Roger's Diffusion of Innovations - Smart Homes

When you see a bell curve, often times you have horrific flashbacks to high school statistics class. You think of math, science, economics and really everything else before communications and media technology. However one of the prevalent theories within communications studies uses bell uses bell curves and can actually be applied to many fields, but communications first. Roger's Diffusion of Innovations or Ideas was published in 1962, making it one of the oldest communications theories. The purpose of the theory is to explain how ideas or products diffuse or become more popular overtime. The theory states that during this time period there is a gradual growth which results in the adoption of an idea, behavior, or product. 

This product has been very prevalent in homes since the introduction of AI or Artificial Intelligence. Since being introduced into the marketplace AI has stormed many forms of technology. It is found in phones, laptops, fridges, vacuums, and now smart homes. Essentially they are in home assistants that aid with anything from planning a schedule to playing music in the house, all hands free. This product is very convent and makes some simple tasks of life much easier. This is why the initial product caught on. It was advertised as a life changing and time saving device that is useful for everything in situations you will deal with everyday. This reigns true today and is a reason as to why people have become early adopters and now the early majority. Many homes, apartments, and college dorms have them because they are fun, useful, and cost effective. This easily allows people to make the choice to purchase. 

There are some negatives to technology like this but also this specific application of it. It has been widely documented that these devices give people somewhat easy access into homes. There has been security scares with people who have these devices. Incidents of people hacking these devices have been documented and make many people very uneasy. I am not sure where the saturation point will occur with these devices because I have personally seen them in homes of many demographics - ages and races specifically. 

http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/SB/BehavioralChangeTheories/BehavioralChangeTheories4.html

Beto O'Rourke says he would take away Tax Exemptions from Religious Organizations that Oppose Same Sex Marriage

Beto O’Rourke is making large headlines today due to a statement made at a Q&A. During an event hosted by the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest LGBTQ equality advocates, O’Rourke answered yes when asked if religious institutions such as schools, churches, or charities should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage. 

O’Rourke said, “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us… And so as president, we're going to make that a priority and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.”

He gets into an interesting topic here, that honestly I am not well enough versed in law and First Amendment issues to give an answer on. However, it raises the question in my head. At what point does it become an infringement on the rights of religious organizations? At what point do the religious groups overstep their boundaries? These questions are very interesting, especially with the three cases going to the Supreme Court currently. Three members of the LGBTQ community are bringing cases to court claiming their rights have been violated under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At what point do the individual rights to expression and religion meet, and how do these co-exist? They are two conflicting issues in some cases and will be tough to navigate. 

Jeffery Cook - October 11th, 2019

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/beto-orourke-revoke-tax-exempt-status-religious-organizations/story?id=66213718&cid=clicksource_4380645_null_icymi_hed

Dystopia in America

I love movies. Some of my favorite movies are stories of dystopian societies. Things like The Hunger Games, The Matrix, Divergent, The Maze Runner, and Oblivion just to name a few. These are greatly celebrated movies that depict society in dismay as government has taken stronghold and full control. They often insight a distant fear within us. We think of countries like North Korea when we watch these films, but how far away is America from these movies? 

The reality of government is harsh. Since the dawn of time governments and civilizations have crumbled due to military might and government power. Some of the largest empires like Rome have failed due to greedy government taking more than they should. Once people have given an inch, the government can never have enough creating a slippery slope that is hard to come back from. Unfortunately, the United States citizens have given more than an inch, and the increasing technological advances have expedited this process. 

Let us ponder the recent technology that we currently have. Drones, smart phones, and smart home devices. These are all current and prevalent technology that is easily accessible to virtually all of America. Smart phones have tracking capabilities that would allow the government to access our current and past locations with time stamps. Drones, most equipped with cameras, open new debate for crowded airspace and privacy issues. How can and how should the government restrict when and where people can fly/record and if they did would they be able to regulate it? Home devices like a Google Home or an Amazon Alexa are constantly intaking voices and recording data. Would it be easy for the government or someone else to tap into those devices and make them at home surveillance equipment? The scary part of the dystopian films is that government has forced their way into the lives of the people there. Making them insert equipment into their homes or bodies, none of it is voluntary. The even scarier part of society today is that we are installing all of the tools to be used against us ourselves. While the Bill of Rights is in place to restrict government power, it is also our jobs as citizens to make sure we are maintaining those and restricting its power.  

Gene Policinski - January 11th, 2019

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/2019/01/11/a-growing-list-2019-threats-to-first-amendment-freedoms/

Supreme Court to take cases on LGBTQ discrimination in the workplace - Civil Rights Act

The United States Supreme Court recently took on three cases about discrimination in thw workplace based on sexual orientation and the LGBTQ communities. The courts will be looking at the Civil Rights act of 1964 which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of sex and if it applies to the LGBTQ community. Allegations from three individuals have been made that their job has been terminated because of their sexual orientation or identity. The court will specifically be addressing this claim, and will be determining if the “on the basis of sex” appies to the LGBTQ community, and if they can be fired for identifying in that group. 

Aimee Stephens, one of the three plaintiffs, is at the center of this debate. Claiming that the funeral home, which employeed Aimee, fired Aimee for being transgender. Stephens wrote a letter addressing the funeral home’s owner and co-workers about the decision to become transgender. Two weeks after this letter was sent, Aimee Stephens was fired from the funeral home. 

John Bursch, defending Harris Funeral Homes, argues that the intention and wording of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly indicates biological sex. Fifteen other states support this logic. Solicitor General Kyle Hwakins, Texas, stated, “sex is not the same as sexual orientation and not the same as gender identity.” 

A complicated and sticky topic is about to be brought into SCOTUS. This case is crucial in determining how workplaces will have to conduct themselves when hiring and determining personnel decisions. This may very well be a landmark case and shape the future of workplace interactions and employee/employer relationships. 

Nina Totenburg - October 8th, 2019

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/08/766386729/showdown-over-lgbtq-employment-rights-hits-supreme-court

11th Circuit Appeals Court Rules County Commissioners Prayer Tradition Unconstitutional - Williamson v. Brevard County

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit determined that the tradition of practicing prayer before the Brevard County (Florida) Board of County Commissioners meetings. The court deemed that the practice of the prayer, as implemented in this particular court, “had run afoul of the Establishment Clause.” In Brevard County Florida, the county is governed by a commissioner board comprised of five members. The board seldom deals with large issues, and the majority of discussions are mainly secular, but all meetings are open to the public, televised, and streamed online (Freedom Forum Institute). 

A case was brought against the board due to a period of time between January 2010 and March 2016, when the session openings were brought into question. During this span of about six years, the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners held a religious invocation before each meeting. During this time span there were one hundred and ninety five meetings that the board held, all of which opened with a guest speaker “falling under the greater Christian umbrella (and one Mormon ‘lay leader’)” (Freedom Forum Institute). Issues arose because of the monotheistic content in which the speakers provided for board meetings. 

The plaintiff, David Williamson, wrote to the board twice in 2014 on behalf of the Central Florida Freethought. He requested that the group of secular humanists be invited to speak prior to the board’s meeting. The board denied them, stating that, “their proposal would not fit county commission’s traditions.” The letter went on to say that the invocation and tradition “evokes guidance from a higher authority which a substantial body of Brevard constitutes believe to exist” (Freedom Forum Institute). 

This case is a large marker for the state of religion involved with government. The appellate court ruled correctly here in my opinion. The practice of a prayer or silent time before meetings and school is something that has been hotly contested in the first amendment debate. The practice has not been deemed wrong because it does not restrict Constitutional rights, however this case is unique. They have consistently favored christian speakers and rejected a non-christian speaker on the basis that it goes against county traditions and beliefs. 

Freedom Forum Institute - September 18th, 2019

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/2019/09/18/federal-appeals-court-rules-county-commissioners-prayer-practice-unconstitutional/

Reporter is Stripped of Press Pass, then regains it through district court

Reporter Brian Karem, from Playboy magazine, recently had his White House press pass revoked. Reports say that after a verbal altercation with a Trump representative, his credentials were pulled. He was given a trial from the White House in order to have the pass reinstated. However, Mr. Karem claims that his due process during the trial was compromised. Accusations were made against the White House, that they're trial was more about him proving his innocence than them proving his guilt. He appealed this, and brought it to a federal district judge who sided with the reporter. The judge ruled that the need for "order" did not surmount Brian Karem's first amendment right to be present and be a part of the press. 

I am very encouraged to see how this was handled. While I feel the reporter was wronged by the White House, the judge upheld checks and balances and turned back to the Constitution for backing. This gives me a sense of hope that these issues, even if seemingly small, are still being taken care of. Because once the small issues start, the slippery slope never ends and the government just keeps taking. I feel it is very important that the individuals rights were upheld here. I feel the judge's ruling was spot on, he saw that the individual's right to speak and attend the press conferences should not be surpassed by the White House's attempt to maintain order. While I do not condone misconduct in any manner, especially in a professional setting such as the White House's press room, it is crucial to see that the lack of conformity does not eliminate this reporters ability to sit in for the purposes of the press.

Donald Brown - September 5th, 2019

https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2019/09/reporter-regains-white-house-press-pass/

California Court says social media posts are Not a first amendment right

In 2017, the United States Supreme Court weighed in on the issue of social media as free speech for criminals. The case of Packingham v. North Carolina, dealt with a North Carolina law that prohibited sex offenders from having any social media platforms/presence online. The court rules that social media is new "public space" and access to these platforms is protected by the first amendment. 

Last year, a California state appeals court delivered a seemingly contradictory verdict on a case some would say ignores precedent set by the Supreme Court. The case AA v. The People, dealt with a sixteen year old male who was arrested with a felony offense. The nature of the crime is crucial for the context of the story and therefore it will be disclosed. The boy was found guilty of assaulting someone severely enough that reconstructive surgery was required. While his original case was under consideration, he used a popular social media app to upload a photo of his subpoena. He captioned the photo, "New Netflix series coming. I'm a 16 year old felon." After a returning trip back to court for his case, he posted a video of himself dancing infant of the court house. HE was given a stern warning from the judge not to post on his social media platforms about the case, and cautioned him that his posts may be used as evidence against him. AA was sentenced probation and forced to take down any posts having to do with the case, the victim or the offense. AA felt that these restrictions hindered his ability to practice his freedoms under the first amendment, and the precedent of Packingham v. North Carolina. Because of the percieved injustices, AA and his family filed for the appellate court of California. The Californian appellate court responded with a statement that seemingly contradicts the previous case. 

The Californian court explained that one of the main goals of a juvenile facility is to rehabilitate and reform offenders in order to lower recidivism rates in the future. The court deemed that it the appellate court has the power to "curtail such rights in an appropriate case by a narrowly tailored condition of probation." 

This is significant for first amendment issues because this is one of the rare cases where a lower court will choose on the side that is not solved by precedent. It not only limited the defendants use of social media, but it also changes how he is able to speak freely on a format deemed public. The court decided that the concern with victim security and rehabilitation was more important than the free use of AA's social media account. 

Ephrant Livni - December 26, 2018

https://qz.com/1507443/a-california-court-finds-social-media-posts-arent-a-first-amendment-right/