The Push for Net Neutrality

As someone who uses social media on the daily (definitely an unhealthy habit, I know) I can't help but notice the amount of political posts, stories, videos, and more that fill my feed. Personally, I do not have any issues with this because I feel it helps me stay well-informed and allows me to see many different perspectives. But I also know that not everyone sees social media in this light and I can't help but think about Trump's major push toward net neutrality in the past few years. Net neutrality is defined as "the principle that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites," (Oxford Dictionary). But this push for net neutrality is not anything surprising if we take a look at the generational gap with technology in general, but especially social media.

Older generations tend to see more of the negatives to social media than do the younger. Since they are at a disadvantage of understanding, to them it only seems logical to deregulate the content that is actually online. Obviously, that does not hold true for everyone but looking a statistics and infographics do reveal a trend among generations and their connections to social media. These so called connections (or disconnections) are what cause for a wide array of information to spread across the masses. So, the solution then becomes to make access to it the same for all.

At first, net neutrality may not seem entirely bad or influential on how the types of information that is being presented. But the idea of harm or hate speech then becomes an even more apparent issue. This call for deregulating users, brands, etc. and eliminating the treat of content being blocked could be seen as a win for free speech if we view it as unlimited access to what we say or post. On the other hand, the incitement of offensive or harmful language is even stronger than before. While we talk about being offended in class and things such as cancel culture, we also have to take into consideration this potential future which presents itself to us. With even more violence being brought on by the media in recent years, is it really appropriate to now let more possibly harmful rhetoric to become available to anyone.

This then ties into our prior conversation on the voice that we place on a pedestal. Many politicians or public figures that actually utilize social media as a resource seem to favor this because no longer would they have to truly regulate their rhetoric to adhere to certain guidelines. Obama even stated his own mostly positive view on net neutrality. So to be fair, it wasn't just Trump, but it seemed to come more to light during his presidency. However, I think that putting these already powerful positions in a place with even less restriction could be dangerous. Many social media platforms have turned down this push, probably more for their own benefit than anything. But this still has played a major role in how people continue to view net neutrality as a whole.

In general, this push for net neutrality is a complicated one that would impact every generation and political party.

If any of you are interested in looking at how the left views different levels of censorship and the impact that has, I highly suggest a look at the following article: 

https://redstate.com/setonmotley/2020/06/09/the-censoring-left-net-neutrality-for-thee-not-for-me-n139427

The Right's Cancel Culture and the Right to It

 All semester, we've been building to a conclusion that I don't think we'll ever actually agree on. If free speech has vast harms, but restricted speech leads to totalitarianism, then what is freedom and who has the right to regulate it?

This week, we have the task of discussing offense. Whether it is a simple offense or a complex response to various harms that have led to this one offensive act, it seems everyone has a problem whenever anyone else is offended. The largest indicator of this divide is the increased importance of cancel culture. While right wing groups love to claim they don't participate, both sides have their own cancel culture, even if it is marked differently. At the end of the day, though, the greatest divide between the two groups is what they are offended by and why it offends them in the first place.

Right-Wing Cancel Culture

Before I'd ever heard about anyone being cancelled, I saw article after article about left-wing policies being passed or supported and the right-wing jumping to boycott it or attack the mettle of their left-wing counterparts. There were huge boycotts on Target for introducing gender-neutral bathrooms. There were boycotts on Nike for supporting Colin Kaepernick. Conservatives really burned Nike products because a black man in America didn't want to stand and honor a flag and anthem that historically oppressed and silenced him. They never called this cancel culture, they simply attacked the "weak snowflakes" who were simply calling for change in the American political system. What the conservatives do to "cancel" is go on national TV and make a mockery out of the offended and then boycott or attempt to destroy brands. Additionally, they describe anything to the left of them "communism" so that they can take a fear mongering standpoint. Even people on the left don't want a fully communist nation (by the majority -- the left-wing exclusively houses communist proponents), so being able to paint anything as a Red Scare gives Conservatives the fuel to grab centrists or moderate leftists who don't want communism. 

In short, the right uses rhetoric to cancel. They never say "We should cancel ____" or "#_____IsOverParty", but they make sure to conflate simple things with large issues, and if they can't do that, hey just inflate the harms of the other side. In the 2020 election, Trump's whole campaign hinged on the idea that he would stop unnecessary conservative censorship, he would protect freedoms, and he wouldn't let communism into the country. All Biden had to say to run was "I'm not Trump, so I have your best interests at heart" because Trump had no platform other than combatting liberal ideas. Anything he didn't agree with economically was communist. Anything he didn't agree with socially was terrorism. Anything promoting LGBTQ+ equality and recognition was something that is disruptive to our youth. He was casually cancelling the left by saying that they were going to ruin America. The rhetoric doesn't have to have proof, nor does it have to make sense, but regardless of these qualifiers, the right persists in attempting to demonize those against them and they build a base that is loyal enough (and scared enough of the other side) that it will support their figureheads almost even to death. 

This has long been the party of cancelling things. Rather than having one person face the consequences of their actions, the right cancels legislation and progression. There was a boycott on Cheerios because of an ad (that was eventually changed) because it featured an interracial couple...in 2013. A couple years later, Campbell's Soup faced the same level of backlash (if not more) for featuring a same-sex couple in their ad (which, again, was later changed). The right attacks brands and attacks anything that looks mildly progressive because if they don't, they have nothing else to run on as a base since their legislation has historically hindered progress. 

Further reading: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/republicans-cancel-culture-kaepernick/ 

https://level.medium.com/white-conservatives-invented-cancel-culture-da69c0beaf3 

"Cancel Culture", the Leftist Weapon

While the right tends to cancel on a large scale by using boycotts and fearful rhetoric, the left goes after specific people to make sure they face the consequences of their bad actions. The right has claimed any liberal change "cancel culture" and "censorship". When Harry Styles wore a dress for Vogue, the right claimed that he was destroying manhood and that "manly men" are being attacked and replaced. When Hasbro decided to make a gender-neutral Mr. Potato Head rather than gendering the toys, the right wrongfully attributed that to the left "making a fuss" about another "manly" figure. Again, when the Dr. Seuss company decided to stop publishing books with racist depictions, the right called this left-wing censorship attacking a beloved author. So if you listen to the right, the entire base of being liberal means you are cancelling anything you can get your hands on. 

But if progression means "cancelling" traditionalist ideals, is it a bad thing?

There are definitely cancellations that are somewhat of a reach, for instance, Tim Allen was just cancelled for having admitted to supporting Trump. He didn't say anything racist or transphobic or any number of things that have been deemed cancellable, and yet Twitter lit up to cancel the actor for having different political beliefs. But if situations like this happen, is cancel culture on the whole negative?

While the right's cancellations are effective and build a base, the left's cancelling (because they tag it as such) is polarizing from the other party and within their own party. Not only has it been reduced to personal attacks, it also is vastly ineffective. While they want people to face consequences, only serious cases result in lost jobs or sponsorships or platforms. In every other case, people carry on as though nothing happened as long as they post a Notes-app apology. If they refuse to apologize and are silent, the right (which continually embraces centrists) welcomes them to their side to fight cancel culture and censorship. Therefore, the left has created a weapon that weakens their own base when they fire it.

The most bizarre part is that what the right thinks cancel culture is (advancing progressive political ideas) is effective and important, but how the left uses it (tweeting that people should lose their jobs) is what makes it ineffective. The party that invented it knows what works, so instead of attacking the way the left uses it, they (again) fear-monger and make cancel culture more impactful than it is, thereby further weakening the left's use of it. 

Further Reading: https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/965815679/is-cancel-culture-the-future-of-the-gop 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/opinion/the-argument-cancel-culture-media.html 

In conclusion, the right is terrified of the left's ideals progressing because they know it will weaken their base. They've already lost the fight by being the party of the KKK and the party that supports domestic terrorist groups in the name of free speech and expression, yet the left employs a weapon they use ineffectively that gives power to the non-progressive party. Because they are focused on attacking people and calling out unfavorable behavior, the left fails to recognize how it has polarized itself against itself. The sheer fact that there's a distinction between democrats, liberals, and leftists shows that the party is not unified and one part of their Trinity has increasingly damned liberal legislation out of a pride in cancellation. I don't know if that made complete sense, but the bottom line is that in the current culture, the only party effectively using cancel culture is the one that stands against it, begging the question: If cancel culture itself is ineffective, why is it so important that the right begs for it to be eliminated? And, if cancel culture were to be eliminated, what would happen to right-wing cancellations and how would their base continue to stand?

We Read About It...But Do You Know About It: Criminal Syndicalism

 

A few weeks ago, we read about several cases where the First Amendment was the deciding factor on the incrimination of the individuals being charged. One such case was that of Whitney v. California. Charlotte Whitney was convicted under California's criminal syndicalism laws for her membership in the Communist Labor Party of California. The case was tried in the Supreme Court where the conviction was upheld saying, the organization's participants abused free speech by uttering words that were "inimical to the public welfare, tending to incite crime, disturb the peace or endanger the foundations or organized government and threaten its overthrow..." After reading this case, a couple questions arose: what is this law, when was it established and why, and what states uphold this law?

Of course, the first question is regarding the definition. Criminal Syndicalism in and of itself is defined as a doctrine that advocates crime, sabotage, violence or other unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reforms and is typically advocated by those who believe unions should run the nation's economy. Criminal Syndicalism Laws are what incriminate the individuals who engage in this act. 

Many states initially had some form of this law established around the time of the First World War, but the landscape looks a bit different today regarding this law. The states, as of 2013, that still uphold some form of this law include: Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Utah, California, Kansas, and Minnesota. One state no longer listed is Ohio, where the case involving Clarence Brandenburg was based. Brandenburg was initially arrested because of his connection with a KKK

meeting in which he made anti-Semitic and anti-black statements and advocated for the possibility of "revengeance". He also announced that KKK members were planning to march on D.C. on Independence Day. The conviction was a violation of Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism Law, which made it a crime to, "advocate the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform." When the case went to the Supreme Court, this law in Ohio was completely overturned. The courts ruled, unanimously, that  advocacy could be punished only "where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". This also overruled the case I mentioned above involving Whitney v. California. 

Now, this case took place in 1969 - a time in the United States when the race riots were going on and desegregation was still taking place. What would have been the result had this case taken place today? Well, we have an example in a seated President inspiring acts of violence on the capital. Apparently, we still believe there is a fuzzy line between what is simply "inspiration" and what is a blatant act of "inciting" violent acts. What is this fuzzy line? Should the fuzzy line exist? Are certain individuals exempt? Is there a racist undertone to the law as it exists today? Is there a gendered undertone to the law as it exists today? Is the current KKK getting away with this still today?

Creativity VS. Cash Cows & Curtailing Freedom of Speech

The first time I felt insulted by a sequel, it was Toy Story 2. (Hang with me here for a moment!) As a plucky five-year-old in '99, my developing brain believed that Toy Story had been a perfect film: comedy, drama, personified potato heads, jokes even a child could understand. What could a sequel possibly have to add to the world of sentient toys? Would Woody and Buzz become even better friends? Would they travel even further from Andy's house? Would Pizza Planet have an even greater appeal? Fortunately, the movie was far from what I had fearfully anticipated: Woody goes on a whole new adventure instead of retracing his steps, with a new set of given circumstances and different friends to help him return home. Sure, the 'return home' plot was recycled, but the journey of understanding a different toy was done with an introduction of a boisterous new character, in a world with the novel dangers of crossing the street. 

But most importantly: the movie was still culturally relevant. Kids were hungry for Toy Story's unique perspective of the toys, and the adults remained entertained by esteemed actors as animated characters. The sequel blended its A and B storylines much more than in the original; made space for a central female character (something missing from Pixar's canon at the time); and perhaps most importantly, it was released within five years of the original film. 

Maybe that's why I was so perplexed by the studio's continuation of the franchise with "Toy Story 3" and "4", which took nearly a decade each to release.

I had my reservations when heard about the production of Toy Story 3. Sure, animation had developed with lightning speed during the 2000s, but did that really mean we needed to revisit Woody and friends? Again, the premise had changed enough that a third independent story seemed doable; the creators fully recognized the target audience of youngsters who were now grown-ups were sobbing over the 'final chapter,' as many of us saw it. Maybe they wanted a well-rounded ending to the franchise.

What I didn't know at the time was that Pixar Studios had just been purchased by the Disney corporation. The revised studio kicked off the merger with Toy Story 3, Cars 2, and Monsters University...all three films being sequels to previously imagined characters and worlds. 

How does this tie into freedom of speech? From my perspective, it's about the public's need for creative storytelling. Blockbuster movie studios are well within their right to keep milking cash cows. There's nothing in the constitution damning the exclusive production of sequels, especially with Pixar now tucked safely under Disney's conglomerated wing. Why not continue to belch out another Toy Story or Cars movie? The studio is under no obligation to release new or inventive content. Don't waste time creating new content. Why not build off of what's already successful and offer Ellen a protagonist role instead of a funky sidekick? No need to use animation as a way to write love letters to different cultures, like how Coco was as an homage to Mexico, or the exploration of Italian culture next new Pixar film, Luca - just give the moneybags another sequel! 

Consider Francine Prose's argument from "Burn This Book." She didn't want to write Yet Another Feminist Essay about the wage gap, female representation, or the grip of the patriarchy. So she penned "Out from a Cloud of Unknowing" about the importance of expressing new ideas or looking critically at what already exists. The major problem I have with a corporate cash cow mentality is that it doesn't challenge audiences OR creators. It doesn't give the opportunity for writers and animators to play, to imagine new worlds, to exercise their freedom of speech or expression. It doesn't give space for anyone to create, nor does it introduce audiences to new worlds that make us question our reality. In this day and age, sequels primarily exist to make money, not to spark ideas or challenge the status quo.

We see this in many of Disney's practices, from oversaturated sequels to Star Wars. Compare the commercial success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe to Sony Picture's wildly successful "Into the Spider-Verse." Disney was able to shove the MCU into the limelight by creating more movies than they knew what to do with, utilizing intertextuality (references to previously existing worlds/media) in order to squeeze out as many movies in a year as possible. The origin story of Peter Parker in the MCU, having Peter's transformation into a successful Spiderman rely entirely on Tony Stark's technology, is the weakest introduction of the friendly neighborhood spider any of the films. Compare the lazy inclusion of Peter in one of the Avenger blockbusters, a film made to make money, to the commercial AND critical praise of "Into the Spider-Verse." The attention granted in the creation of this world is obvious in both the animation and sound design, not to mention the writing. They didn't rely on cheap references to previously established characters or switching focus from one protagonist to the foil. In "Spiderverse," each spider-person/pig was fully realized, and the film existed to inform about the importance of self-acceptance, as well as going above and beyond to entertain.

Sure, you can find an important lesson about disabilities and self-acceptance in Monsters University, but couldn't we have come to understand that through an entirely new character? We need more movies that explore new content. We need more challenging content. We deserve more than a reused idea in slightly different clothes or a new spandex outfit. How can we claim to be free in our entertainment or media if all we receive is more of what already exists?