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.