Eight Values of Free Expression

 

The Eight Values of Free Expression and Communication Technology 

 

In this post, I am going to make a connection between a communication technology (in this case social media) and a value of free expression. to review, the eight values of free expression are:

1)Marketplace of Ideas (aka Discovery of Truth)

2)Participation in Self-Government 

3)Stable Change (aka Safety Valve)

4)Individual Self-Fulfillment (aka Self-Actualization)

5)Check on Governmental Power (aka Watchdog Role)

6)Promote Tolerance

7)Promote Innovation

8)Protect Dissent

 

The communication technology I will be focusing on is social media and how it expresses freedom of speech. A connection I can make with social media communication technology and a value of free expression pertains to the fourth value which is individual self -fulfillment. 

Individual Self Fulfillment pertains to human liberty and human freedom of speech. Free speech enables individuals to express themselves and thereby create their own identify — and, in the process perhaps, find kindred spirits. Freedom of speech thus becomes an aspect of human dignity, human agency, and autonomy. This value of free speech helps to advance the value of free expression through individualistic values and opinions amongst people, not everyone has the same views and we are allowed to express those opinions in many different ways, thus, helping to create an identity amongst individuals. It prevents people from becoming a cookie-cutter version of everyone else, opinions, beliefs, and values are subjective to people and individual self-fulfillment permits it. It spreads free expression through what people say, post, and act on every day. This can be seen through social media - perhaps a post on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram stating particular views whether it is negative or positive. An example of this most recently, is the Black Lives Matter acts and use of the hashtag "#BLM" or hashtag #Black Lives Matter" which is an example of freedom of speech given that it is heavily charged with opinion and call to action individualistic to each person. Correspondingly, the recognition of the gay community with "Pride" parades, celebrations, and social media influence promoting positivity and promotion to be proud of who you are. The hashtag #PRIDE was also used to help spread this expression on various social media platforms. 

Social Media ultimately helps strengthen freedom of speech and individual self fulfillment through the widespread use of technology. Because of the fact that so many individuals use social media, a message is more likely to spread faster to mass groups of people given just a single post to the internet can be liked, shared, and reposted throughout the entire world in just a matter of seconds. One again, a prime example is the Black Lives Matter movement which has been present on social media for quite some time now but with the recent murder of  George Floyd, a video of Mr. Floyd's death by police brutality had surfaced on social media and sparked widespread outrage throughout the entire world. individuals used platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other media to voice their opinions about the matter. 

Contrarily, there is a downside as well. Because social media is widespread and nearly the entire world uses it, whatever you post is out there forever. Not all people will necessarily be satisfied with an opinionated post which can lead to a very negative impact. People even lose their jobs over posts with negative connotations that can cause outrage. Of course, one is allowed to post freely to voice opinion (without malicious intent) but there is no guarantee that every post is safe from disagreement which is another allowance of the first amendment. You can agree or disagree with something freely. That being said, values can in fact become undermined because of other people's opinions or thoughts. For example, if a mass number of people decide to disagree or what today's society calls "Cancel Culture" there is no doubt a person's opinion can become undermined. 

 

This article from the odyssey  describes what "cancel culture" is and it's negative effect:

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/the-toxicity-of-cancel-culture-stunts-growth-10-29

Personally, I view the internet and social media as a very fragile privilege. The content you post may not be offensive to you, but it could be to someone else. I believe it is very important to think before posting something that you think could spark outrage or any negative connotation. Once you post to the internet, it is out there forever. I personally avoid posting my personal thoughts or opinions online. I would rather keep to myself than spark arguments amongst widespread social media platforms.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/the-toxicity-of-cancel-culture-stunts-growth-10-29

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/freedom-of-expression-speech-and-press

https://www.socialmediatoday.com/

    

The Diffusion Theory and The Postal System

The Diffusion Theory: Technology of The Postal System

 

In continuation of my most recent EOTC blog about communication technology, in this blog, I will apply the diffusion theory to the postal system.

 

Communication is an intrinsic part of everyday life and without it, the world would be much more complicated. Communication is the core of connectivity between humans all over the world and with the help of technology, we can accomplish just that. It seems (at least to me) when I think of technology, the newest, most popular, and easiest forms of technology come to mind such as the iPhone, Apple watches, all that fun stuff. BUT what doesn't come to mind is what people hundreds of years ago considered "new" and "popular". That's right - try to imagine a world without instant messaging or Facebook (the travesty!)

 

So back to my focus of the Postal service. We have this idea of written communication really coming into play by 900 BC specifically in China - it's "new" and "popular". An individual could write something, hand it to another person, and hopefully have had it delivered to the desired person. This was the most instant message you'd receive - snail mail! So why did this catch on and spread? Well, if you put it in perspective, this means of technology was really the main form of communication at all besides in-person conversation and clay tablet scripture (sounds pretty good now, huh?) Letter writing became the most reliable means of long-distance communication and it had gained great importance especially when it came to making sure letters were actually delivered. What started the catch on and spread of this communication technology derived from the postal service China had created in order to provide postal service for communication between the government. Soon, following the newest Postal Service innovation, in 100 A.D., Rome used couriers to deliver messages to different corners of the empire. In fact, during the dark ages, the European monastery had developed a letter system in which royal messengers sent messages between ruling leaders, but a single organized method of sending and receiving letters for the common people. So, at this point, not only are important authoritative figures using this communication method but now average citizens as well.

 

People became early adopters of this trend given the fact that other forms of communication were not efficient or practical. Letter writing could also be considered more personal, private, and efficient as opposed to widespread messages spread through in-person conversation or writing into objects and plots such as pottery, tablets, walls, and structures. Some people may have been considered late adopters of the postal service and letter writing given the fact that they were not able to read or write, so receiving a letter may have had little to no benefit unless they had someone that could interpret it for them. It was only until the middle ages that book production and literacy among populations began to become important in the Western world. Correspondingly, while the ambition of universal literacy in Europe was a fundamental reform born from the enlightenment, it took centuries for it to happen. It was only the 19th and 20th centuries that rates of literacy approached universality in early industrialized countries.

 

While the rise of the postal service gained popularity, it still wasn't the most effective technique of communication. Risks included lost mail, slow delivery time, damaged or opened mail, stolen mail, I mean think about it- before the Pony express and effective routes were created around the world for effective delivery systems, if an individual was traveling a far distance to deliver mail perhaps by him or herself, there was not a 100% guarantee the deliverer would not encounter any issues along the way - (variables such as weather, negative animal / human encounters, sickness, etc.) And there certainly weren’t phones to be able to call for help. Correspondingly, depending on the importance/ sender of the letter, negative variables of the postal system may have had had less of an effect. For example, a letter between generals discussing military tactics most likely had more pull of importance and urgency as opposed to a letter sent between two commoners of a local town or village. This is also dependent on location whereas some areas of the world may have had bigger/ more advanced postal systems while others just began to adopt it.

 

I think the creation of the postal system was a smart, strategic, and important milestone in the history of human communication. Written communication was the most effective means of communication for a long time in the world's history. Thinking about modern technology and all it has to offer today really put our technological advancements in perspective. Obviously, as opposed to new communication technologies, letter writing may not be people's preferred method of communication anymore, but it certainly is part of the foundation of where we are today. 

https://ourworldindata.org/literacy#all-charts-preview

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-postal-system-established

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-postal-system-established

https://www.britannica.com/topic/postal-system

https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-mail-1992142

 

 

EOTC Key Post!

Communication Technology of The Postal System

Today, it can be difficult to think about not having the luxury of looking down at our phones or computers as a means to receive information. It's not really a second thought to any of us that we use technology to send messages and information around the world instantaneously, we just do it. While many of us have this luxury and go about our daily lives, do we really consider where the luxury first originated from? Although popular technology is used by millions of people every day, very few people actually know the history behind how technology came to be what it is today through other means of communication historically. In this blog, I am going to explain the creation and evolution of a term probably foreign to this generation, "written communication" developed by the postal service. 

 

We rely on present-day means of communication such as text messaging and emailing, but it is based on communication that is thousands of years old. The earliest evidence of a written language actually dates back to ancient Sumer between 4100- 3800 BC. In this means of written communication, marks were pressed into clay tablets and were used as records for land, cattle, and grain. As writing had developed, it was used more for record-keeping. Overtime, letter writing became the most reliable means of long-distance communication, as it became essential to make sure letters were delivered, a job of great importance. We jump into the idea of an actual postal service by 900 BC. China had developed a postal service for the delivery of messages to provide communication between the government. In continuation of the newest Postal Service innovation, later, in 100 A.D., Rome used couriers to deliver messages to different corners of the empire. In fact, during the dark ages, the European monastery had developed a letter system in which royal messengers sent messages between ruling leaders, but a single organized method of sending and receiving letters for the common people. 

 

Until the 16th century, when private mail systems began to appear in Europe and in the American colonies, mail was delivered by giving the message to an individual going in the direction the letter was supposed to and hoping it would arrive. In 1653, a French man named Jean-Jacquees Renouard de Villayer Established a postal system in which he set up mailboxes and delivered any letters placed in them if they used the Postage prepaid envelopes that he sold. Unfortunately, his business did not last long when a person decided to put live mice in the mailboxes which scared away his customers. Then, jumping ahead to 1837, a schoolmaster from England, Rowland Hill invented the adhesive postage stamp. The first person to stamp in the world was issued in England in 1840. Hills stamps were known to make pre-payment of postage both possible and practical. Today, the Universal Postal Union, which was established in 1874, includes 192 Countries and set rules for international mail exchanges.

 

Several individual postal systems became active in the colonies around 1673, but it wasn't until 1775 when Benjamin Franklin became the first postmaster general of the United States and the United States Postal Service was formed, that a single coherent system was implemented. The United States Postal Service is one of the Government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution. By 1860, the Pony Express branch of the Postal Service was created as a means of providing fast, reliable mail delivery to the western territories. In fact, Benjamin Franklin made numerous improvements to the mail system including setting up new, more efficient colonial routes that cut delivery time in half between Philadelphia in New York by having the weekly mail wagon travel both day and night via relay teams. He also debuted the first-rate chart, which standardized delivery cost based on distance and weight. Messages along the express could travel the distance from Missouri to California in about 10 days. From technological advancements such as planes, trains, and cars, around the world, mail delivery time was shortened. However, the mail service remained limited in terms of the time it took for a letter to get from the writer to the receiver of the mail. 

 

Today, the United States has over 40,000 post offices in Postal Service that delivers 212 billion pieces of mail each year to over 144 million homes and businesses in the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, the American Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. The Postal Service is also the nation's largest civilian employer, with over 700,000 career workers Who handle more than 44% of the world's cards and letters. The Postal Service is a Not-for-profit self-supporting agency that covers its expenses through the postage stamp in the United States which started in 1847 and related products. 

I found this really interesting video regarding the 1948 Postal Service and stamps, it's definitely worth a watch! :

Human communication is one of life's most important elements as coexisting humans, I believe it's important for people to understand that we didn't always have the luxury of sending a text message within seconds, this technology was built on a foundation of complex and intricate communication systems just like early Postal Services around the world. I decided to research the history of the Postal Service because I personally still write letters to people and I really enjoy it! For me, there's something special about receiving a handwritten letter addressed to you personally as opposed to a digital text on a screen that can be forgotten about in a matter of minutes. It's actually quite meaningful, throughout my first year of college, my friends and I (all of us attending colleges in different states), sent letters back-and-forth to each other. Just seeing that I had received a letter in my mailbox made my entire day, and even though I can look back at texts we've sent each other, opening a letter that was handwritten to me personally meant so much more.

By the end of the year, this is the stack of mail I ended up with! It feels very rewarding!

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-postal-system-established

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-postal-system-established

https://www.britannica.com/topic/postal-system

https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-mail-1992142

The Progressive Era

Recently, I have visited the websites of ANTIWAR.COM and American Conservative, and my findings were quite interesting. Let's jump into it.

 

First, in both of these sites, it is easy to notice that the writers corresponding to them are all very strong anti-war voices that never seem to appear in the mainstream news. Have you heard of these websites before? I know I haven't. 

 

Let's talk about ANTIWAR.COM. You open the webpage, and BOOM, lists of articles, news reports, media, columnists, and topic bullet points. This page is overflowing with information and research. let alone, the columnist's section is overflowing with names, it takes an adequate scroll to view the entire list of names presented in a small font. Obviously, this is an important site to many people, and just based on the presentation of the page, this is no joking matter. What baffles me the most is that if these researchers and writers of ANTIWAR.COM clearly know how to publish, research, and write, why don't news agencies and news outlets acknowledge them? I mean, put this in perspective- these individuals have done extensive, quickly presented research, which is readily available on a public site, why wouldn’t people consider using this site as an adequate source of information? You also have the advantage of various viewpoints and opinions which could definitely be beneficial to interviews regarding opinion stories. Well, here's the reality. As we consider our history, we can acknowledge topics such as the Role of Dissent and the First Amendment protecting it which was a cause of friction given a majority of disagreement with an opinion- such as anti-war. Historically, the Progressive Era was fired up by World War One anti-war activists who specifically did not want America to become involved, soon following, they were persecuted for their anti-war views and hundreds of individuals were thrown in jail for voicing their opinions. Today, the United States Government is waging military operations all over the world, This is almost déjà vu to the silence of antiwar individuals speaking their opinions. It would make sense as to why the large majority of us have never even heard of sites like ANTIWAR.COM and The American Conservative. It sure looks like a repeated behavioral pattern of the past if you ask me. 

 

Onto The American Conservative, While the site may not nearly be as jampacked with buzzing information as the antiwar site, it provides viewers with countless articles, media, And quite organized lists of blogs, podcasts, categories, events, and even a fellows program. The American conservative website looks like an average newspaper or reporting website and most certainly does not appear as abrasive or forceful with their opinions, it appears much more professional than ANTIWAR.COM However, there are still articles with titles such as "Another General Wants Forever War in Iraq" under the conservatives Military and defense section. Just enough to cause friction to be seen as disrespect towards the government. 

 

Obviously, the government is going to do the best they can to not necessarily silence, but to in a way quiet sites such as ANTIWAR and The American Conservative given that their opinions run against the United States Military and Defense Organizations, and it doesn't look good for our country. If the First Amendment protects our Freedom of Speech, why should sites like these be silenced? As seen in the two websites, political dissent is a circulating and very present aspect today. The dissatisfaction and opposition to the policies of the governing body obviously posed some kind of threat to them, and in my eyes, they're trying to keep it quiet to prevent further people agreeing with them as expressions of dissent may take forms from vocal disagreement to civil disobedience to the use of violence.

 

Here’s the verdict:  The right to free speech means that you are allowed to express yourself without interference or constraint by the government. The government can limit both the content of speech and the ability to engage in speech as long as the government has a "substantial justification". However, there is such a thing called “prohibited speech” such as fighting words like speech that would incite hatred or violence which has been constitutionally prohibited for nearly 60 years. In addition, advocating illegal activity and speech that would encourage others to engage in illegal activity is not afforded any protection of the First Amendment. So, at the end of the day, the government most likely tries to keep these websites on the back burner as they could possibly spark violence directed by dissatisfaction/ expression. The sites can still freely express their opinions safely as they are protected by the First Amendment, but if they incite any sort of violence, Illegal activity, or hatred, it is unacceptable. In summation, these sites are both walking a tight rope with the government. 

 

In my opinion, I do agree that individuals should be allowed to express their opinions on topics they don't like as we were granted the First Amendment- Freedom of Speech, it is fair. However, I would have to agree that individuals using the First Amendment as a shield to create violence and illegal activity is unacceptable. I think the websites I looked at today – the American Conservative and ANTIWAR.com are not all bad and they are entitled to express their opinions. However, if they advertised a meet up to create a riot or some sort of illegal activity, obviously it would not be OK.

http://www.antiwar.com

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/web-categories/military-defense/

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-importance-of-dissent/

Relation to First Amendment Encyclopedia

In John R. Vile's article, "Black Lives Matter" under the First Amendment Encyclopedia, The six clauses/ freedoms are in fact present. To recap, the Six Clauses/ Freedoms of the First Amendment are:

 

1) From Religion,  2) Of Religion ;

3) Of Speech        4) Of The Press ;

5) Of Assembly     6) To Petition;

 

John R. Vile's article discusses various topics including the origin/ introduction of the start of protesting, how protests have turned controversial and into riots, and how police impositions have had an impact on First Amendment rights. Starting up the article, Vile discusses the Michael Brown case. In August of 2014, outside of St. Louis, an 18-year-old black man named Michael Brown was fatally shot by a white officer, named Darren Wilson. A grand jury declined to indict Wilson, and the United States Justice Department opted against civil rights charges. The death of Mr. Brown, who was unarmed, lead to many months of violent protesting and became an impetus for the Black Lives Matter movements, which ultimately brings to attention the police treatment of minorities. A number of judges have even prohibited attorneys from wearing black lives matter pins in courtrooms. 

 

In common opinion amongst individuals, the presence of police officers and other forces dressed in complete combat gear and military weapons definitely added to the already risen tension In Ferguson protesting with Black Lives Matter. Even today in Black Lives Matter protesting regarding the death of George Floyd and other African American individuals who have tragically lost their lives to police brutality, even when assembly and protest is peaceful, forces are always present. This forceful presence ultimately creates a distance from the police and members of the Black Lives Matter organization and supporters. How are we supposed to come together if the already risen tension is just being emphasized? Additionally, in Vile’s article, the argument of Ashley M Eick (Candidate at the William and Mary Law school), which argued that such a militarized police response poses a chilling effect on the right of peaceable assembly, corresponds to clause five of the Six Clauses/ Freedoms of the First Amendment: Freedom of peaceful assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right or ability of people to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their collective or shared ideas (Legal Information Institute). 

 

In addition to the challenge of the Fifth Clause of the First Amendment, this article and today's current events regarding Black Lives Matter gatherings also relate to Clause Six of the First Amendment which states that individuals have the right to petition government for redress and right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals. Thus, it is quite contradictory that individuals are facing such forceful retaliation from police and other protection forces especially when certain assemblies are not creating violence or causing any reason for police interaction. Why are individuals facing trouble for what has been written into our history as right and just? 

 

In my opinion, I do in fact believe that certain police and other security forces are acting over the top with Black Lives Matter assemblies, especially when they aren't violent. However, I do not think that all police are out to create trouble for the people of the Black Lives Matter assemblies. I can see how they can be intimidating for sure; do I think it's necessary for all the weapons to be present? No. I think it’s definitely over the top especially for peaceful assemblies. However, many of these assemblies have turned into violent riots as stated in Vile’s article, and I think it is in fact necessary to have police and other security measures present to prevent people from getting hurt. There are ways to assemble and represent what you believe in without getting violent. With the hot topic of police brutality circulating in the United States, especially throughout the years, I can certainly see how people are now increasingly becoming more anxious when police and other forces are on the scenes of causes such as Black Lives Matter assemblies and other events because of what happened To George Floyd and many other African-American individuals which involve cases related to police brutality. These brutality related cases should have never happened, and it is very saddening to think that such disturbing events are going on in our own country.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1512/black-lives-matter

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1#amdt1e_hd17

 

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-petition/freedom-of-petition-overview/

 

https://blacklivesmatter.com/

 

 

EMS Providers Suing for Alleged Violation of Their First Amendment Rights

FDNY Paramedic Elizabeth Bonilla

The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In other words, in other words, the first amendment acts as a protection of individuals against the government, freedom of speech. The first amendment guarantees freedom's concerning religion expression assembly and the right to petition it forbids congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It also guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. Additionally, it also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition the government.

 

For EMT John Rugen, and paramedics Elizabeth Bonilla, Alexander Nunez, and Megan Pfeiffer, the first amendment felt far from respectable after they were subjected to retaliation after speaking publicly about working conditions and health concerns regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. A lawsuit has been filed allegedly after the retaliation they had faced (Bloomberg law). 

 

This past April, the New York City Fire Department sent letters informing three paramedics including Elizabeth Bonilla, Alexander Nunez, and Megan Pfeiffer that they were restricted from treating patients following their complaint. As stated in the complaint, the letters gave no reason as to why they were put under restrictions in the first place. Additionally, EMT John Rugan, an officer of the Fire Department of New York was put on restricted status after the fire apartment initially suspended him for 30 days, claiming that he violated the New York Fire Department’s social media policy and privacy laws without providing any sort of evidence as seen in the complaint.

 

according to NPR's article about the apparent situation, spokesperson Nicholas Paolucci,  of New York City's Law Department, commented through email,“ The FDNY respects the First Amendment rights of its employees but those rights must be carefully balanced to respect the privacy rights granted under the law to patients receiving emergency medical care" 

 

According to Terry Meginniss (an attorney representing the EMS workers in the alleged lawsuit), stated that any implication that they have not respected their patient’s privacy is "absolute hogwash" (NPR) "These are the people who go out and treat people, and they have been living through incredibly difficult times."

 

Under the six clauses/ six freedoms of the first amendment, the treatment of John Rugen, Elizabeth Bonilla, Alexander Nunez, and Megan Pfeiffer from New York's Fire Department violates two of the six clauses of the first amendment: (3) Freedom of Speech and (4) Freedom of Press. Under clause three of Freedom of Speech, the individuals First Amendment rights were violated after the New York Fire Department restricted the workers for voicing their concerns about certain working conditions regarding the COVID-19 pandemic which was ultimately a punishment to the workers after expressing how they really felt regarding the current situation of working their jobs. Additionally, under clause four, Freedom of Press, John Rugan was put on restricted status after the fire apartment initially suspended him for 30 days, claiming that he violated the New York fire department social media policy and privacy laws without providing any sort of evidence as seen in the complaint. Regardless, John Rugan has the freedom to publish to social media as a freedom of press. The department failed to produce any sort of evidence about a "violation of the New York fire department social media policy" so there was no reason for Rugan's punishment of a 30-day suspension. 

 

In my opinion, honestly, I feel outraged just researching and reading about the situation, I can't even imagine how frustrated Bonilla, Nunez, Pfeiffer, and Rugan are feeling at this current moment. To work as paramedics and EMTs during a pandemic is obviously frightening and I believe their concerns about their working environments are completely valid and justified. They did not step down from the job they signed on for when things became frightening amidst the virus, their concerns should have been respected and listened to without any sort of punishment whatsoever. I am saddened and disappointed to have seen the way the New York Fire Department responded to these individual’s concerns; it was out of line. I have such a respect for first responders and their continuation to work as hard as they can on the front lines of their jobs especially during this virus, to see mistreatment towards any of them is frustrating. Instead of attacking the EMTs and paramedics, the New York Fire Department should have worked together with them to help allay their concerns so that those individuals could go back to work feeling safer and the fire department could go back to their job knowing that they helped solve a problem, instead, they are dealing with an alleged lawsuit of mistreatment and violation. 

 

https://www.ems1.com/legal/articles/4-ems-providers-sue-fdny-for-alleged-first-amendment-violations-u4BBayRFpTYIKIVR/

https://qns.com/story/2020/06/12/ems-workers-sue-fdny-for-alleged-violations-of-first-amendment-rights/

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/06/11/875161922/new-york-city-ems-workers-allege-retaliation-after-speaking-about-pandemic

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6941386/Barzilay-June-10-2020-Complaint.pdf

Our History and Framework of the Supreme Court

Today, we view the Supreme Court as civil and just, however, during the creation and expansion of the court through history, it was not always seen that way. 

 

The Supreme Court of the United States is in fact the highest federal court in the entire country and the head of the judicial branch of the United States government. Originally established by the United States Constitution, the supreme court has ultimate jurisdiction over all laws within the states and is ultimately responsible for overseeing the Authority and proceedings of those laws. 

 

The court is currently made up of nine justices and if needed the court has the power to check the actions of the other two branches of government which is the executive branch of the president and the legislative branch of Congress.

 

To understand the framework and makeup of the Supreme Court, it is important to understand the origin of it and how it came to be today. The Supreme Court was established in 1789 by the third article of the United States Constitution which also then granted Congress the power to create other subordinate federal courts. Additionally, the constitution permitted Congress to decide the organization of the Supreme Court. And the legislative branch first used this power with the Judiciary act of 1789. This act which was signed by President George Washington would indicate that the court would ultimately be made up of six justices who would serve on the court. After the Constitution was ratified, the government had moved to Washington in 1801. At this time, they were not seen as equal to the other branches of government. John Marshall was the first individual to strike down the act of Congress as unconditional unconstitutional as seen in Marbury versus Madison. He then earned the court’s ultimate respect as an equal branch of government. Later, this changed the way the court was viewed from the public point of view and also in the other two branches of government’s view. 

 

While faith and respect of the court lasted for about 50 years, it was broken when Dred Scott claimed freedom under an act of congress in the case of Scott versus Sanford. At the time, Roger Brooke Taney was the chief justice at an under his court, they ultimately ruled that Congress had no power to ban slavery in that black people could never be citizens. The decision ultimately weakened the court’s authority and ultimate respect. Eventually, the issue was resolved through the Civil War, and the constitution was amended to abolish slavery. It is pretty unnerving to me that this situation of great importance had to in fact be solved in the manner of war and violence, I wish at the time there was higher respect enough to just listen to another individual without having to bring violence to fight for rights.

 

Regardless of its rough rocky past, the court is now respected amongst many individuals today. The real question, however, is how we managed to get here. Many of today's justices claim they have a very specific way of going about certain cases, but they also have respect for each other and for the law and with that, they simultaneously take everything into consideration when choosing cases as well 

as their decision-making process. Furthermore, once justices actually come to a decision, they will write an opinion that normally takes about four weeks. Once the opinion is actually released, it is given to the press to become public knowledge.

 

As I stated before, obviously the foundation of the original Supreme Court had its issues with equality amongst many other setbacks on just the start to a foundation that was supposed to be civil, professional, and equal to all individuals who presented themselves to the court. It is quite baffling to me to imagine the level of disrespect certain individuals would receive in the eyes of the court and how hard people would have to fight just to be listened to, honestly, it's quite sad. The history of the United States is most certainly not unflawed,  but as we see in the current day, we have learned from our mistakes of the past and because of that, the supreme court is a living example of a new civil and just court system which originally built their foundation during an unjust and unequal time in history

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca8qSuWxcG8&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWRoXYRsaeo&feature=youtu.be

https://www.supremecourt.gov

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about

Coronavirus : Stay Home and Stay Quiet

Coronavirus- a virus that has caused mass economic, social, political, and personal change. What started as a single case, has turned our norm into mass economic and public shutdown. Across America, each one of us has experienced an impact of the virus in some way, shape, or form. Whether it be your hairdresser, athletic team, church, school, or business, the virus has managed to squeeze itself into everyone's personal lives one way or another. With the virus comes great frustration- quarantine, curfew, canceling of events, absence of schooling, government decisions, and honestly any shred of normalcy any of us had just a matter of months ago. 

 

Recently, an article published by Fox of Wilmington explored COVID and the constitution concerning the government's struggle to balance collective safety with personal autonomy. With the past few months being locked in with harsh restrictions and no end in sight to the virus, naturally, people are going to become a bit uneasy and worrisome regarding when or if their lives will ever return back to normal, even slightly. 

 

On the thirteenth of March, President Trump declared a national emergency and promised a robust federal response along with cooperation with the states. Since then, each individual state has responded differently to the virus while considering federal health guidelines. In Fox News’s article, an analyst has found legal disputes in every state along with claims that certain public safety measures are in fact violating individual civil liberty as guaranteed by the constitution itself.

 

“At this point, we’ve seen courts weigh whether certain stay-at-home orders and assembly orders are constitutional and they have been mostly deferential towards the state,” said Lata Nott, a First Amendment Fellow at the Freedom Forum. “And that’s because when they’ve done the balancing test, we’re still in fairly early days of this pandemic in it’s an emergency situation. And the idea behind it is that First Amendment rights are never unlimited and they need to be balanced with public health.”

 

Many lawsuits correlate directly to discrepancies over what is considered an "essential service". Critics have pointed out examples such as abortion clinics being staggered while thousands of non-violent criminals have been freed from prison. Additionally, other lawsuits concern privacy rights which include government monitoring the use of cell phones "minus personal data" to track the spread of the virus.

 

Talk about nonexistent normalcy - COVID has unorganized policies in direct regard to fundamental rights. How is that fair?

 

Here are just a few examples:

 

-In freedom of assembly, a challenge to New Hampshire is the prohibition on gatherings of 50 people or more

 

-In free speech, Newark, New Jersey officials had threatened to use the states "public alarm” and laws to prosecute those spreading false reporting on COVID-19 through social media

 

From Fox News's article, a quote I found that accurately highlighted this situation came from David French, a senior editor at The Dispatch: “You’re going to see different states taking different approaches. You’re going to see the president liking some of them and disliking others, but really having no authority to trump any given state’s approach to things,” said French. “Even though the overwhelming financial resources rests with the federal government, the overwhelming amount of legal power rests with the governors.” I found French’s quote to be very accurate and in sync with what has been going on. Every state really is cracking down on strictness differently. From my perspective here in Pennsylvania, I have certainly become frustrated with what seems like drawn out measures appointed by Governor, Tom Wolf.  For example, businesses that refrain from contact with other people that could easily follow the six-foot social distancing rule are still prevented from opening even though we are now approaching the green zone. 

 

In my opinion, while I believe that certain COVID-19 restrictions were more than necessary at the beginning and height of the virus, respectfully, I also believe that we are not in the same place as we were just a few months ago, meaning that certain restrictions should be lifted especially when it comes to limiting people in violation of individual civil liberty.   I think it is unacceptable for the government to be monitoring our cell phones even if it’s “minus the personal data” that really isn’t reassuring in the slightest? Additionally, there should not be a battle over what is essential when it comes to personal choice with healthcare- reproductive health care clinics and abortion clinics should be allowed to remain open regardless of the virus.  As an individual that has also experienced quarantine for months now, it would certainly be nice to see things be less strict especially since the curve of the virus is now flattening. Of course, I do still believe that certain measures need to be taken in order to maintain COVID-19 to prevent a future wave or continuous spread, they just don't have to be as intense as they were before.

 

https://foxwilmington.com/headlines/covid-and-the-constitution-governments-struggle-to-balance-collective-safety-with-personal-autonomy/

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/19/coronavirus-effect-economy-life-society-analysis-covid-135579

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/05/827758328/the-controversy-around-essential-businesses

https://thedispatch.com/people/5849328-david-french