Anti War Blog Post

 Anti War Blog Post #6

Peaceful Anti-war protesters in the 1920s of the Progressive Era.

One of the biggest themes I took away from the videos on the Progressive Era was how controversial antiwar speech became during World War I. The videos explained that many Americans opposed U.S. involvement in the war, but instead of being welcomed into public debate, many antiwar activists were criticized, silenced, and even imprisoned for expressing their views.

This surprised me because freedom of speech is often presented as one of the most important American values. Yet during WWI, those who questioned the war effort often faced serious consequences for speaking their minds.

The Progressive Era is often remembered for reform movements, economic change, and efforts to improve society. However, the period was also shaped by growing tensions surrounding World War I.

Once the United States entered the war, dissent was frequently viewed as unpatriotic. Many Americans believed that criticism of the government could weaken national unity during a time of conflict.

The government used laws such as the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act to punish people who spoke out against the war effort. As a result, antiwar activists, socialists, and other critics of the war found themselves under investigation, fined, or even sent to prison.

Looking back, this period shows how constitutional freedoms can be tested when a nation faces fear, uncertainty, or war. Rights that seem secure during peaceful times can become much more fragile during moments of crisis.

What stood out to me most was the role of the First Amendment. The amendment exists to protect free speech, especially unpopular speech that challenges those in power.

Anti-war in the Progressive Era.

It is easy to support free expression when most people agree with a message. The real test comes when citizens criticize government policies or express opinions that go against the majority.

The experiences of antiwar activists during World War I demonstrate why free-speech protections are so important. Without those protections, people may be afraid to voice concerns about government actions, including decisions about war.

Exploring modern antiwar organizations helped me connect this history to the present day. Websites such as Antiwar.com regularly publish articles questioning U.S. military involvement abroad and arguing that war often creates unintended consequences.

Similarly, writers at The American Conservative frequently challenge interventionist foreign policy and advocate for a more restrained approach to international conflicts. Although their political perspectives may differ, both sites provide viewpoints that are often missing from mainstream discussions.

One question that came to mind while exploring these websites is why strong antiwar viewpoints sometimes seem less visible in major news outlets. This is a complicated issue with no simple answer.

It may be influenced by audience demand, editorial priorities, political pressures, or the tendency of large media organizations to focus on military strategy and political debates rather than opposition movements. Whatever the reason, these websites show that antiwar voices are still very much active in American society.

I do not think we have to agree with every argument presented by antiwar writers. However, I do think there is value in hearing perspectives that challenge common assumptions and force people to think critically about foreign policy.

Reflecting on both the historical videos and these modern websites, I believe dissent plays an essential role in a democracy. Citizens should be able to question government policies without fear of punishment or censorship.

The experiences of antiwar activists during World War I remind us that free speech is not always popular, especially during times of conflict. Yet protecting unpopular opinions may be one of the most important purposes of the First Amendment.

Ultimately, a healthy democracy depends on open debate. Whether people support or oppose a particular war, they should have the freedom to express their views, listen to opposing perspectives, and participate in discussions that help shape the future of the country.

Video #1

Video #2

Video #3

Ai Disclosure: In this blog post, I used Microsoft Copilot to shape my writing and my ideas about antiwar voices and how they are often silenced.  I asked Copilot to create a blog post and utilize the three videos that we watched on our own.  I also used Copilot to check my spelling, structure, and grammar throughout the post.  

Blog Post #4 Each One Teach One

 How Emoticons and Emojis Changed Communication

Emoticons and Emojis changed the way we communicate.

Imagine trying to text a joke without using a smiley face or emoji. It would be much harder for someone to know whether you were being serious or joking.

That challenge led to one of the most important inventions in digital communication.

Before the internet became part of everyday life, most communication happened face-to-face, over the phone, or through handwritten letters. These forms of communication included important nonverbal cues such as facial expressions, body language, and vocal tone.

 When computers began connecting people through online discussion boards in the late 1970s and early 1980s, those cues disappeared.

As a result, users often struggled to understand the intended meaning behind messages. A sarcastic comment could be mistaken for a serious statement, and a joke could create confusion or even arguments. Early internet users needed a way to communicate emotion through text alone.

In 1982, computer scientist Scott Fahlman proposed the first modern emoticon: :-). He also suggested :-( for serious or unhappy messages. The goal was simple. People on online message boards were misunderstanding jokes, and he wanted an easy way to show emotion in text. 

The idea was born after a joke posted on a Carnegie Mellon University message board was mistaken for a real warning. The misunderstanding sparked a discussion about how users could better identify humor and sarcasm in online conversations.

 Fahlman's simple suggestion of using :-) and :-( provided an easy solution, and it quickly gained popularity among computer users. 

What seemed like a small solution quickly became a worldwide phenomenon.

Before emoticons, online communication lacked facial expressions, gestures, and tone of voice. Readers could easily misinterpret a message. The smiley face helped fill that gap by giving people a way to express feelings through text. 

What makes this invention remarkable is that it was never designed to become a worldwide communication tool. It was simply meant to solve a problem for a small online community. 

However, as the internet expanded, so did the use of emoticons.

During the 1980s and 1990s, internet users created dozens of new emoticons. People used ;-) to indicate a wink, :D for laughter, and :-P to show playfulness. 

These symbols helped make online conversations feel more natural and expressive. For many users, emoticons became a way to add personality to otherwise plain text messages. 

As email, chat rooms, and instant messaging became more popular, emoticons spread across the globe. What started on a university message board became a standard part of internet culture.

Over time, emoticons evolved into emojis.

In 1999, Japanese designer Shigetaka Kurita created one of the first emoji sets for mobile phones. The term emoji comes from Japanese origins. The word combines "e," meaning picture, and "moji," meaning character. Kurita designed 176 emojis to help people communicate information and emotions quickly on mobile devices. 

Shigetaka Kurita is a Japanese designer who created the first emoji set.

Unlike emoticons, which require users to create faces with keyboard characters, emojis are actual digital images. They can represent emotions, foods, animals, activities, weather, transportation, and countless other ideas. 

Their visual nature made communication even faster and easier to understand. The impact of emojis was enormous.

They made communication faster and more expressive. A single emoji can sometimes communicate a feeling more effectively than an entire sentence. Whether someone is laughing, celebrating, or showing support, an emoji can instantly add meaning to a message.

Emojis also help reduce misunderstandings.

For example, a short text can seem rude or unfriendly without context. Adding a smiling emoji can make the intended tone clear. This has become especially important as more communication happens online rather than in person.

Another major contribution is their ability to cross language barriers.

People around the world speak different languages, but many emojis are universally understood. A heart ❤️, thumbs up 👍, or laughing face 😂 can communicate a message to millions of people regardless of where they live.

The growth of smartphones helped emojis become a global phenomenon. As technology companies adopted common emoji standards, users around the world could send and receive the same symbols across different devices. 

Today, thousands of emojis exist, allowing people to express emotions, identities, cultures, and experiences in new ways.

Researchers often describe emojis as a form of digital body language. Just as facial expressions help communicate feelings during face-to-face conversations, emojis provide emotional context in online communication. This helps messages feel more personal and reduces the risk of misunderstanding.

Today, emoticons and emojis are used everywhere. They appear in text messages, social media posts, marketing campaigns, emails, and even professional communication. What began as a simple way to mark a joke has become a global language of expression.

The beginning of Emoticons & Emojis.

Looking back, it is amazing that three keyboard characters, :-), helped transform the internet.

The invention of emoticons and emojis changed how people connect, share emotions, and understand one another online. They made digital communication more human, and their influence continues to grow every day. From a college message board in 1982 to billions of daily messages around the world, these small symbols have had a lasting impact on the way people communicate.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

AI DISCLOSURE: I utilized Microsoft Copilot to craft my blog post.  I told Copilot that I am a college student who has to do an assignment about the history, impact, and importance of the emoticon and emoji and to shape that into a blog format. Ai helped me with my grammar, structure, and spelling when it helped guide me in this post. 

Blog Post #5

Privacy: Online and Off

Government surveillance in the United States.

When I think about privacy today, I realize how much information about me exists outside of my control. As a college student, I use apps, social media, and digital services every day.

I often agree to terms without thinking about where my information goes or who may eventually have access to it. This raises an important question for me: How much information should the government and other organizations be allowed to collect about innocent people?

Mass surveillance creates a serious threat to civil liberties. Information collected about innocent people can potentially be used for blackmail, political advantage, or other purposes that were never intended when the information was originally collected. To me, this is not simply a political issue belonging to one side. It is a bipartisan issue because privacy and civil liberties affect everyone.

One concept that stands out to me is the contract of adhesion. This happens when one party has most or all of the power. I see this in my own relationship with apps on my phone.

When I download an app, I am usually presented with terms that I either accept or do not use the app. I do not have much power to negotiate those terms.

This connects to the larger issue of data mining. Information about people can be collected and analyzed in ways that we may not fully understand. Ideas such as deep pocket inspection, digital dossiers, and tracking malware show how much information can potentially be gathered about an individual.

The third-party doctrine also concerns me. When I voluntarily give information to a second party, such as an app or service, I may give up control over what happens to that information downstream. Something that I originally shared for one purpose can potentially become part of a much larger collection of information about me.

Facial recognition makes this issue even more concerning. The technology has become very advanced and is increasingly infiltrating everyday life. I have to wonder how much control I actually have over information that can be used to identify me without my direct involvement.

Flock Cameras in the US.

Another idea that stood out to me is the concept of electronic tattoos. Our digital reputation could remain long after we are gone. Information placed into the digital world can become part of a lasting record. That makes me think differently about everything I put online because my digital presence could outlast me.

Flock cameras are another example that concerns me because I see them as an abuse of power. When surveillance becomes so common that people are constantly being watched or tracked, the boundary between public safety and personal privacy becomes difficult to define.

I believe the government should take the threat to civil liberties seriously. People should not have to assume that information they provide for one purpose can eventually be used for something completely different.

The government should also be held accountable for how information about innocent people is collected and used. Mass surveillance should not become an excuse to gather as much information as possible simply because the technology allows it.

For me, the most important issue is power. When one side has the ability to collect enormous amounts of information and the other side has little ability to control it, there is an obvious imbalance. That imbalance is exactly what makes privacy such an important civil liberties issue.

I think protecting privacy starts with recognizing how much information we give away. I cannot completely control every piece of information that exists about me, but I can become more aware of what I agree to and what I share.

I can also pay more attention to the apps and services I use instead of automatically accepting every term presented to me.

Understanding concepts such as data mining, digital dossiers, tracking malware, and the third-party doctrine helps me recognize the larger privacy risks behind everyday technology.

Ultimately, I do not think privacy should be treated as something that only matters when someone has something to hide. Privacy is connected to our freedom, our reputation, and our ability to control information about ourselves.

The more I learn about mass surveillance, the more I realize that protecting privacy is not just about protecting secrets. It is about making sure that the power to collect and use personal information does not become greater than the rights of the people being watched.

 ________________________________________________________

AI DISCLOSURE: I used Microsoft Copilot to shape my writing.  I put in my own notes I took while watching the videos and had AI correctly shape what I was trying to convey.  It is all my thoughts.  I used it for grammar and spelling as well.

Blog Post #3: Eight Values of Freedom

When reflecting on the Eight Values of Freedom, one that really resonated with me was the Marketplace of Ideas (Discovery of Truth). When written and was famously said, "The truth will ought." It is vital that all ideas and opinions are shared and listened to, even if people do not agree. It is up to us, the citizens of the US to pick what we choose to believe in and not have the government choose.

If the government were to interfere, this would be considered a market failure. One example that showcases the importance of this value would be how COVID was handled in the United States.

One of the leading causes for this mess was Dr. Fauci and his team of doctors who cared more about people listening to his opinion instead of trying to help people get better. Dr. Fauci and the Biden administration did not allow other medical professionals to talk to patients and the general public about getting early treatment for COVID.

They also hid the fact that the COVID vaccine caused abortions in pregnant women because he only cared about people taking the vaccine, not actually recovering from this virus. The Biden Administration discouraged discourse in the marketplace which, in return, left many people uneducated on how to properly take on this virus; unfortunately, many people died because of their actions.

This value of free expression continues to be extremely important in our society because we live in a democracy where we can share our different opinions without being reprimanded by our government. The Marketplace of Ideas allows everyone the ability to converse, debate, and decide their own beliefs. Even so, this could lead to reform in country because it can spark change, such as women getting the ability to vote, which started from protest.

Another important Value of Freedom is Check on Government Power. This includes the Federal, State, and Individual structure which is part of the checks and balances. We, as a society, need to take on that watch dog role and check our government when needed.

A huge part of this would be journalists who have a duty to share stories no matter the cost or backlash they receive. The press is not supposed to be an arm to the government but an adversary instead. In the past decade, journalists have catered to the ideas of the government instead of criticizing them for their mistakes which is the opposite of their duties.

If people do not check government power, at some point the government will become too powerful and the people will not have any influence. These two values go hand in hand because they both discuss the importance of freedom of speech and making sure people voice their opinions, even if it not the most popular belief. If US citizens continue to challenge the government, it will prevent censorship from taking over our country.