quieted whether it be for a political agenda or political correctness. This is a scary thought as I tend to side with the antiwar group in the case above. The bomb would have been in bad taste, but the dove or little girl holding a flag would have been extremely appropriate, yet those ideas were also shot down.

What do you think? Is the antiwar group in the wrong for being inappropriate with their imagery, or is Clear Channel in the wrong for censoring a group’s freedom of speech?

Source:

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/nyregion/antiwar-group-says-its-ad-is-rejected.html

The First emoticon

Ray Tomlinson sent the first email in 1971, and the first text message was sent by Neil Papworth in 1992. Both of these happened not too long ago and already someone managed to create a whole new level of communication through text-based messaging. 

That person was Dr. Scott Fahlman. A professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, he wanted to distinguish jokes on the message board at his university to help people know what were jokes. 

The first emoticon was created on Sept. 19, 1982, and revolutionized text-based communication since people could now translate emotion and tone into their messages. These "joke markers" were an idea that floated around the faculty at Dr. Fahlman's university, and he was the one who came up with the idea of utilizing type symbols to create "emotional icons." Dr. Fahlman even stated that within months, people were created different faces with type such as winky faces, santa clause, or even Abraham Lincoln.

There is contention over the true inventor of emoticons, though, and some claim it was invented as early as 1881 by Ambrose Bierce in his publication Puck. Others argue that the first emoticon was invented by designer Harvey Ball in 1963. The difference between these men and Dr. Fahlman is that the sideways smiley face was the product of a current trending means of communication and was also easy for anyone to duplicate.

Emoticons are not to be confused with the Japanese invention we know as emoji. Emoji are small images that we use more in recent times. Emoji were created on the advent of the first smartphone in Japan and took off with it. The emoji was the Japanese solution to the same problem and was added to the keys of the i-mode phone in order to ease communication. Eventually the United States and Europe banded together to create the Unicode Committee to develop a unified set of global emoji, and with the help of Japan, Apple, and google we now have the emoji we all recognize today. Each company can alter the icons slightly but there is now a global standard that everyone recognizes and follows to help communicate.

The debate exists that the usage of emoticons is lazy or diminishes the credibility of the sender. However, with the positive of being able to inform the reader that the message is meant to be taken as a joke rather the reader get offended is an invaluable ability. What do you think?

Sources:

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sef/sefSmiley.htm

https://www.wired.com/story/guide-emoji/

https://www.businessinsider.com/emoji-were-invented-33-years-ago-heres-why-theyre-so-crucial-today-2015-9

The Lincoln Most People Don't Know

What do you think of when someone mentions the name Abraham Lincoln? America's 16th president and great emancipator of Black slaves after the Civil War? Maybe even just the fact that he wore a really tall hat in which he kept letters.

What most people do not know about President Lincoln is that in the years during the Civil War, he suspended the right to Habeas Corpus, or the arrestee’s right to a trial. He did so without the consent of Congress, and he therefore acted unconstitutionally. He did so for the main purpose of being able to arrest editors and journalists who put out misinformation that led to negative consequences on either side.

Lincoln was in no way a horrible president who gagged peoples’ right to the First Amendment, because in fact he showed great restraint toward the media. He allowed them to write about him as a “tyrant” or “fiend” throughout the entire war, and when he did arrest someone, he would immediately release them as long as they pledged loyalty to the Union.

The controversial aspect of this moment in history, stress of being a president of a divided country aside, rests on the fact that President Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended the First Amendment. Anyone who spoke out criticizing the government could be arrested immediately without any right to a trial and no specification as to how long they could remain in prison. This is a terrifying thought for most Americans who treasure their right to speak freely in criticism of the government.

Bringing the stress of being president of a broken country back into the discussion, it is completely understandable as to why Lincoln chose to do this. He believed that he needed to throw some caution to the wind in order to maintain some semblance of order in America. In the end, it worked in favor of the Union though it cost Lincoln his life.

Related Link:
https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/2009/02/11/civil-war-tested-lincolns-tolerance-for-free-speech-press/

Preserving the Union and Upholding the Law

The Supreme Court of the United States is the most influential establishment in the freedom of a body of people in the entire world. Those appointed to be justices on the court have a responsibility to uphold the law and preserve the union we know as America.

Many Chief Justices have been appointed by presidents over the years to suit the presidents' own ends in politics, but most Chief Justices go on to forge their own paths as they are responsible to the Law alone. Many say being appointed is like winning the lottery in how rare it is, but an extraordinary honor nonetheless.

John Marshall, the first appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, ensured that it rested on the shoulders of the Supreme Court to draw the boundaries of the Law as sole interpreters of the Constitution in the historic Marbury v. Madison case establishing judicial review.

Prior to the 14th Amendment established after the Civil War and in response to the Dred Scott case, the line "We the People" did not mean everyone in the country, nor everyone even after the Amendment. The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to African Americans, but women still had almost 100 years to go before they were granted the same right.

The Supreme Court avoids playing political sides and prefers to respond to the cases brought to them in a strictly legal attitude rather than on a fundamental level. It is not their job to choose a side, but pass judgement based on the parameters of the Constitution. Refusing a case, contrary to popular opinion, does not mean that the court ruled one thing or upheld another. It simply means that they found no constitutional issue in the case.

Once the court proceedings have finished and the conversation, sometimes one-sided, between the judges and attorneys has ended, the judges publish their decision in an opinion piece to be released to the media. The media then disseminates the information to the public for all Americans to read. Whether or not anyone agrees is up to them.

Senators Prohibited From Using Their Phones During Impeachment Trial

Senators are Barred From Using Their Cellphones or Making Speeches During President Trump's Impeachment Hearing

I found this article by New York Times writer Emily Cochrane and it caught my eye with regard to the restriction and use of the First Amendment in a Senate hearing.

At the beginning of the trial proceedings within the Senate for the potential impeachment of President Trump, the sergeant-at-arms announced that there must be complete silence throughout the hearing or  those that speak will be imprisoned. No senator has ever been imprisoned for breaking this rule mind you, but it is a line that needs to be mentioned or else the 100 present senators will most certainly not take the trial seriously.

This situation is very similar to any class in school where the teacher commands that the students refrain from using their cellphones during class, and like those students, even senators will try to bend the rules. Some will glance at their Apple Watches while others will pass notes to each other. Ask any senator and they will admit that being quiet is against their nature and is therefore extremely difficult.

This is, however, a necessary evil as the senators will need to pay close attention to the arguments and evidence present by the prosecutors and defense so that they can be prepared to vote in the final proceedings. This also should reassure the American people as it makes me personally uncomfortable to think that during a trial as historical as an impeachment, senators would play games on their phones or tweet rather than pay attention!

However, is this a restriction of the senators' First Amendment rights? Or simply a necessary rule to allow others to practice their First Amendment? Personally, I would argue the latter since the senators are required to take a vow before trial proceedings to allow those presenting cases to speak freely, and they can only do that by patiently listening to all of the evidence before passing any judgement.

Source: Cochrane, Emily. (2020, January 21). A Challenge for the Trial: 100 Senators Who Love to Talk, Sitting in Silence. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/us/politics/senate-impeachment.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur