Here’s the latest recent from CLR:
By: Alec Jalovec
Before the rise of social media, the Michael Brown killing may have gone relatively unnoticed by the rest of the United States. However, the tremendous growth of social media (primarily Facebook and Twitter) in recent years has changed the way the nation receives its news. Twitter typically only shows people one side of a story, which gives rise to more bias and extremism on both sides of a conflict. In other words, people will not get full picture when reading the news on Twitter unless they actively seek it out. On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, was shot and killed by Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson. The killing sparked weeks of protests and outrage from Ferguson’s residents. The Ferguson Police Department and town leaders were bombarded with accusations of racial bias and disparity. A majority of Ferguson’s residents are black; however, the police department, which has fifty-three members, has only three black officers.
As the conflict in Ferguson progressed and the protests grew in size, the police brought in military-grade equipment. Armored trucks rolled down the main roads, and police in riot gear were almost always present. Fighting between the protesters and police ensued, but many major news outlets were not reporting much, if anything, about what was occurring during the first few nights of protests and fighting. As a result, much of the nation flocked to Twitter for all the news, photos, and videos of Ferguson that it wanted. Freelance reporters, Ferguson residents, and protesters provided updates on the fighting minute by minute. Additionally, protesters and reporters quickly uploaded pictures and videos of the fighting online. Thousands of tweets poured in each night about Ferguson and the progressing violence.
But, even with the massive amount of Twitter coverage on Ferguson, many people only saw one side of the conflict: the side that they agreed with. Those that agreed with the police saw Tweets of Molotov cocktails seized, stores looted, and gunfire from protesters. However, people who wanted to see information about police brutality viewed tweets about young children choking on tear gas, police pointing rifles at protesters, and police arresting innocent people for merely walking down the street.
The inherent “nature” of Twitter is that it allows you to follow people and organizations that you agree with or like; but, as a result, Twitter users view conflicts and news through a warped lens. People see what they want to see. If a tweet is seen as supporting the other side, it is quickly dismissed as false. Peoples’ views on an issue or conflict become more extreme the more they read because of the way the news on Twitter is viewed. Inaccuracies go unchecked and objectivity goes out the window. Of course there are always going to be false stories and misstated facts no matter how news is read, but the real problem arises when a substantial number of people actually begin to believe those falsities.
There is no question that Free Speech is a tremendous thing, and it is something that should always be fought for. Unfortunately, little effort is typically taken to address blatant falsities that pop up on social media websites. That begs the question: how do we address false stories and biased articles? Some would say the Court system is the proper way to do so. However, unless a harmed individual actually brings a defamation or libel suit, little will be done to correct errors on social media. Moreover, the law is still in developing stages in regard to dealing with issues of social media and new technology. Therefore, the idealistic solution to ending the bias and extremism is for every person to learn the facts and seek the truth.
As a nation, we have to take what we see on social media with a grain of salt. We are at a point in our history where radicalism and extremism seem to be the norm rather than the exception. Not everything is “us v. them,” nor is every conflict about picking sides. We have to be able to see the good and the bad in everything. Unfortunately, outlets like Twitter typically restrict what we see because of the way Twitter operates. Most people only look at people and organizations that they like and agree with. But the problem isn’t with Twitter, it’s with us as a society. There are always two sides to a story–o take the time to read and understand both sides. Follow accounts that you typically wouldn’t agree with, and actively search for the other side of a story. It is always possible that both sides of an issue are right.
EXCERPTS FROM “BEHIND THE CURTAIN: ELECTION LAW AND THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS”
Compiled by Karen H. Good
Compiled by Karen H. Good
Compiled by Matthew B. Weaver
Defensive Medicine: The First Sixteen Years of North Carolina Medical Negligence Litigation Under NCRCP 9(J) and NCRE 702
BLEEEEEP! The Regulation of Indecency, Isolated Nudity, and Fleeting Expletives in Broadcast Media: An Uncertain Future for Pacifica v. FCC
Terri R. Day & Danielle Weatherby
Don’t Worry About the Check – Why The Fourth Circuit’s Opinion in Blair v. Defender Services Inc. Should Not Deter North Carolina Employees From Embracing Forthcoming “Ban The Box” Legislation
The William O. Douglas Tax Factor: Where Did the Spin Stop and Who Was He Looking Out For?
I. Jay Katz
Tax Planning for Outbound and Inbound Transactions
David B. Newman
Getting to the Arguments: How Legitimate Defenses to Foreclosure are Raised
Timothy J. Peterkin
Coming Back to Byte Them: The FCC’s Third Way to Nowhere
Lauren M. Nennig
United States v. Malenge: Prosecutorial Discretion and the Problem of Non-Self-Executing Treaties in the Adjudication of Criminal Charges Against Asylum-Seekers
Christopher C. Peace
Excerpts From “Land Use and Energy Generation in the Modern World”
Panel One: Generating Energy in a Carbon Constrained World
Compiled by Brittany Schott
Keynote Address from Spencer Abraham
Compiled by Rachel N. Stroup
Panel Two: Brownfields and Vapor Intrusion, Past Transgressions, Present Consequences
Compiled by Rachel N. Stroup
Complexities of Urban Sustainability: Using Local Land-Use Authority to Achieve Environmental Goals
Kevin C. Foy
The Nexus Requirement for Supplemental Environmental Projects—The Emperor’s New Clothes of Environmental Enforcement
Benne C. Hutson & Amanda K. Short
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., et al v. United States: Defining Environmental Law or Changing it?
Peter J. McGrath, Jr.
Down the Rabbit-Hole of Standing: Injury, Traceability, and Redress in Greenhouse Gas Litigation