COM Tech Timeline

In terms of modern tech giants, none have had as much of an influence as Google. Initially popular for their advanced search engine that left the competition in the dust, Google has now expanded its influence to encompass an email platform, the video streaming platform YouTube, and, until recently, its own social media platform, Google Plus. Nearly every website has a "sign up with Gmail" option nowadays, proving just how far Google's influence has spread. The popularity of the platform is mostly due to the convenience and reliability of the search engine and Gmail. However, the widespread influence of Google has a major downside: it discourages aspiring tech companies from trying out ideas Google already has a part in, as they could not possibly dream of beating the tech giant and its massive sphere of influence. But has it spread too thin?
Recently, Google announced the shutdown of Google Plus and Google Inbox, digging the grave for two more of its less popular applications. These aren't the only applications that Google had to put away after their initial hype wore off; Google Notebook, Google Hangouts, Google Health, and Google Glass are just some of the products that the big G-man had to put down. However, this doesn't seem to be stopping them from expanding even further into uncharted territory, if their gaming console Stadia is anything to go by. However, the big question is: how far can they spread before they collapse?

Eight Values

In my opinion, the fourth of the eight values of free expression - the one which promotes individual self-fulfillment - is the most important. The promotion of individuality and expressiveness through free speech is too important a concept to ignore, as it allows people to forge their own individual sense of identity, rather than identify solely as part of a collective and nothing more. Individuality integrates the idea of free speech into our personality, dignity, agency, and autonomy. In addition, it allows us to form our own social networks with ideas and identities similar to our own, rather than forcefully being affiliated with people who we may or may not agree with solely based on areas like political party. Without our individuality, we would be more hesitant to express our ideas and thoughts, making America as a whole less innovative and self-critical; and the ability to criticize our own government is another part of what makes America stand out. Individuality is a major backbone for criticizing our government; without it, how could we expect to voice our ideas to the government if those same individual ideas are being suppressed?

Flowers and Free Speech

About a month ago, florist Barronelle Stutzman turned down a homosexual couple requesting floral arrangements for their wedding, for she believed marriage to be the union of a man and a woman. While she had nothing against the two lovers (she even provided flowers for the two for various other events; she just refused to provide for the wedding), it wasn't long before the florist was taken to court and her decision was ruled against by both the state court and the state Supreme Court branch, under the grounds that florists were not under the protection of the First Amendment. Stutzman then took her case to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the decision is still pending. The court's ruling will answer a great question: are florists, like other art mediums such as paint and dance, protected by First Amendment rights? The point here isn't that she is discriminating against the two based on their sexual orientation - again, she has sold flowers to the two men before - but rather that she is refusing to participate in a ceremony that violates her beliefs and values, and in a previous trial (Wooley vs. Maynard), it was proved the government cannot violate the individual mind. The question is, will that standard be upheld for this florist?

Here's a link to an article on the event.

Who Decides What is Unacceptable?

The controversial display in the House of Delegates

A woman's First Amendment rights were pushed to the limit in the "Republicans Take the Rotunda" event in West Virginia's House of Delegates. Outside the House, a South Charleston resident put up a rather distasteful display featuring an image of the destruction of the Twin Towers, followed by an image of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, a native of Somalia, captioned "'Never Forget', you said / I am the proof you have forgotten," as well as pamphlets titled "The Four Stages of Islamic Conquest" and "Readin', Writin', and Jihadin'." The display caused a good deal of outrage inside the House, including a Delegate forcibly opening a door during prayer, the resignation of the sergeant at arms, and a series of speeches by numerous House representatives. Many representatives came out and condemned the display, but a few also argued that this is an example of freedom of speech, and that it is something that should be protected. Delegate Diana Graves says that "While I may not agree with everything out there, I do agree that freedom of speech is something we have to protect." Which brings us to the question: how far can the First Amendment protect us when we speak of such unacceptable actions? And who dictates what is acceptable or otherwise?

An article about the event can be found here.

An Inside Look at the Supreme Court

With a few videos showing the inner working of the Supreme Court, I got to learn quite a few things about the most powerful judicial body on the planet - and yes, that is one of them. I always imagined bodies like Parliament were bigger than our Supreme Court, but as it turns out, that thought was misplaced. Its size does not make it entirely without influence however; a few of our nation's presidents have tried to appoint their own Supreme Court Justices in order to swing decisions towards them. However, this does not always go to plan for them, however. Most justices, no matter how appointed, hold no bias for the commander in chief.
Additionally, I learned about how exactly the Court reaches decisions, like the process of opinion-writing. A representative for each side of an argument of a case (if it does make it to their office; most case files don't even make it past the front desk) is selected from the justices and they must write a report supporting said argument using evidence. This process is the longest one in the entire Court, taking an upwards of 4 weeks.