Summary: The First Amendment

A.) The First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution states,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”(U.S. Const. amend. I).
This amendment gives American citizens several basic rights regarding religion and speech. The first two clauses pertain to freedom of religion, addressing both establishment and exercise. The first clause states that the U.S. government will not establish an official national religion or any law that gives preference to one religion over another (First Amendment: An Overview, n.d.). The second
clause pertains the rights of U.S. citizens to practice their chosen religion without interference by the U.S. government (First Amendment: An Overview, n.d.). The second portion of the First Amendment addresses freedom of expression. Not only does this amendment give U.S. citizens the freedom to speak without interference from the government, but also gives individuals the right to expression through publication without interference, the right to assemble for lawful and peaceful reasons, and the right to pursue legal/government action “to provide relief for a wrong” (First Amendment: An Overview, n.d.).

Our “digital brand” is the sum of how we present ourselves through the media- it is the general picture we paint of who we are, what we believe in, and what is important to us. This brand is built through every interaction we engage in, from the tweets and posts we send out, to our comments to others, and shared articles and links. It is important that we investigate our digital self to ensure that we are accurately portraying not only who we are, but also how we wish to be perceived by others.

B.) Both “Potter’s Box”, developed by philosopher Ralph Potter (Sterin, 2013, p.
329), and Roy Peter Clark’s “5 Questions” (p. 330), provide us with critical thinking models to evaluate the ethicality of our actions, both inside and outside the mass media realm. I would like to believe that journalists utilize these models before publishing articles, but I am afraid that I cannot make this assumption. We often sees news reports, articles, video clips with accompanying commentary that, while potentially entertaining for media consumers, can be hurtful and detrimental to the subjects of the news. Yes, I believe that it is important that media consumers are educated and given as much information as possible, but I believe there is a threshold to this “education”. Especially in regards to Clark’s questions, I think we could all find articles that do not abide by these
principles.

I do practice ethical Facebook behavior.
While I may not strictly abide by the Potter Box or Clark’s questions, I do ask myself how my posts will affect others and how they will reflect back on me, personally. I do my best to only post accurate information, I refrain from posting inflammatory information about other people, and I make sure that I am not divulging secrets or personal information about others. In my eyes, by behavior can affect my followers as well as myself and I aim to keep this impact as positive as possible. I do believe there can be serious ethical implications if we do not conduct ourselves in an ethical manner in reporting or on social media. As the story of Megan Meier in our text demonstrates (p. 328-329), behaving unethically on social media can wreck havoc on the lives of others. Because anyone can access the Internet with very little oversight, I think we have the great responsibility of ensuring that we behave in a manner that has the smallest negative affect on others as well as ourselves- in the same way that we should ensure our “real-life” behavior has the smallest negative affect on
others.