Media Law Blog

The first computer was about 1,800 square feet and was created in 1943 by J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchly at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2007, Steve Jobs introduced the first generation of the iPhone, which he described as “a widescreen iPod with touch controls, a revolutionary mobile phone, and a breakthrough internet communications device”. This quote in no way did the iPhone justice in terms of its capability and expansive use. What was originally called a glorified iPod Touch has now become a supercomputer in the pocket of over 100 million people. What used to take a computer hours or days to do now takes a fraction of a second, and the most current generation of the iPhone is more powerful than a lot of personal computers available to consumers.  The iPhone’s impact on communication cannot be understated because it created its own unique form of communication. While Apple was not the first company to think of instant messaging, Apple refined and perfected the idea wi

Before the age of radio and satellite phones, soldiers in combat used a much more peculiar form of communication. Going back as far as 776 B.C, carrier pigeons have been used a form of “instant” communication to relay the results of some of the first Olympic Games as well as orders in wartime. Known for their reliability to return to their home, Homing Pigeons were trained and used in World War One and World War Two to communicate enemy positions and signal for help.  Being a student in 2020, it is amusing to envision a pigeon being your most reliable form of communication in wartime. But like all old forms of communication, pigeons came with their limitations. The biggest one is that they were animals with no prior training or use in wartime or person to person communication. While they were skilled at navigating to what was their “home”, a message sent never guaranteed a message received. In addition to that, using pigeons was a very one-sided form of communication. Pigeons wou

Opinions surrounding war are plentiful but a majority of them never receive mass media attention. Anti-war conversations are never publicized but why is that? Is it because the media believes Americans enjoy war and its coverage? Or is it because Americans believe war is what keeps us safe? I believe it is not because people enjoy war or disagreements between nations, rather than military funding on a global scale that moves our economy. Most of the federal spending in a fiscal year is allocated toward our military.  Keeping America safe is a top priority to not just the government but for every citizen. Anti-war can come from an angle of individuals not understanding the purpose of a large military or our involvement in foreign affairs. There are always two or more angles to an opinion and that is fair and should always be considered. The matter of the fact is that military bases abroad keep us safe. The men and women in uniform deserve our utmost respect whether or not your opini

Facebook is one of the largest social media platforms used worldwide. They have struggled in recent years to remove "fake news" from their server. The 2016 Presidential Election in the United States could possibly have been the biggest "fake news" time frame in politics. Facebook worked diligently to remove all false news article headlines on their server. With many Americans just scrolling through their timelines multiple times a day, it is likely that most individuals do not click the link to read the full article. The downside of this is when the headline was created for that exact purpose. Most people will read a headline and feel like they know the entire story. They will then base their opinions off of an eight-word headline that could be completely false or spun. This is dangerous to our society. In this technology addicted era we live in, we take less and less time to view the credibility of our sources. There is no more double-checking the authors p

As many of us know, the Supreme Court is the highest judicial court in the United States. There is a Chief Justice and eight associate justices. These individuals have the responsibility and power to interpret and uphold the United States Constitution. When there is a vacancy in the court, the President of the United States holds the power to nominate a Justice. This nomination does not guarantee an appointment. It has to be approved by the U.S. Senate before this may occur. Some may say that a political game is played with a non-partisan position. The President as well as the Senate are both guilty of this. The President can nominate someone to the Court that has similar beliefs as the administration causing discomfort to the Senate if they are a majority of the opposite party. With the power the court holds, I was able to witness the decision of the North Carolina gerrymandering court case this past summer while I was in D.C. With a 5-4 vote in the Supreme court, the Justices dec