Ted Talk's

Juan Enriquez explains in his Ted talk how data, tattoos, immorality, and the Greeks are all similar. He shows how tattoos do not have to have any words to be beautiful, interesting, intelligent, and intimate, or just a serious mistake. He then goes on to explain "electric tattoos, not as actual tattoos but as a digital footprint that we lave behind. "cameras can detect and pick up details of you to regnize you as a person". Juan then talks about Narcissus "don't fall in love with your own reflection". Jorge Luis Brogoes- how eles can you threaten other that with death? Juan explains that we are all now threatened with immorality with electronic tattoos today more than ever. After watching this TED talk, I thought it was interesting how he intertwined all these topics that don't relate to each other, but somehow made me see the similarities in how "electric tattoos" are creating immorality.

He tells us how the story of Sisyphus and how he did a horrible thing and was condemned for all time. "Once you get that electronic tattoo, he'll be rolling stones up and down that hill just like Sisyphus for a long time." Atlanta is the greatest runner and nobody would challenge her. If she lost, you could marry her, but if you lost, you would die. One mad raced her and rolled golden apples in front of her, which distracted her. Juan says how when we comment on social median we are getting distracted in life just like Atlanta did.

Catherine Crump explains in her Ted talk how more military weapons are making their way into police units as well as surveillance equipment/NSA-style surveillance equipment. One of the key tracking systems is the license plate readers on the streets, which can convert your plate into machine-readable text. Police departments hang onto these photos of license plates taken throughout the years and are then given to the Federal Government. New York City police have these cameras on their squad cars and can take pictures of all passing cars, which then go into the NYPD's database. Cellphone tower dumps can also be used to show how tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people's data can be taken and used for "surveillance." This is how law enforcement will track people when they use their cellphones. Just as police use high-tech military equipment, they also use this surveillance gear to track people. Catherine explains how just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there, and that it violates a huge civil liberty, a threat to the common American citizen.

Christopher Soghoia- According to Christopher, in his Ted talk, he tells us that our phones and other gadgets were first designed to listen to our daily lives. He describes how Silicon Valley goods are designed to be more difficult to wiretap than standard iPhones. This is because "it's the default peace that matters", companies have made these gadgets the default feature on our phones. He also describes how Chinese hackers compromised Google and Microsoft's systems in 2009. This allowed the authorities to conduct authorized monitoring of these companies. An unidentified group wiretapped the Greek Prime Minister in 2004 using a surveillance device integrated into a phone network in Greece; the hackers were never apprehended. He says the problem is we cannot control who hacks these phones. Yes, we have the ability to wiretap, but so do other countries and even regular people.

Darieth Chisholm- Talks about an even scarier way your info can just be put out into the web. She was a victim of digital violence. With her ex-Hus bused inappropriate photos and messages against her and posted it online. People can use iPhone and laptops to come after you. "Once they have run out of ways to physically hurt you." She says 1 in 25 woman have been impacted by this type of digital violence, and 1 in 10 for woman under 30 years old. Her husband was later arrested by Jamaican authorities and could face up to 10 years in prison. Darieth tells us how we need strict laws in the U.S. to stop acts like this that accrue every day.

My 5 News sources

 According to this article by Fox News, Protesters in Minneapolis were seen confronting federal agents in the city on Thursday morning, one day after an ICE agent shot and killed a 37-year-old woman. Hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the Whipple Building in Minneapolis, rallying against the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good and increased immigration enforcement across the city. Federal authorities appeared to detain at least four protesters during the demonstration. Protesters were heard yelling "shame" at the officers and telling them to "go home." 

According to this article by NBC, Greenland faces 'fateful moment' as Trump says U.S. will take it 'one way or the another' As European powers scrambled to convince the United States to step back from its threats over the territory, a semiautonomous region of NATO member Denmark, the military alliance's secretary-general, Mark Rutte, said Monday that the Arctic had to be a priority.

 

According to this article Despite ongoing peace talks, Russia continues its large-scale offensive in an effort to seize Ukrainian territory. Over the past year, these assaults have primarily consisted of waves of dismounted soldiers, sometimes employing motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and even horses. Notably absent from these operations is Russia’s once-impressive fleet of tanks, which has largely been withheld from combat due to the threat posed by Ukrainian first-person view and bomber drones.

According to this article by CNN, • Tensions flared in the Minneapolis area, as protesters and law enforcement clashed this morning after an ICE agent fatally shot a woman yesterday. Pepper balls were fired toward a crowd of demonstrators outside a federal building, with agents also deploying a gas-like substance.

According to this article by the New York Post,  With Cea Weaver, Mamdani signals the dangerous truth of his housing plan for NYC,Mamdani has infamously promised to jack up property taxes on “whiter neighborhoods”; Weaver has been pilloried, and justly so, for calling homeownership a “weapon of white supremacy” and seeking to “impoverish the ‘white’ middle class.” 

Brainstorm session-AI and how it impacts me

As a communications major with a minor in History, artificial intelligence is already shaping how I think about my field and my future. AI is changing how messages are created, shared, and consumed, which directly affects the study of communications. Tools like AI writing assistants, content generators, and data analytics programs can now produce press releases, social media posts, and news summaries in seconds. While this may reduce some basic entry-level tasks, it places greater importance on human judgment, strategy, and ethical decision-making skills.

In the broader communications field, AI raises serious legal and ethical questions. Issues such as misinformation, deepfakes, copyright, privacy, and transparency are becoming more common as AI content spreads quickly online and everyone has access to some from of AI. Communicators will need to understand not only how to use AI responsively, but also how laws and ethical standards apply to emerging technologies. This is where communication law and ethics become essential to helping protect credibility, public trust, and democratic values.

At High Point University, my hopes are to become a thoughtful, ethical communicator who understands both modern technology and historical context. I always tell myself that you can't understand the present without understanding the past. My historical minor helps me see patterns in how new media and technologies have shaped society in the past, while AI is more critical and adaptable but not always right. I believe that AI reinforces why ethical communication, strong storytelling and responsible leadership matters more that ever in education and understanding what is credible and what is not.

part 2---Blog Post: Eight Values of Free Expression-Protect Dissent

I believe the most important value of underlining the First Amendment is protecting dissent. As Steve Shiffrin explains in (dissent Injustice and the Meetings of America), "the United States was not designed to operate as a system of mob rule but where majority opinion automatically prevails overall." Instead, the First Amendment exists to protect minority viewpoints, particularly those that challenge government authority or widely accepted beliefs. Dissent is not permitted in American democracy; it is essential to its survival. 

In simpler terms, dissent refers to the expression of ideas that oppose current political,  social, or cultural norms. We can see throughout American history that dissenting speech has been the driving force behind major social change. For example, movements advocating for the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, and marriage all began as unpopular, controversial viewpoints in the early days of our country's history. At the time, these changes to “dissenter's” were often criticized as unpatriotic or even dangerous. Now in modern-day history we recognize their speech as morally necessary because without the First Amendment protection, these voices could have been silenced before they were able to make a change. That's why I believe this is the most valuable example of free expression: without being able to use our voices as Americans, we might still have some of these things today.

In doing my research, I have found that the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that dissenting speech deserves strong constitutional protection. An example I found very interesting was in Texas v. Johnson (1989), in which the court held that burning the American flag as a form of political protest was protected speech under the First Amendment. Although many Americans find the act offensive, as do I. The court emphasized that the government may not prohibit expression simply because society finds it distasteful. Which means that even if people disagree with the way somebody is showing their freedom of speech, it cannot simply be taken away because the public does not agree with it. I think that this case illustrates the principle that protecting dissent often means protecting speech that challenges deeply held morals. 

In another similar case, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that even extremist speech is protected unless it is proven to be the outcome of violence. The decision overturned the conviction of the Ku Klux Klan leader, reinforcing the idea that the government cannot suppress speech based solely on its content or potential to offend citizens. While the views expressed in this incident were widely condemned, the ruling underscored the importance of protecting dissent to prevent government overreach and censorship. 

Since there is more temptation to squash disagreement during times of civil unrest or national emergency, protecting dissent is particularly important. History shows that attempts to silence dissent, such as those during World Wars or the Cold War, frequently lead to later-regretted abuses of civil liberties. By guaranteeing that criticism of governmental policy is still permitted, the First Amendment serves as a barrier against these feelings.

In the end, the idea that democracy depends on free discussion rather than coerced obedience is reflected in the value of defending dissent. Dissent forces people to face injustice, challenge authority, and reevaluate conventional wisdom. The First Amendment maintains the potential for advancement and reiterates that criticizing the government is not disloyal but rather a basic civic duty by safeguarding even the most controversial speech.