Florida US Senator uses “N” Word

WireAP_22edb3f0af144cb1b49233203850b00d_12x5_1600 A US Senator from Florida was recently ousted for reportedly referring to colleagues by using the n-word to describe them. A representative for Senator Artiles claims that other Senators use similar language and, thus, Artiles should not have to face an investigation on the Senate floor. Majority leader Mitch McConnell cited a decorum rule prohibiting Elizabeth Warren from reading a letter from Coretta Scott King about AG Sessions during his confirmation hearing, as the rule states senators cannot disparage one another on the floor. We at honest action believe these rules should be revised to include disparaging speech off the floor as well.

Can Social Media Really Monitor Itself??

 

In today’s society, social media plays a vital role in day to day life. Many people use it to share personal experiences, photographs, thoughts, and other private details about their lives. It gives people an opportunity to connect with other individuals around the world; individuals that they otherwise would not have met in regular life. Social media presents a great spectrum of opportunity for people, whether it be job opportunities or even free business promotion. But good as it may, social media can also pose a major problem.

Online media has limited restrictions, where individuals are free to post almost anything they want. This topic has always evoked mixed feelings, some agree with limited restrictions and some do not. One of the many that agree with these limited restrictions also advocate for even more freedom of speech. According to The New York Times, “The monitoring and restriction of even violent content can have dire consequences, despite being well-intentioned.” This means that they believe not having freedom of speech will result in negative consequences. Even though they believe this is the case, they still accept the government’s flawed regulation policy, stating that “it provides checks and balances between the site and its users”.But on the contrary, Honest Action believes that we should have more regulations on the amount of freedom individuals can have on social media.This is all due to numerous negative outcomes resulting from lack of restrictions being put into place on social networks. Outcomes such as cyberbullying, terrorists threats, livestreaming suicides, and people creating false identities on personal profiles. If you really think about it, if the current regulations put into place were that “effective”, would we be dealing with all of the issues we have now?

Other numerous sources have mentioned alternative ways for censorship without evoking the first amendment right. The Huffington Post mentions the idea of “self- censorship”, where individuals keep a mindful eye on their postings. But although this is a smart sounding idea, it still would not stop people from posting certain things. In a nutshell, people are going to do what they want, self-censorship can only help but so much. This is why we believe that more restrictions need to be put into place on the internet. It will greatly affect some of the violence and negative content you see on the internet today.

IMG_1792

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/12/03/should-facebook-do-more-to-monitor-violent-expressions/social-media-can-monitor-itself-and-protect-free-speechhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/layla-revis/social-media-censorship-f_b_7837398.html

 

 

 

Free Speech can be Harmful, We Know!

This article posits that hate speech should be outlawed in the context of free speech. We agree with this characterization for a number of reasons.

  1. The majority of people making the decisions about what constitutes acceptable free speech are of the same ethnicity, white, and as such they are unaware of the ripple effect and defamation that can be caused by the speech of others.
  2. The inherent privilege granted by the bill of rights for free speech came at a time where everyone’s speech wasn’t that visible whereas now; everything anyone puts online can be seen by anyone. Free_Speech_Doesnt_Mean_Careless_Talk-_-_NARA_-_513606-1

No, It’s not OK… Keep it HONEST

When you’re walking through the grocery store and you spot your favorite magazine, there is nothing there more aesthetically pleasing than our favorite celebrities. We have a developed a mindset that places these individuals in entertainment above ourselves in the ways they are publicized along with their appearances. Here at Honest Action, we believe that photoshopping is to hide imperfections from viewers that can often result in timidity from target audiences. Photoshopping is also the publication of falsehood to viewers.

 

An article by Frank Multari from PetaPixel.com article entitled, “Why I’ll Photoshop Your Face and Why I Believe It’s Okay” believes that these images of celebrities are completely justified. The article understands  “A lot of people feel that it pushes unrealistic expectations of beauty in society.”  Multari’s Article views this idea from a different perspective; he explains that “ …we naturally focus on a person’s most identifiable parts, the features that are most quintessentially human.” This stands behind the belief that within a picture lies the whole person and not their imperfections. Multari pushes the idea that if people focus on the actual person instead of their flaws it is ok to alter their appearance. While the logic seems noble, it has its flaws. Reasoning along these lines are why people see celebrities as perfect and above themselves because they are edited and marketed in this manner. Audiences would appreciate realistic features displayed on celebrities to relate to them more.

Multari states that “ temporary pimples, bumps, and blemishes are not the essence of a person.” However, capturing a true person is capturing them as a whole including the good and bad. Not editing them into your superficial ideologies of beauty. True fans are accepting to their favorite artist for their creativity and passion, not for their compromised authenticity. Not to mention that this view completely overlooks those that are self-conscious about their own face and it could help millions to see people that look just like them may have the same insecurities.

So why continue a culture of deception and fraudulent for more generations to witness and compare themselves to? By removing any disfigurement or flawed element Multari claims we can focus on “elements of a picture that are sharpest.” Everyone defines beauty in their own unique way so why force your beliefs on their images. Honest Action would promote the use of regulations to state under an image whether or not a picture has been photoshopped to notify audiences to use discretion.

So the next time you see your favorite artists on the cover of a magazine ask yourself, Who is the real them? And write your magazine editor to post before and after photoshop photos.

Screen Shot 2017-04-07 at 9.25.41 PM

 

No Reason to Do it? ….Wrong!

4b65ddd61e91f052de2c9460ddff0e67

According to The First Amendment and the U.S. Constitution, “Congress shall make no law….abridging (limiting) the freedom of speech, or of the press…” Here at Honest Action, we believe that restrictions should be placed on the media to control their misleading views of the public.

The Patch posted an article titled “There is No Reason to Limit Freedom of Speech,” In this article, the author Ray Newman discusses Freedom of Speech and argues that there should be no limitations on what people can say. His fueling his argument was that citizens are mature and are able to “express their opinions without being censored.” Newman believes in people sharing their own opinions and looks at freedom of speech from the people’s perspective. He also believes that individuals should take it upon themselves and do their own research when reading anything. While part of this philosophy fits the Honest Action mold we simply do not agree with all of his views.

In regards to seeing all citizens as mature and able to make their own rational choices when it comes to free speech in many situations, this standard cannot be set for all of the US. Every year we see countless citizens create chaos and senseless violence that occurs in various parts of the country. Newman mentions that the government sets limits already; one example being people that cannot yell “fire” in a compact build. While Newman sees this as unnecessary this is a restriction that makes sense and enforces safety. In a world where anything can happen, why would it be irrational to believe someone yelling “fire” even if you did not visually see one? This can cause chaos and injuries, crushing and trampling. This is an extreme example of what can happen in this situation, but a realistic possibility. Dangerous and false statements harm our society. It would be naive to attempt to censor all statements of the sort just due to lack of resources to do so alone, especially due to the “Internet age,” but some speech and press are harmful to society as seen in the previous example.
Honest Action believes that people should be able to say whatever as long as it is not reckless and can possibly endanger the lives of others. Freedom and safety for all!