"A Question of Jurisprudence," by Derek Canino

  Do we have a prima facie obligation to obey the law? 

 

    The need for obedience to the law as obligatory, is a cornerstone for a society to function as the world exists.  Any political body or sovereignty requires its citizens to obey the social contract put out before them for there to be order.  This order would create safety and prosperity for citizens who are bound to said law.  The question of this essay is to focus on the need or obligation of every citizen to obey all laws that it’s governing body decrees.  Do we obey because we agree with the law, or for the sake of obedience? 

    First and foremost, any society needs a means of creating and disseminating its legal practices.   In the United States laws are supposed to be created by an elected body and knowledge is passed onto its citizens by press, word of mouth, enforcement, or legal councilors.  Citizens in this country are in turn, are obliged to follow the rules whether they be set by executive order, congressional vote, or judicial precedent.  We must ask ourselves: Is this the most effective system of jurisprudence? 

    One of the first problems that might be encountered is the sovereignty principle.  This principle establishes that political authority is derived from some agreement by the public.  Some argue that the sovereign is determined by the masses or by a consensus of the people.  Others might argue that sovereignty's nascent point is from the presence of force.  There may be an incalculable number of methods to determining how, exactly, political power is granted to a person or persons.   

    In the case of congressional law-making bodies, people elect senators to state or federal offices.  In the case of the United States Senate, 2 persons are elected to represent each of the 50 states that compose the union.  While this is meant to balance the power of the states to the population, we encounter a troubling prospect.  This is the problem of the fact that population has exploded exponentially since the founding fathers ratified the United States Constitution (and did away with the Articles of Confederation.)  The United States has 100 people representing and voting for the interests of hundreds of millions of people.  Talking heads popularized by the press argue that the United States is becoming an oligarchy, but is that novel proposition if you consider those statistics (let us put aside the House of Representatives for argument's sake?) Can the Senators they really create fair and just laws effectively?  Are they in touch with the people they govern when their lifestyle is radically different than that of the average construction worker or IT professional? 

    Consider the Executive Branch of the government for a moment.  They are in the position to enforce the law that they might not even agree with.  Due to either the fact that the other two branches have created (possibly) draconian edicts, or the fact that the chain of command might not allow for individual judgements or decisions to be made.  Some executive officials are elected, such as the POTUS, but many are not.  To what extent do military leaders have on how law is created and enforced that most citizens even know about?  Many questions can be promulgated from the premise of executive power. 

    Judicial power in the United States is based on precedent and the holdings of judges through a network of hierarchically based regionally autonomous courts.  Local courts can make decisions that affect policy, and higher courts can overrule them.  This begs the question of whether the higher courts are aware of what is happening on the local level outside of a given court case.  Can judges, who assumedly, lived cloistered lives, have a fair opinion of a federalist experiment in law?  Finally, the Supreme Court was never an elected, but appointed body, and therefore is immune from scrutiny and recourse from the public.  This isn’t even in factoring in the lifetime appointment that goes with being a member of the SCOTUS. 

    In the United States, local and federal agencies are also law-making bodies that can make distinct impacts on the livelihood of an inordinate amount of people.  To what extent are they subject to public oversight?  The question or how one can seek a remedy from an injustice from a government agency is not always clear.  While a person can bring civil litigation against a particular agent, the agency, remains immune from legal action.  Does the public even agree to the existence of certain agencies?  Would they agree to how it practices or what persons it hires? 

    The above-mentioned premises of concluding the nature of power in the United States is only a small sample of questions or difficulties that the political leviathan is subjected to.  The conclusion must be that there are so many laws, holdings, precedents, statutes, edicts, and orders that the common person can be lost.  The topic of the book Overruled by Supreme Justice Neil Gorsuch addresses these issues.  Gorsuch’s argues summarily that people resist the rule of law when there is either too few laws or too many.  He affirms that the public would be at the greatest state of order when they know what to obey and how to obey it, and of course, whether they feel they should obey. 

    The argument of this essay now turns to the original question stated in the title.  Essentially, I believe that people have some prima facie obligation to follow the law.  People in the United States have countless laws to follow, limitless regulations to adhere to, and must be expected to do so.  The reason I argue for some, rather than simple obedience, is whether the laws are equitable.  So, in a word to my own question, I answer with, maybe. 

    The Positivist argues that law and morality are separate, and one must be applied to the other.  Some may assume that morality was inherently considered during the inception of a law. This is a common trap.  The trap is that a person might believe that obedience to law for law’s sake is going to provide justice and order.  Laws were not necessarily created to promote good as many people understand it. We, as citizens have a duty to apply morality to law after its inception.   

    So why must we scrutinize a law before we simply follow it?  Perhaps the law is created to suit the interests of a wealthy industrialist seeking to make profit and control a market.  Perhaps there was a law passed by Congress that made wearing anything but red shirts illegal.  Perhaps a lobbyist from the red dye company made many generous campaign contributions to Senators seeking to ban non-red shirts.  While this example may sound ludicrous, it does happen on some level.  Corporate, private, or corrupt interests are factored into creating the law. 

    Philosophers such as John Rawls and H.L.A. Hart addressed the question of whether following the law should be obligatory.  The answer was generally, yes, with special exceptions of when the law was being corrupted.  This seems to be the commonplace form of jurisprudence.  These, and countless other, political thinkers date back to the earliest forms of the Republic in America.  There was always a need to oversee the government and intercede in the case of tyrannical control.  The Bill of Rights and the first 10 Amendments illustrate this point perfectly. 

    Let us consider civil disobedience for a moment.  People sometimes find that laws that were created, were not created with the best intentions or were simply impractical.  These people will go out of their way to publicly defy these laws to gain attention to their unjust nature.  These people may be the difference between just order turning into brutal control.  These people, therefore, can be cited as examples when the prima facie obligation to follow law was not true. 

    Arguments against the use of civil disobedience might stem from the notion that people enter a social contract in the society that they live in.  Philosopher John Rawls injected the argument of fair play into the philosophical discussion of the obligatory nature of obedience.  Not all of us may use the public park, but we must all pay a portion of taxes to maintain it (some might say.)  One could argue that they should be able to direct a portion of where their tax dollars go specifically.  Obviously, that wouldn’t be practical, because necessary yet unpopular items may go unattended. 

    The main difficulty of the social contract argument is the problem of agreement.  How does one actively choose to be a member of a given society?  If you were a born citizen of the United States, were raised from young childhood to adulthood, then decided that you were not interested in participating the social contract: How would you opt out?  Where would you go?  If you don’t have any allies or connections in a foreign country, would you have a fair shot to make it there?  At a certain point of your life, you might be so acculturated to United States life that it would be simply impractical to live elsewhere to another nation in question.

    These questions demonstrate the parochial nature of the social contract or Hobbe’s viewpoint on social obedience.  The world is simply too different regarding regional norms and values.  The idea of cultural and ethical relativism takes a huge part of factoring into what world an outsider could even fit into.  Since we do not live in a world with a completely established set of legal values on an international level, we run into problems trying to establish universal laws based on universal morality.  International government does not really exist, and problem of working around local customs is an encroaching bugaboo.  

    As citizens of the world, rather than simply of the United States; is there an obligation to participate in a united world order?  To some extent the answer is yes, and to some extent the answer is no.   There are many factors to consider when expanding legal sovereignty over the entire planet.  If such sovereignty was achieved, accepted, and justified, would the obligation to follow the law remain the same? 

    Global world order would constantly be at odds with local or traditional legal procedures and practices.  People might have an overly difficult time adjusting to a larger hierarchical set of law.  The trouble that might arise is that obstinance might eventually degrade into insurrection against the global sovereign.  It could be the case that more would be harmed than would be protected.  Since no such global authority exists, it would be very difficult to determine how its legally nascent properties be conceived.  

    It is the case that international law and the United Nations are an existing force in the world today (as was the Legue of Nations.)  However, such entities are an amalgamation of nations still operating under their individual banners as customs to the extent that it makes little difference.  Some might say that since the United Nations does not have a completely globally participating military force that it lacks the power of a truly sovereign power.   Obedience to such authority at this point is merely voluntary and proves that its individual members do not have prima facie obligation to follow law. 

    This brings up the question of whether any individual in any circumstance of living in a communal society of some kind has an active power in law making.  The same for a duty to follow whatever laws or customs said society adopts. The issue at its core is an argument for the rights of a person or a group-based interests on whichever might be more justified.  Naturally it is hard to determine what that justification is and how it might be view objectively.  It is more likely to fall on the society to be justified than the individual simply due to numerical advantage.  Some feel that individuality is more threatening to the overall good, and some may feel that groupthink is more threatening to the overall good. 

    I still would assert that the burden of proof of righteousness is on the state, and it should be on the individual to decide what is possible or impossible for them to obey.  While there might be negative consequences, there is always the freedom to break the law.  Only the most dystopian of worlds would create laws so powerful that they were completely immutable and unbreakable.  The fact of how a society punishes, prevents, or corrects disobedience to its laws is a whole other matter.  

    Punishment is a matter that might make a person obey a law they rightly disagree with.  Say there was a $5000 fine for wearing a non-red shirt from my red shirt example above, would obedience be more justified if that meant a person could lose their home?  It is no longer a matter of whether a person should follow the law, but rather, a matter of whether they can survive the consequences of disobedience to that law.  “Should” and “can” are two semantic concepts that make a huge difference in morality.  If the fine were $50, maybe a person would be apt to disobey the law.  Does this create a moral distinction in whether obedience to the law in general is required? Is a person who obeys rules for the sake of obedience more ethical than a person fearful of punishment?  Is civil disobedience ever justified?

    Now let us take an example of what might be considered fair civil disobedience: the case of African Americans during the Montgomery bus boycotts.  Rosa Parks (and many others, even before and after her) famously defied sanctioned bus policy projected by regional law makers.   A person resisting something that would banish an elderly woman to the back of the bus seems draconian and punitive to an entire race.  People support this kind of disobedience.   However, people might be more disinclined to view the civil disobedience of premeditated murder against investment bankers as unacceptable in all cases. To what extent is civil disobedience morally permissible?  Popularity, both at the time and historically seems to win the day.

    The issue of Cannabis legalization has been a subject of much debate in the United States.  Marijuana has been traditionally seen as a tool of non-whites in America for recreational and medicinal purpose.  The “Moynihan Report,” by Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a report given to President Lydon Banes Johnson about the destruction of the African American family unit.  In his report to the president, Moynihan argued that Marijuana was adversely affecting the family unit of AF-AM households and was therefore detrimental to society.  President Johnson was swayed by the report and legislation would be enacted for years to come afterward.  This was also not a novel opinion, as Marijuana was much maligned by the white hegemony for years prior. 

    President Richard Nixon would go on to pass the Controlled Substances Act of 1971 which would categorize various narcotics and establish a means of prosecuting persons in violation of possession of those laws.  This would go on to lead to the incarceration of countless persons, much of whom were African American.  These persons, for whatever reason, felt that they had no prima facie obligation to follow such laws, and therefore suggests that entire segments of nation’s population were willing to face severe punishment to disobey.  Eventually President Ronald Reagan’s infamous War on Drugs would continue to punish an ever-increasing portion of the public, a larger percentage included non-African Americans.  The question of whether these people acted immorally in their disobedience is subject to massive debate amongst talking heads, politicians, academics, and so many others. 

    Currently there are several states in the United States that have eased off restrictions on Marijuana as a punishable offense and therefore allowed to be cultivated and sold as a consumer product.  These changes in law often bring into question the validity of the punishments that were imposed on so many people during those periods.  One can argue that change was necessary and should have been sooner, and others can argue that remaining firm on the topic was the just course of action.  The fact remains that the obligation or lack thereof, to follow the law, has changed the outcome of what legal standards have followed. 

    However, this is only the case in a few states in the union.  The Federal Government still has Marijuana classified as an illegal narcotic and the Drug Enforcement Agency is still able to prosecute persons for possession or sale of the product (at least outside of the state in question.)  The author of this essay does not know what the exact arrangement between this agency and the state governments that removed this law is exactly.  My understanding is that principle of federalism allows state the sovereignty to make its own decisions regarding the legality of Cannabis. 

    The issue stated above is only one sample of how conflicting interests in the legal climate can alter whether people feel justified in disregarding the prima facie requirements to follow the law.  Some people may say, “you can’t pick and choose what laws you want to follow.”  Those people might be forgetting the fact that a person with the wealth can relocate into certain places where certain laws aren’t in place (such as Colorado, if they want to legally use Marijuana.)  Sometimes obedience to law can be malleable. If you consider it still technically obedience in the context of the legal framework of the region that they are living in. 

    In summation, the most common answer to the question I asked is: Yes, unless the law is unfair.  How we determine what laws are unfair is ambiguous, of course.  Also, what laws are even present or how we might know what they are can be confusing.  Some argue that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but that does not mean that obligation was intentional.  That can make all the difference in the world to people.  We are always left with the choice to obey for obedience's sake or because we agree with the law.  The reason why someone obeys matters, even if it does not change the practical outcome to society.  Law functions in society because we all need to agree to follow the law.  We can also agree that flagrant disobedience can lead to bedlam.  We can only pray that we can have a country and a world where the laws are just and fair, and that all persons are willing and able to follow them. 

Robert Middlekauff Book Review

 The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789. (Robert Middlekauff, (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1982.) 

    The Glorious Cause, by Robert Middlekauff is a comprehensive narrative about the American Revolution from a political and military perspective. Middlekauff's main argument in the book is that the American Revolution was inspired by the “glorious cause,” that he acknowledges throughout the book.  The term “glorious cause,” is used as an amalgam of religious zeal and rhetoric about liberty.   

    The narrative begins with the passage of the various Intolerable Acts by British Parliament. He constructs an exposition about the war by political perspectives of both the British and her colonies. Key historical figures from a top-down perspective were used to make his arguments such as Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, William Pitt, George Grenville, and Charles Townshend (to name a few.)  Middlekauff makes an exemplary effort of relating the colonial experience with parliamentary politics. 

    Middlekauff maintains that early in American history, the colonists were rife with political and religious factionalism. He argues that the “glorious cause,” of political and religious liberty was a causal factor of the revolution.  The narrative describes assorted demographics that suggest that, for the inception of the Continental Army, there required a political and cultural impetus.  Religious zeal, the writings of John Dickenson, and Common Sense, by Thomas Paine, were all essential for producing the culture of revolution. 

    Middlekauff delves into the complex working of the militias and Continental Army as they were rallied by Congress. The author explores the nature of war time mobilization in a culture that valued freedom and liberty with the highest regard.  He contended that an adequate amount of a cultural phenomenon was required to unite the states into a functioning army through the capable hands of George Washington.  It is a testament to presence of the “glorious cause,” that a weaker and poorly trained army could defeat a colonial superpower like the British Empire. 

    Middlekauff had the arduous task of making the battlefield come alive to the reader. However, his ability to reach this challenge was limited, as his descriptions of battlefield encounters were often windy and confusing.  Middlekauff’s passages about battles like Bunker Hill, the Monmouth Court House, the Battle of Bemis Heights, and other key battles were difficult to follow and required a very keen understanding of battle formations. He described the arrangements of the troops, where flanks were attacked, where reinforcements were held, and other war details with great difficulty to the reader.  The common reader with little military understanding could quickly become lost. 

    The Glorious Cause did, however, capture the details of what the conditions of the war were.  His imaginative and detailed description of the winter at Valley Forge was memorable, interesting, and at times humorous. Middlekauff proved capacious in his ability to tell logistical difficulties in war time, as well as illustrating what motivated simple farmers and country folk to becoming a capable fighting force.  When Middlekauff utilized the term he coined, “the glorious cause,” he managed to prove its connectivity without making superfluous statements that belittled the readers intellect. 

    There are occasions when Middlekauff failed to direct the reader to sufficient sources in his topic sentences. His citations were missing in certain passages, sometimes using phrases like, “historians claimed...” without any mention of which historians he was referring to.  His footnotes and bibliography still suggested that Middlekauff was not outright making fallacious claims, but it can still be argued that his source notations could have used revision.  Additionally, his addition of the experiential factor of women, Native Americans, and African Americans was limited to only several pages. More effort could be placed here, while noting that there were some interesting passages in these areas.  More effort needs to be taken not to marginalize these groups. 

    Overall, if a reader was seeking to understand the Revolutionary War from a political and military perspective, The Glorious Cause is a worthwhile secondary source. His lengthy book provides both good insights and copious supply of factual information.  This book should be recommended for students and scholars with an emphasis on the first thirteen chapters and the last six chapters.  The information found in the middle of these mentioned areas still leaves a bit to be desired.   

Peter Hart Book Review

 The Great War: A Combat History of the First World War. Peter Hart. Oxford University Press, New York, 2013. 

    Peter Hart’s, The Great War is an excellent account of the Great War. Hart generated a superb narrative that follows the events that led up to World War 1 and the major timeline of the war itself. The narrative includes accounts of the Western Front, the Eastern Front, naval campaigns, the middle east (including Mesopotamia and Palestine.)  Hart utilizes sources from both a top-down and bottom-up version of the war.  

    Hart mentions the important players of British, French, and German high commands. He described Erich Von Ludendorff, Douglas Haig, Sir John French, Joesef Joffre, and numerous other generals in capacious detail.  He provided both criticisms and praise for their various military engagements and tried to maintain a neutral stance on their abilities as leaders.  His use of low-ranking military sources gave more in depth depictions of the battlefield.  The sources on the ground were almost poetic in their descriptions of the death and destruction that took place in Europe.  

    Hart’s detailed description of the weapons of the war demonstrated a deep attention to detail.  The Maxim machine gun, for example, became a memorable tool of warfare throughout the telling of the wartime narrative.  From artillery to chemical weapons, Hart was able to incorporate each novel invention of death as part of chronological depiction of mankind’s need to eviscerate itself.  

    Photographs were included in the book to give a visual aid to the reader that could contribute to a more accurate telling of the events of the Great War.  He included pictures of the battlefield, which featured the war-ravaged countryside of France and Belgium.  Photographs of key political and military leaders were also included so the reader could find it to be a more immersive narrative.  Additionally, pictures of weapons, vehicles, and trench fortifications were present in order that was chronological yet organic.   

    Peter Hart more than effectively captured the horror and despair of the Great War.  His storytelling mastery was revealed through each page in his work.  This book has potential to give a historical narrative that most of the public would find palatable.  The book also has academic potential for scholars looking to incorporate a valuable secondary source to their own work.   

    As a military history, the book, however, fails to provide cultural context to the Great War.  The events of the war are merely isolated to combat with just a smidge of political pretext.  While no author can realistically capture all aspects and facets of life that war touches, this book remains mostly combat related.  The book also minimizes the role played by the United States in turning the tide of the wars to the Allied Powers.  There is barely a mention of John Pershing's role in the war.  The United States was merely a source of fresh, well-fed bodies.  

    Overall, I found Hart’s work to be an invigorating read that kept my interest the whole way through.  His descriptions of naval campaigns left something to be desired, as there were many nautical terms that the layperson might find confusing or disorienting.  Average and academic alike can at least gain some kind of insight because of Hart’s work.  I would recommend taking the time to read through the book, as I am certain, you would not be disappointed. 

Blog assignment 4

One of the new dangers facing online users is online dating. Over 40 million users utilize online dating services around 2007 (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3285863&). This influx of relationship seekers flooding the online community can have serious negative effects on the online community at large. It can be a major risk to people online giving out their personal information, especially to people who might not be what they claim to be.

According to Abcnews.com a Jeffery Marsalis posed as a series of things; a doctor, an astronaut and a spy. This man would lure women out, drug them, and even rape them (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3285863&). Such dangers facing people using online dating should make the public aware of steps they can take to avoid such things from happening. Also according to Abcnews around 20% of online daters post at least some kind of false information about themselves. This might indicate that besides being dangerous, the online dating community might just a place that encourages dishonesty. It is fair to say that lying occurs in the traditional dating scene but it just might be a little easier on the online dating scene.

One step that potential victims can take is to take the relationship slowly. Individuals should be careful about meeting someone they met online too early. The more information giving during chat might tip off someone to any potential dangers and lies. One other step people can take is to meet someone they meet online at a public place. This will create an atmosphere that is safer and still gives the chance for a face to face meeting. Finally a good strategy is trust your instincts. If something does not feel right, it is probably a good best to avoid putting yourself in a dangerous situation. Abcnews offers many different strategies to avoiding online dangers that anyone considering or using online dating can use to their benefit.

Works Cited:

“Online Dating Can Be Dangerous.” n.a. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3285863&. Web. June 16, 2007.

*Edit: *  This short write up was part of an assignment for a college class where I had to present an argumentative essay either in support or against the website Reddit (there was no option to be neutral or objective.)  Personally, both at the time written and currently, the author has no opinion of the website Reddit.  In hindsight, the fact that I was put in the position to have to put a stance on the quality of this website as an assignment to been fiendishly offensive.  I very much loathe the fact that this essay has been lingering on the internet for as many years as it has.  I would have deleted it, but I felt that an addendum might be more helpful as to indicate the dangers of publicly displaying coursework online.  

All information below is the unedited information that was part of the original posting:

“Small potatoes” like Reddit seem to be more harmful then helpful. Reddit is a smaller website that provides nothing that any of the major websites could offer. Reddit is about forming a clickish community that isolates itself from the rest of the world at large. The community deciding what is important does nothing in terms of what an individual may decide is important. I find it preferable to choose what I 'like' on Facebook over what is chosen for me on a site like Reddit. With sites like Facebook and Twitter out, the need for small sites like Reddit becomes non-existent. If the smaller sites could be assimilated into the mainstream then more could be done to create a greater online community. The site is ugly, confusing, and lacks the overall substance that Twitter or Facebook possess.

Reddit also has a habit of creating what are called “Online Witch Hunts.” These occur when online posters feel too powerful in an isolated world like Reddit. There would likely be less of these witch hunts if Reddit simply closed down. In a larger mainstream community these voices of troublemakers would be reduced simply due to the larger amount of people sharing ideas and questioning such online vigilantes. There is a case of a shooting in a Navy yard where Reddit posters decided to pursue whoever were the suspects (Mai-Duc). Reddit was forced to close down such posting due to similar problems with the Boston Marathon bomber. It is in cases such as this, this site is forced to control its unruly posters. Since this site is an 'alternative' to the mainstream, people may feel that they can post whatever they want without fear of the larger community. Reddit had a sub community called “findnavyyardshooters” that amateur sleuths created to solve this crime by themselves (Mai-Duc). This all stems from a community of outsiders that think that they can do whatever they want due to the fact that they don't have to face the majority of the world like the more popular social media sites.

Works Cited:

“Reddit Halts Amateur Sleuths From Speculation on Navy Yard Shooter.” Christine Mai-Duc. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/17/nation/la-na-nn-reddit-navy-yard-shooter-20130917. September 17, 2013. Web.

Things to consider about social media

10 Key points that people using new media should be aware of.

1. People using the new media known also as social media should be aware of the rise of cyber bullying. Over 25% of teens and adolescents have experienced cyberbullying in some way or another (http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/cyber-bullying-statistics.html). Parents should be aware of the significant amount of this occurring so that they may talk with their children both about how to respond to it and how their children should avoid participating in such acts. Cyber bullying takes on many forms. Such forms include mean comments on social networking sites, the use of cell phone messaging, spreading rumors online, pretending to be someone else online, are just a few of the forms that cyber bullying takes. According the Harford County Examiner, only 1 in 10 teens tell their parents when cyberbullying occurs (http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/cyber-bullying-statistics.html). It is very significant that this figure changes in order for adolescents to stop these things from occurring.

2. Social media has become a serious source of information concerning businesses and marketers in particular. In one case the business Red Robin (A restaurant company) has used social media to improve how their recipes were done based on customer feedback on social media sites (Tim Mullaney). The use of social media can improve both a business and the customers experience with said business. Social media is increasing the amount of participation that consumers have with businesses creating a stronger and more powerful service economy. In fact 90% of businesses have reaped some kind of benefit from new new media (Tim Mullaney)

3. In many cases people use new new media to engage in social interactions that would not normally otherwise do. Normally shy people might end up posting things that they might be otherwise too afraid to say in person. This actually creates an unnatural attitude that said person really is incapable to showing in person, and thus, not a true reaction of that person. According to psychology today, people should limit their information to factual information rather then on emotional response (Alex Lickerman). Avoiding using the internet as a shield from the reactions of the real world can be good for using the internet as an emotional crutch.

4. The use of social media has greatly effected language in many ways. This means how langauge is received, the audience that receives it, and how the language itself is being shaped. Many users of the internet are blogging and typing posts that create a new vessel for communication and the use of language that effects people worldwide. According to Social Media Today, the use of websites like twitter change how verbose language and communication are by the character limit imposed on the website (Karan Chopra). The article also distinguishes the difference between proper grammar and 'textspeak', which is the new emerging form of language created mostly by the use of social networking sites.

5. Social networking sites have also had an impact on how females view their bodies based on what images social media presented to them. A study by Arizona State University indicated a strong connection between exposure to ultra thin models had an adverse effect on womens self esteem based on what images they viewed. The group exposed to ultra thin models experienced a higher level of stress, depression, and body dissatisfaction (Eric Stice, Heather E. Shaw). Such exposure to thin models is quite common place on social media sites and chronic exposure to thin models can effect the self esteem of girls on a massive level. It is important to understand what is a fantasy look and what most people should actually look like.

6. One major shift of media power has been the emergence of citizen journalists. This means that anybody can report the news and share information that could be critical to world news. The use of citizen journalism has been the forefront of spreading information to a vast amount of people through the internet. During the Iran election, over 60 % of links on twitter were related to that election and the complications that arose (Nic Newman). Such reporting keeps a constant stream of both first and second hand accounts of the story keeping an almost visceral quality to the stories. It is very important to be aware that this is a very serious form of journalism and should not be overlooked because it is being done on a new media platform. While the information may be spotty due to easily spread errors, overall the mistakes do correct themselves. Also it is important to be aware that older forms of media were not flawless and it can be said that citizen journalism is a fast and more effective means to transferring information.

7. While social media can be a source of good information there are many cases where it can prove to be a host of hoaxes and false rumors. It is very important for users to be aware that any kind of falsehood may be posted of twitted at any time. One rumor was that Bill Cosby was running for president in 2012 (Lisa Mason). Such rumors can be destructive for how social media is portrayed in the view of the public in general. This can spark unfair attention to social media sites in general. Overall it is important to understand that any piece of information can be misunderstood, altered, or in any other way misrepresented. Users should always be aware that any information can be true or merely misinformation.

8. One major concern about social media is copyright laws. There is a great deal of copyrighted material that is passed around on social media. Many videos on Youtube are frequently taken down for violating this copyright law. It is certain that the free passing of information conflicts with the capitol gains from artistic creativity. Many artists feel that their material is owned and sold and is not meant to be freely shared over social networking sites. At this point in time it is possible for Twitter posters to copyright their original tweets (Renee Hykel). This demonstrates how the world of social media is growing into a legitimate business for its users. Observing the copyright laws creates an environment where intellectual property is observed and credit is placed where it is deserved to be.

9. One major thing that has changed is celebrities using social media. This creates a sense of realism to people that almost seemed completely removed from the world entirely. The use of social media has allowed celebrities to be more interactive to their fans. Celebrities such as Mila Kunis, Justin Timberlake, Taylor Swift, and other celebrities have accepted invitations from their fans (Thomas Clayton). The use of social media to distribute information to the public about upcoming events saves money to both the distributor and the consumer (Thomas Clayton). Due to the many advantages of social networking many celebrities and fans can come together and create a stronger relationship. It is through social networks that the world becomes vastly smaller and everyone is connected to the same digital world.

10. A danger facing social media users is the threat of online stalkers. Often times people give away information that could result in someone fallowing them with unwanted attention. Using sites like facebook and twitter, people can watch and harass someone through the internet and in some cases fallow them into their lives outside the internet. According to Seomworld, 29% of teens have been friended and stalked by a complete stranger that they accepted a friend request from (Tarek Riman). Also 83% of college students regularly check their ex's facebook (Tarek Riman). It is not uncommon to be interested in a past romance but at times things can go too far and unwanted harassment and attacks could occur.

Works Cited:

1. “Cyber Bullying Statistics.”http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/cyber-bullying-statistics.html. n.a. Web. 2013.

2 “Social Media is Reinventing How Business is Done.” http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-05-14/social-media-economy-companies/55029088/1. Tim Mullaney. Web. May 16 2012.

3 “The Effects of Technology on Relationships. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/happiness-in-world/201006/the-effect-technology-relationships. Alex Lickerman. Web. June 8, 2010.

4. “The Effects of Social Media in How We Speak and Write.” http://socialmediatoday.com/karenn1617/1745751/effects-social-media-how-we-speak-and-write. Karan Chopra. Web. September 17, 2013.

5. “Adverse Effects of the Media Portrayed Thin-Ideal on Women and Linkages to Bulimic Symptomatology.”
http://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/jscp.1994.13.3.288. Eric Stice, Heather E Shaw. Web. 1994

6. “The Rise of Social Media and its Impact on Mainstream Journalism.” http://www.sssup.it/UploadDocs/6635_8_S_The_rise_of_Social_Media_and_its_Impact_on_mainstream_journalism_Newman_07.pdf. Nic Newman. Web. September 2009.

7. “Social Media Rumors and Hoaxes.” http://socialmediasun.com/social-media-rumors/. Lisa Mason. Web. April 27, 2012.

8. “Copyright Issues for Social Media.”https://www.legalzoom.com/intellectual-property-rights/copyrights/copyright-issues-social-media. Renee Hykel. Web. July 2012.

9. “5 Ways Celebreties' Social Media Presence Evolved in 2012.”ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-clayton/celebrities-social-media_b_2529151.html. Thomas Clayton. Web. January 22, 2013.

10. “Social Media and Cyber Stalking Facts.” http://www.seomworld.com/2013/09/social-media-and-cyber-stalking-facts.html#.UzjLLfldW24. n.a. Web. 2013

Blog assignment 2

Facebook has brought about many changes to social interactions in general. To some, facebook represents a rise in interactivity and accessibility of people. On the other hand some argue that facebook indicates a decline in social interactions. One negative effect of facebook is the rise of cyber bullying. Many young people experience bullying in their day-to-day life. With the rise of social media bullying has taken a rise in the recent years. According to stopbullying.gov in 2008 and 2009 6% of students from grades 6 – 12 experience cyber bullying (http://www.stopbullying.gov/cyberbullying/what-is-it/index.html). According to the same source kids who were victims of bullying were also more likely to use alcohol and drugs, skip school, experience in-person bullying, receive lower grades, and have more health problems (http://www.stopbullying.gov/cyberbullying/what-is-it/index.html). It is due to all of these problems is the reason the government posted this website to raise awareness and provide solutions for victims of cyber bullying. The main solution provided is to delete unwanted messages, block unwanted users, and to report any type of bullying activity.

One other negative effect of facebook is the possiblity that it makes people lonely. According to a 2012 article in theatlantic.com there have been studies that conclude that online interactions on facebook, rather then face-to-face interactions cause loneliness (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/is-facebook-making-us-lonely/308930/). John Cacioppa states that the greater the amount of in person interactions the less lonely the individual is, and transversely the more online interactions the more lonely the individual is (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/is-facebook-making-us-lonely/308930/). This may be the result of certain benefits to in person communication that facebook users simply do not get get from social media sites. The article also states that facebook itself is not causing lonliness but rather puts people in a position to be lonely by ignoring things outside of the computer. This article has been referenced in other articles are reflects the key division among people as to whether facebook is a boon or is harmful.

While there have been arguments that claim that facebook has a negative impact on a person or society, there are also articles that show a more positive side to social media. According to an Indian news site that did an article on facebook, facebook creates “virtual empathy” for users (http://news.oneindia.in/2011/08/09/tech-negative-positive-effects-of-facebook-part-2.html). Virtual empathy is an addition to the positive communication that facebook provides that keeps more and more people connected. This article also states that facebook can be helpful to children who are shy and have a difficulty expressing themselves in person. This can be contributed to the fact that face to face conversation can be difficult and trips many people up. With the advantage of being able to slowly and carefully craft dialogue and responces, people are able to express themselves with a greater degree of success. This article argues that facebook does not diminish interpersonal communication, rather, it enchances it.

One other advantage that facebook has had on society is the benefits for marketing. Advertisers may see what people like or take an interest in based on what they choose and not by being disturbed by surveys and other intrusions. One article states that facebook has been beneficial for stimulating business and thus generating revenue. According to www.mediabistro.com 89% of marketers reported an increase in business due to the rise of social media like facebook (https://www.mediabistro.com/alltwitter/marketing-benefits-social-media_b44694). Such an increase in revenue generates money for the economy and thus creates prosperity for all. Also due to such increases businesses also report a 75% increase in traffic to their websites (https://www.mediabistro.com/alltwitter/marketing-benefits-social-media_b44694). This also creates new opportunities for businesses that might not be able to pay for advertisements on old media channels. New businesses and more competition in the marketplace are two benefits that come from the use of facebook and other social media.