Antiwar In The Progressive Era

World War I sparked major debates over free speech, dissent, and government power in the United States.

One of the biggest themes I took away from these videos was the ongoing tension between government power and individual freedoms during times of war. The videos showed how major historical events, especially World War I, created ripple effects that shaped the way free speech is viewed in the United States.

Results of the Sedition Act.

The first video began in 1914 with the start of World War I and examined how the war affected American society after the United States entered the conflict. As public opposition to the war grew, the federal government looked for ways to punish anti-war protesters. The Espionage Act and the Sedition Act became tools that allowed the government to criminalize criticism.

Individuals who spoke out against the war were arrested and sent to jail. Their cases eventually reached the Supreme Court, but the Court sided with the government. Looking back, this period raises important questions about how far the government should be allowed to go when national interests conflict with individual rights.

Another concept discussed was the speech-action dichotomy, which focuses on the distinction between simply expressing an idea and taking action based on that idea. The videos suggested that this distinction became an important issue when courts evaluated speech-related cases.

The invention of the commercial radio.

The first video also touched on broader developments during this time, including the rise of commercial radio and changes in how the Supreme Court operated. The Court increasingly focused on taking only the most important cases. The video concluded with the stock market crash of 1929, showing how many different social and political changes were connected during this period.

The second video focused on freedom of the press and government attempts to restrict publications. Newspapers challenged what became known as a gag rule, leading to an important constitutional question.

Did a government ban on sensational publications violate the First Amendment?

Anti-war protesters. 

According to the Supreme Court, the answer was yes. This decision helped establish what is known as the Near Rule, which generally holds that prior restraints are unconstitutional. In other words, the government usually cannot stop speech or publication before it happens.

The video did note several exceptions. Restrictions may be allowed for obscene material, speech that threatens national security during wartime, and speech that incites violence.

The third video introduced several important legal concepts. Precedent refers to the first case that creates a legal rule or doctrine, while stare decisis means standing by previous decisions. The video also explained certiorari, which is the Supreme Court's power to choose which cases it will hear.

Another key concept was incorporation, the process by which parts of the Bill of Rights are applied to state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The video also defined incitement as speech that triggers violence or lawless action.

What stood out to me most was the role of dissent during wartime. In my opinion, dissent is necessary in a democracy, and the government's efforts to suppress anti-war speech represented an abuse of power. If citizens cannot question a war or criticize government decisions, then democratic participation becomes limited.

I also believe the First Amendment deserves the highest level of protection because political speech is at its core. That includes criticizing the government, the president, or a war. To me, free speech only truly exists when people can openly debate whether it is right to send young Americans to fight and die abroad. Without that freedom, the First Amendment loses much of its meaning.

____________________________________________________________________________________

AI DISCLOSURE: This post was a collaboration using Microsoft Copilot. I took detailed notes while watching a few short videos about anti-war and the government. In addition to the facts that I learned, I emphasized my own reactions and opinions of the role of dissent along with the importance of the First Amendment's protection. I then asked Copilot to help me improve the text by correcting grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I then asked Copilot to help me shape the text into a blog post format. After reviewing the text, I added links to related resources, as well as appropriate images and captions. 

____________________________________________________________________________________

Privacy Online and Off

Does owning electronics really guarantee the security of your private information?

After watching several talks about online privacy and government surveillance, I came away with one main takeaway: almost everything we do leaves a digital trail. Whether it is a social media post, a text message, or even driving down the road, information about us is constantly being collected, stored, and shared.

Tattoos are Permanent

One speaker compared social media to tattoos. Traditional tattoos can tell stories about a person without them saying a word. In the same way, social media profiles reveal a surprising amount of information about who we are, what we believe, and how we live. The difference is that our digital footprints may outlive us. The speaker described these online records as “electronic tattoos” that can remain long after our physical bodies are gone.

I have made my fair share of mistakes on Snapchat and other social media platforms while growing up. Hearing that our online actions can essentially live forever made me think much more carefully about what I choose to post today.

Another talk focused on how much information is collected through surveillance technologies.

Car Tracking

Something as simple as driving a car around the United States can generate data about where we go and who we spend time with. The talk explained how photographs and tracking technologies can be gathered into massive databases. Even when we cannot see that process happening, it does not mean it is not happening.

What bothered me most was the idea that information collected for one purpose can eventually be misused for another.

I also learned about privacy in communications. Many people worry that someone could be listening to their phone calls or reading their messages. The speaker discussed how encryption has become more common and how technology companies have made secure communication available to ordinary people, not just governments or large organizations.

The argument was that stronger security benefits everyone.

While law enforcement agencies may find investigations more difficult, stronger encryption also protects regular people from criminals, stalkers, and others who may try to access private information. Personally, I was relieved to learn that my iPhone offers stronger protections than some older technologies. At the same time, I understand that no technology is perfectly secure.

Cases involving the sharing of private photos, videos, and personal information without consent can have devastating consequences. Victims often face long and expensive legal processes while harmful content remains online. The discussion connected these situations to serious mental health consequences and rising suicide rates. I strongly agree that people deserve better protection.

Hackers

No one should have their private information shared without consent, and removing harmful content should not be such a difficult process. If other countries can take stronger action against these abuses, then the United States should work to strengthen protections and enforcement as well.

As someone studying media production, I have seen how often stories about leaked private photos appear in films and discussions about modern technology. Unfortunately, those stories reflect real problems that affect real people.

I already have trust issues, so learning how much information can be collected through social media, phones, and other technologies was disturbing. More importantly, I worry about my friends and family. A privacy violation can happen to anyone, and the emotional damage can be significant.

To protect ourselves, I think the best advice is simple: think before you click.

We should assume that anything we post online could remain visible forever. We should be careful about what we share, what we send, and how much of ourselves we reveal online. No matter how much we trust someone, some conversations are better held in person than on a screen.

In a world where digital information never truly disappears, protecting our privacy starts with the decisions we make every day.

_______________________________________________________________________

AI DISCLOSURE: This post was a collaboration using Microsoft Copilot. I took detailed notes while watching a few short TED Talks. In addition to the facts that I learned, I emphasized my own reactions and opinions of digital security while watching. I then asked Copilot to help me improve the text by correcting grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I then asked Copilot to help me shape the text into a blog post format. After reviewing the text, I added links to related resources, as well as appropriate images and captions. 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Top Five News Sources

Many Social Media platforms can be used as News Sources.

Tik Tok

TikTok Logo

I downloaded TikTok when I was twelve years old. At first it was just a way for me to make and watch cringey content. Over the years, and especially when COVID hit, it became a huge source of information

on the outbreak. That was when I also started using TikTok as my way of keeping in touch with what is happening. To this day, I now even get actual News Clips from ABC News on my “For You Page.” A specific example was when the Cyclospora cases rose in Wake County, so I stopped buying my lettuce from there.

Instagram Logo

 Instagram

I don’t watch a lot of news in general. However, I use Instagram to keep me updated on what is going on in the ballet/dance world. Along with TikTok, it was also a way to keep me in touch with what is trending, which can also include lighthearted topics such as clothing. When I was a kid I used to be scared of watching the news channels because I was convinced it talked about too many “scary” things.

YouTube Logo

Youtube

I love watching YouTube while I am getting ready for bed or really doing anything. I could directly watch live news on YouTube TV if I wanted to. Still, I like to click on videos that pop up. I will sometimes get recommendations to click on certain News stories that were posted on YouTube. Whatever is more convenient with me, I do, because when I’m on a screen, I’m typically lazy.

ABC News

ABC News Logo

As I said before, I didn’t like watching my local news channels as a kid, but after I got older, I was able to appreciate ABC News a little more. While at High Point last year, I heard while watching the News that a teenager had died on Cole Mill Road, which is the road I used to take to work. So even while I am not in Durham, it is good for me to keep watching the local news.

WRAL News Logo

WRAL

WRAL is kind of similar to the ABC News channel. I only watch it when I don’t like what the topic is on ABC. I actually visited the studio for a field trip in fifth grade, and I am pretty sure I am on their Instagram dancing in front of the green screen because I chose to wear a green shirt that day. I felt so famous. 

Values of Free Expression

Due to Free Expression, you can choose your own path.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all people have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The pursuit of happiness. A core value of American ideology is individual self-fulfillment. 

C. Edwin Baker argues in his book, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech, that free speech is justified because it grants autonomy, formation of identity, and self-actualization. While the US has many flaws, the fact that we can pursue a life that fulfills our desires, within civilized reason, gives us a unique greatness.

Me as The Snow Queen in The Nutcracker.

I do dance; it is a core aspect of who I am, and I consider it to be something in which I can find self-actualization. Imagine if I were to go through all my life not being allowed to dance because the government forces me to live a certain life or work in a specific field. That would mean who Lyndsay is would never reach her full potential as a human!

Millions of people would never be who they're meant to be because of a lack of self-fulfillment! That is why we as individuals need to be allowed free expression. I mean, it would basically be stripping us of our individuality to be able to pursue what we enjoy and have passions for because they're all unique. It's a factor in what makes us different. 

West Virginia v. Barnette (1943) is one of the most important First Amendment rights cases because it established that the government cannot force anyone to state beliefs they do not uphold. 

Individuality in Careers.

By law, we cannot be forced to say something we do not believe in. Therefore, we do not have to do anything we would not normally do according to our beliefs. Sure, we obviously cannot commit crimes, but the government cannot force me to participate in anything that would in any way contradict what I believe in. 

I am personally Christian. If the government even tried to force me to say that I believe in science or anything else, I would have some serious resentment build up because that would be taking away my consent. As a reminder for us to be a democracy, the government should only get its power from the CONSENT of the governed. So freedom of expression prevents this from becoming an issue. 

Overall, I think this value resonated with me the most because being able to choose the life I create for myself makes me who I am supposed to be. Makes me unique. It makes it so that we are less like tools of the state and more like a group of unique individuals who are united. Humans are plenty capable of thinking for themselves, so our own human dignity should be respected by the government. 

Become who you're meant to be.

Truly, the pursuit of happiness can only be accomplished when people are free to explore and discover who they are and who they are meant to be. The First Amendment is what protects this; West Virginia v. Barnette protects the freedom of conscience, which is what self-fulfillment relies on. It makes me glad that we are able to pursue lives that are meaningful to us, not just a trivial one, because if we didn't have that, nobody would ever reach their full potential.