Food for Thought

On March 22nd, the Society of Professional Journalists held an event that would give people free food in return of their 1st amendment rights. So for the event once you got your food, you would eat in a room with "police officers" (members of the Society of Professional Journalists) and they could place you in jail for 5-10 minutes for anything you did or didn't do. This ranged from your food being to close to each other on your plate or even being with a certain amount of people for too long of a time. Once people started getting annoyed with how unreal these punishments were for these actions, they were explained by the administrators, that is how it is like in some countries without 1st amendment rights. Most Americans take the first amendment right for granted, because they haven't experienced what it is like to live without it before. Towards the end of the study the participants didn't want the food anymore, they wanted their freedoms back, they couldn't live without their freedom of religion, speech, petition, assembly and press. 11.3% of people in today's world suffer from hunger and 100% of people are affected by their first amendment rights being violated either directly or indirectly by the government. Usually the question to solve world issues like world hunger is, how can we feed the needy? But the real question is, what kills more people in these 3rd world countries their lack of freedoms or their lack of food?
Article

Plessy Blog Post

A dissenting opinion is an opinion by one or more judges about a legal court case, that expresses their collective disagreement about the specific court, this causes rise to it's judgement.
I feel Justice Harlan wrote about the Plessy Case because he was distraught and angered by the ignorance of the people and the other Justices in this case. He displays excerpts from previous legal and government documents stating how our government is color blind and ignorant to social class. Although segregation is completely contradicting to documents like the constitution. I think in 1896, people would have heavily disagreed with his argument due to their previous living standards and what they were used too, also most of them were probably ignorant to change during that time. In 2016, I feel people would be more accommodating and understanding because of what we are used to, we are more of a caring and changing community. The world is constantly evolving and changing just like civilization. With the actions of few that dramatically change our social structure, we are able to change our society for the better, although is no brave people stand up for those whom have no opinion we will stay un changed as a society and die off.

SLAPP in the Face for Trump

Being a controversial figure in today's society always has it's pros and cons. Primarily its cons of negative media and false articles about the party being talked about. Donald J. Trump, presidential candidate, has been a loud mouth causing a ruckus through out DC and america stirring up controversy and creating his own like building a wall bordering two countries. Donald trump at a recent presidential rally mentioned that he wants to open up libel laws, simply stating it would make it easier to sue publishing companies and periodicals for defamation and libel. SLAPP is abbreviated for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, simply it is Trump's best friend when he sees an article that can puncture holes in his presidential campaign. Trump has been publicly open when talking negative about news companies whether on twitter, during debates or even at rallies. It would only make sense for his to want to keep this act in all 50 states and to change constitutional law regarding libel suits so he can control what news is out and open to the public. Although becoming president wouldn't help him change where SLAPP is used or even libel laws due to the fact it is state law and not federal law, maybe he should run for governor of New Jersey  before running for President of the United States to change libel law. To be honest you should read this article and share it with your friends before Trump sues me and forces me to take down my blog. I'm all with him though and we all should be, we should believe in the impossible!
Article

Highway to iOS Backdoor

In December fo 2015 there was an unfortunate event where 2 terrorists killed 15 innocent civilians in San Bernardino, California. Much information is still unknown about the terrorists and their motives. Much of their personal items have been confiscated but one item has been collected that is causing controversy, the iPhone. One of the shooters, Syed Farook, iPhone was recovered but is locked with a passcode. The FBI who is investigating this case states they need to access his phone to learn crucial information about the attack. The FBI has formally asked Apple, the phone developer and designer, to design a "back door" so the FBI can access a locked phone without having to know the password. Apple responded with saying it was unconstitutional also a myriad of other reasons like it could set precedent for other criminal cases like this forcing phone companies to created forged operating systems to over ride the security protocol embedded in the phones software. Apple also stated that the FBI reset the iPhones iCloud account password so any information on the phone would have been uploaded to iCloud which can be used to store personal information from the phone in a cloud server. So if the FBI did some research before fondeling with the phone they would have had a better chance trying to recover information from Farook's phone. The FBI brought this case to congress only to be shut down by both parties saying it is a fools errand, mocking the FBI's efforts to get Apple to creat a back door.
Article