Censorship: what is it and how is it used?

Censorship has been in the news a lot and in our daily conversations. Conversations about censorship by social media as well as by individuals who police their social media pages by not allowing certain posts and particularly comments. Who has the right to censor another? Social media sites, like Facebook and Twitter, have been under fire for censoring content posted on their sites. What is censorship? What are legal definitions? What are the pros and cons of censorship in this age of growing internet dependance for news and information? Censorship is an important topic to discuss, outlining the pros and cons, and consider both sides of the argument. As this is a complex and in-depth topic, I will give an overview and highlights to avoid overwhelming anyone with too many details.

Censorship is the suppression of words or images that are considered offensive or dangerous and is using carried out by the government, private individuals or groups or personal pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional (ACLU). When private individuals or groups censor, it can be in the form of organized boycotts and is protected by the First Amendment. For example, a school board decides on a list of books to remove from their libraries and curriculum. There are two principles when considering censorship. First, content neutrality is when the government cannot limit expression just because a listener or even a majority in the community is offended by its content (ACLU). Essentially, if you are offended by a tv show or movie, then you have the right to change the channel, just as someone else has the right to watch if they choose. Second, direct or imminent harm is expression that may be restricted only if it will clearly cause direct and imminent harm to an important societal interest (ACLU). The most famous example is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater and causing a stampede and harm to others. A more modern example would be someone directly incites or threatens violence on social media sites (Etzioni, 2019). For example, Craigslist took down certain classified pages after it was determined to contribute to sexual violence.

Not all speech is protected the First Amendment and subject to censorship. First, obscenity. Obscenity has been legally defined by the Supreme Court decision in Miller v California (1973) as 1) appeal to the average person’s prurient (shameful or morbid) interest in sex, 2) depict sexual conduct in a “patently offensive way” as defined by community standards and 3) taken as a whole, a lack of serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value (ACLU). This is why some books such as John Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath (1939) can be banned in certain communities and not in others. Another standard set in Federal Communication Commission v Pacifica (1978) is the indecent expression in which the government can require radio and tv stations to air “indecent material only during those hours when children are less likely to be listening or watching. (ACLU). Second, pornography is protected by the First Amendment unless it meets the definition of obscene. Child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. Lastly, libel and slander. Libel is a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation. Slander is the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation. For example, someone publishes a statement that another person is a bigamist when he or she is not. Slander is like spreading a rumor to harm someone’s chances for a promotion.

Internet censorship is the control of information that can be viewed on the internet. In the US, internet censorship is the least censored, (China being the strictest), it is highly regulated that many people self-censor (Poether, 2019). Many people distrust social media sites when it comes to censorship or removal of information. According to a Pew Research report, 85% of Republicans and Republican leaning-independents believe it is likely that social media sites are intentionally censoring political viewpoints, while 54% believe it is very likely (Etzioni, 2019). What are the pros to internet censorship? Ms. Poether (2019) discusses a few pros and cons. First, to limit content that no one wants or should see. For example, the Momo Challenge was a hoax that spread through the internet, causing concern for parents. Second, stopping fake news. Fake news is the false information that is presented as real news. Unfortunately, the speed in which news is brought to people through tv and phones, it is hard to distinguish fake news from the real news. Third, to stop access to harmful activities such as cyberbullying, sextortion, and predation. For every pro, there is a con. First, if information is too restricted, real information can be censored along with the fake. Second, who is in charge? Who decides what gets blocked and what doesn’t? Who decides the rules? Third, censoring free speech. Internet censorship limits want you can access was well as what you can post.

In conclusion, censorship is essentially “Don’t let anyone read this book, watch that tv show or view that film, because I object to it.” It is a very touchy subject that has no real clear-cut definition or rules. What is one man’s obscene art is another’s masterpiece? What one person considers to be fake news may be another’s real news? How to we tell the difference? Fact checking and research is a start. According to Vera Eidelman of the ACLU, “Defenders of free speech don’t think the power to censor should be in the hands of the tech companies” (Etzioni, 2019). I think tech companies want to make sure their users are safe and enjoy time spent on their sites; however, their own biases can come into play when deciding which information can be posted and viewed. The question of censorship doesn’t have an easy answer, but it is a question we need to discuss.

 

 

References

American Civil Liberties Union (no date). What is Censorship? ACLU.org. www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship. Retrieved October 4, 2020.

Etzioni, Amitai (Fall 2019). Should We Privatize Censorship? Issues. www.issues.org/should-we-privatize-censorship/. Retrieved October 9, 2020.

Poether, Bridget (November 18, 2019). How Internet Censorship Affects You (+Pros & Cons). Learning Hub. www.learn.g2.com/internet-censorship. Retrieved October 9, 2020. 

Breastmilk or formula: does it really matter?

Breastmilk versus formula. One of the biggest debates and hottest issues between mothers. In my experience, the loudest and often most opinionated voices are the breastfeeding advocates. So much so that mothers who formula feed are often ostracized and shamed for daring to feed their precious child such garbage. But is it really garbage? As a mother who tried to breastfed and failed, it was heartbreaking to turn to formula in order for my daughter to thrive. Does it really matter? I will discuss the pros and cons of bother breastmilk and formula as well as personal experiences and thoughts on each.

There have been many studies which claim that breastmilk is the only healthy option. Breastmilk is touted as the great elixir to help your child be smart and healthy. According to one article, it is a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma (Tatar, 2016). Mothers who breastfeed are usually more educated and have higher IQs and less likely to smoke and other harmful activities. They also tend to live in areas where the exposure to illness is less. Whereas mothers who tend to use formula are poorer and live in areas where the risk for illnesses is higher. Are the breastfed children’s IQs higher and their health better due to the breastmilk or the enriched environment? In Tatar’s article, he discusses a study in which two groups of moms were studied. One group received extensive breastfeeding support and education and the other group did not. At the 3 month, mark the group which received extensive support were still exclusively breastfeeding (43%) while the other group only 6% were still breastfeeding. Nine percent of the breastfed babies had at least one illness with diarrhea versus 13% of the formula fed babies. Three percent of the breastfed babies had eczema versus 6% of the formula fed babies. And there was no difference between the breastfed babies and the formula fed babies in terms of the number of common colds. The conclusion? Breastfed babies do suffer less from illness than formula fed babies; however, it’s by a relatively small difference.

There are many pros and cons with breastfeeding. First pro is it’s free with no bottles to wash and prepare. Second, breastfeed can help the mother burns calories and lowers her risk for certain cancers. Third, breastmilk can help strengthen the baby’s immune system and lowers his or her risk of SIDS. The first cons is that it’s time consuming. A baby will feed every 2 to 3 hours for an average of 20 to 45 minutes. That’s an average of 35 hours a week! Second, only mom can feed (unless she pumps). Moms must worry about medications, foods and drinks she consumed that can pass through her breastmilk to the baby. Third, mothers can develop mastitis, an infection of the breast tissue from clogged milk ducts. It is extremely painful and can result in hospitalization and surgery if not treated quickly. Lastly, there is no way to really tell how much the baby is eating with breastfeeding unless, of course, it is pumped. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months and encourages continuing breastfeeding until one year of age as long as the mother and child are willing. I think the key word is “willing” and I would add “able.”

There are many pros and cons to formula too. First pro, anyone can help feed the baby at any time which can help mom rest or even take a shower. Second, feedings can be easily scheduled, tracked and controlled as most formula fed babies do not need to eat as often. Third, Moms do not need to watch her own consumption of medications, foods and drinks. The biggest con for formula is cost. A can of formula, on averages, costs about $21 and a baby can easily go multiple cans in a week or so. Second, time to prepare the formula. However, to me, this isn’t really a con because water can be poured ahead of time and you simply need to add the formula powder and mix. Or what I did, I prepared the formula and store it in the refrigerator until my daughter was ready to eat. And no, I didn’t need to warm it up because despite common belief, it doesn’t have to be warm. My daughter actually preferred it cold. Third, formula doesn’t provide the same immunity benefits as breastmilk. Lastly, some babies may need special and more expensive formula like soy-based or lactose free formulas.

My sister is the mother of an 11 ½ month old boy and she has been able to exclusive breastfeed. For this blog, I asked her experience with breastfeeding, education and support she was given throughout the entire process. The biggest pro for her is that breastmilk is free. She also enjoys the bonding and connection time with her son. “There’s something about the way baby looks up at you” (personal interview August 27, 2017). She likes the health benefits for both herself and her son. Her son has not been sick. Although, many women claim breastfeeding helped them lose the pregnancy weight, it didn’t for her. Her biggest con is pumping at work. She often stressed out when she was only pumping a couple ounces at a time and was worried her son wasn’t getting enough to eat. In terms of support, she had a lot of support from the hospital both prenatal and postnatal as well as online communities and friends who have breastfed in the past. She admits that the first few weeks were difficult. Pain and discomfort were common as both she and her son found a position hold they both felt comfortable with. She had a few issues with blocked ducts but many home remedies worked for her to clear the issue. “I think education and support is key. If you don’t have that you’ll have a hard time getting through it” (personal interview August 27, 2017).

I dreamed of being a mother practically my entire life. I would cuddle my baby dolls and pretend to breastfeed them as I saw my mother do with my younger siblings. You can imagine my devastation when it was extremely difficult for me and my daughter. I struggled for six weeks to breastfeed. One day at my daughter’s doctor’s appointment, when she had dropped weight again, her doctor recommended I start supplementing with formula. I was heartbroken and felt like such a failure that I couldn’t provide breastmilk for my baby. So I started formula and my daughter thrived. She was a happy and healthy baby. She has only had one ear infection her entire life. She rarely gets sick and when she does, it usually doesn’t last for long. She is extremely smart and quick witted. The things she says and does often amaze me. She is bright and picks up things quick. I was willing to breastfeed for as long as I could, I just wasn’t able. I CANNOT stand the shame mothers get for using formula especially from women who do not know their story or their reasons for choosing to do so. I do not regret my decision to stop breastfeeding and start formula because ultimately it is about what is best for my child and me. I think mothers are often forgotten in the breastfeeding-formula debate. 

In conclusion, in my opinion, ultimately fed is best. If you can breastfed and can meet its challenges, great! I’m proud of you and keep up the great work. However, if you tried and cannot breastfeed for whatever reason, feed your baby formula with confidence. Your child can still be healthy by providing a healthy environment. Your child can excel in school when you provide an enriching environment by reading, exploring the world around you and encouraging your child to learn all they can. There is so much in life which is influence by many factors that just one doesn’t determine a lifetime. Education and support are a major key. The difference between my sister’s experience and my own is support. I only got support while I was in the hospital but once I was sent home, I didn’t get any information about further support. Hospitals need to get better at providing this information for moms. And moms, if you do decide that despite education and support, that you cannot breastfeed, it’s okay. Only you can decide what’s best for you and your baby. Don’t let anyone else, bully you into thinking you are doing something wrong or dangerous simply because they do not agree. The last picture is one of my daughter and my nephew. Both are happy and healthy children. One was formula fed and one was breastfed. If I didn't tell you who was fed what, would you be able to tell me? You couldn't. So don't judge a child's future by the method his or her parents chose to feed him or her. There are too many factors that go into a child's health and future than just breastmilk or formula. 

References

Tatar, Emiliano Breastmilk vs Formula: What do the studies really tell us? Philly.com April 20, 2016. Retrieved August 27, 2017.

Multigenerational households: pros, cons and questions to consider

According to the US Census data, roughly 16% of Americans live in a household with at least two adult generations. The highest level in 50 years. Although the practice is familiarly common in many cultures around the world for centuries, it is growing in the US. More and more people are living in multigenerational households for various reasons and the living arrangement carries a variety of pros and cons. I will discuss each of the pros and cons as well as questions that should be discussed when considering living in a multigenerational household. Is a multigenerational household a treasure or torture or a bit of both?

There are a number of benefits of living in a multigenerational household. First, kids and grandparents have daily access to each other. The relationship between grandparents and grandchildren can grow stronger as they can share in the day to day life experiences. For example, when a child gets an award at school, the grandparents can easily share in the accomplishment as the child comes home and talks about rather than hearing about it secondhand. Second, the adults can share living expenses and thus savings costs on various bills. Expenses such as groceries and utilities can be divided among the adults to ease the financial burdens. Third, with older parents living in the households, they can provide more support in the way of child care and saves time finding a babysitter if an emergency arises. Lastly, adult children will have the ability to provide in home care and keep an eye on aging parents especially when one or both parents loses the ability to living on their own.

There are also a number of cons to living in a multigenerational household. First, the loss of privacy and alone time for everyone in the household. With more people in a household, finding a space where you can be alone and unwind may become harder and harder. Second, more pressure on the main income earners. Especially if the old parents are retired and living on a fixed income and expenses rise, the main income earners may feel the pressure to keep everyone afloat. Third, personality conflicts and clashes with habits and behaviors. With older parents being used to being the parents, there may be conflict over parenting the younger children. Or the constant reminders of “that’s not how I used to do it” when an older parent sees the adult child do a chore or prepare food or even discipline the young children. Lastly, feeling like a permanent guest or host. The constant feeling of not really being home or having to entertain can quickly wear on the adults in the household.

When considering a multigenerational household there are a number of questions to consider. Because with even with the best of intentions, it is a situation that cannot be entered into blindly.

1. Will the move be short term, long term or permanent?

• Considering the terms of the stay can elevate the possible cons or prepare everyone for the possible conflicts that may arise.

2. Is there enough space for everyone?

• Trying to fit adults and children in a tiny space will ultimately lead to conflicts and other issues.

3. What will be the rules, roles and boundaries? How will they be decided and moderated? What procedures can be established to resolve conflicts in order to avoid resentments and tension?

• Establishing boundaries beforehand is an excellent way to avoid conflicts from the beginning. For instance, stating that an individual’s or a couple’s bedroom/bathroom be off-limits to everyone else can help with the privacy issues.

4. Do you offer family meetings to discuss conflicts, concerns or issues that may arise once the move-in is complete? How often should they be held?

• Monthly meetings should be considered to discuss any issues such as budget and changes in schedules, etc. Discussion on how chores should be divided so everyone knows their responsibilities in the household.

5. What items will or will not be shared? Will food be shared or will certain items be off limits?

• It may seem like a non-issue; however, frustrations could arise if someone buys something as   a treat for them and everyone eats it before he or she can enjoy it.

6. How much of daily life and events be shared or separated? Will meals be together or separate? Will vacations and outings be together or separate?

• The answer to this questions probably boils down to schedule and if the family is together during meal times. As for vacations and outings, I would anticipate some to be separate as well as possible family vacations together.

7. What are the guidelines for inviting guests? Do you consult each other when you want to invite a friend over or is everyone free to invite guests over without consultation?

• It is a sign of respect for those you live with when you consult others about if and when visitors will be invited and at the residence.

In my research, one site suggested that two questions should be answered. First, do you and your parents get along? I think regardless if you and your parents or even your spouse’s parents get along, living together is an entirely different situation than just being able to get along at functions and other get-togethers. Could the living arrangement bring up childhood issues? Can you live with your parents’ characteristics and behaviors? And can they live with yours? Second, are you and your spouse agreeable with the arrangement? Even if you get along with your parents, the bigger question is does your spouse? Having one or more parents living with you can cause tensions in any relationship especially a marriage. Abstain from directing anger at your spouse and guard your relationship as the center which holds the household together. I think the questions I’ve listed above are a good start in starting the conversation about living in a multigenerational household. Some situations may have more or less questions depending on the individuals involved.

In conclusion, even with the best laid out plans, as the new household learns to come together, it would be wise to expect conflicts, frustrations, restricted freedoms, role confusion and loss of privacy until everyone can learn the rhythm of the arrangement or until the arrangement ends, if in the short term. The most important thing to establish is the expectations of everyone in the arrangement. And keep those expectations clear in everyone’s mind as time goes on. Open communication is also key (and it is key in any situation regardless of living arrangements). If you are considering a multigenerational household, list your questions and concerns to be discussed with everyone beforehand. 

The Dakota Access Pipeline: the big story with little coverage

The Dakota Access Pipeline has been slowly gaining news coverage. However, this is only after the outrage of many citizens that it was being overshadowed by the election and other news stories. Many people, myself included, wasn’t really aware of the protest against the pipeline until the protest had made Facebook news. I wasn’t really aware of the protests against the pipeline until the arrest of actress Shailene Woodley was a brief blimp on the news. Other celebrities like Mark Ruffalo, Susan Sarandon and even presidential candidate Jill Stein have protested against the pipeline. First, what is the Dakota Access Pipeline? Why are so many protesting against it? Lastly, what are the arguments for and against it?

The Dakota Access Pipeline is an approximately 172 miles, 30 inch diameter pipeline to connect production areas of Bakken and Three Forks, North Dakota to refineries in Patoka, Illinois. The idea is to reduce the current use of rail and truck transportation of crude oil and support domestic demand and reduce need of foreign oil. It was approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers and granted permits to the Energy Transfer Partners to build it. Energy Transfer Partners is a US Fortune 500 natural gas and propane company founded in 1995. The pipeline passes right by the reservation of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The tribe has sued the Corp for threatening the Tribe’s environmental and economic well-being” as well as damage and destruction of “great historic, religious and cultural significance to the Tribe” (Yan, CNN 10/28/16). The Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now has said that 100% of affected landowners in North Dakota voluntarily signed easements to allow the construction of the pipeline (Yan, CNN 10/28/16).

The first argument in support of the pipeline is it would be an “economic boon” as it would decrease reliance on foreign oil as well as free up railways to transport “corps and other commodities” which are “currently constrained by crude oil cargo” (Yan, CNN 10/28/16). According to Energy Transfer Partners, a second supportive argument for the pipeline is that it would bring an estimate $156 million in sales and income taxes to the state and local governments as well as add 8,000-12,000 construction jobs. A third supportive argument states the pipeline will help avoid disasters like the 2013 train wreck which crude oil destroyed downtown Lac-Mégnatic Quebec, Canada with the resulting fire (Yan, CNN 10/28/16). However, according to a LA Times editorial, the data shows that “while train and truck accidents might occur more often, pipeline breaks spill more oil and generally cause more damage to the environment by fouling ground water and wilderness areas” (11/3/16).

The first and main argument against the pipeline is it would destroy burial sites, prayers sites and culturally significant artifacts as well as other environmental concerns: possible contamination due to breeches and greenhouse (Yan, CNN 10/28/16). The pipeline has already been rerouted when other citizens of North Dakota rejected it in the interests of protecting communities and water. The Bismarck route was rejected by the US Army Corps to protect the wells that serve the municipal water supplies on the grounds that it would have been difficult to keep the pipeline 500 feet or more away from homes (Thorbecke, ABC 11/3/16). A second and important argument against the pipeline is a possible rupture under the Missouri River and contaminating the water supply (Yan, CNN 10/28/16). A portion of the pipeline will be under a dammed stretch of the Missouri River (LA Times Editorial, 11/3/16) and eight other pipelines are already being moved across the river with the risk of contamination, do we need another risk?

I will begin my thoughts with a quote from David Archambault III, the chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, “We’re not opposed to energy independence. We’re not opposed to economic development. The problem we have, and this is a long history of problems that evolved over time, is where the federal government or corporations take advantage of indigenous lands and indigenous rights” (Yan, CNN 10/28/16). This is a sad truth. While researching this topic, I came across some comments that claim the protestors didn’t materialize until after the project had been greenlighted and construction began. Another commenter claimed that the tribe was asked to participate in the site selection and they didn’t respond in time. Given the US government’s history with the treatment of indigenous people, I wouldn’t put it past them to say “hey, help plan but you have to respond by this date” and the letter was dated only days before the deadline. While an advocacy group has said that the tribe’s claims are misleading as the pipeline doesn’t cross into the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation” (Yan, CNN, 10/28/16), you can see from the map that its very close and if a rupture were to happen, it would be devastating to the reservation lands near the pipeline.

In conclusion, somewhere in the middle is the truth. It is possible that the Standing Rock tribe was given a chance to respond. Maybe they ignored the chance until construction began. Maybe the chance to respond was unrealistic. Is it possible that both sides are twisting the truth to fit their cause? Of course, it’s possible. Bottom line is we didn’t need the Keystone XL Pipeline, which was defeated in 2008, and we don’t need the Dakota Access Pipeline. We especially don’t need it if it will possibly destroy sites which cannot be returned to their previous state in case of a rupture. Not just the possible destruction of beautiful sites but health and welfare of citizens are at risk too. Why does money always trump the health and welfare of our land and its people? On November 1^st, Obama has stated that the Army Corps is investigating ways to re-route the pipeline to take into account the tribe’s concerns. With the Army Corps, the fate of the pipeline still rests. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the money will outweigh the environment and the people and the construction will continue despite the protests and concerns.

References:

LA Times Editorial Say No to the Dakota Access Pipeline, 11/3/16 http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-dakota-pipeline-global-warming-20161102-story.html

Thorbecke, Catherine Why a Previously Proposed Route for the DAPL was Rejected, ABC 11/3/16 http://abcnews.go.com/US/previously-proposed-route-dakota-access-pipeline-rejected/story?id=43274356

Yan, Holly Dakota Access Pipeline: What’s at stake? CNN 10/28/16 http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/us/dakota-access-pipeline-visual-guide/

Death with Dignity: a view of both sides

The story of Brittany Maynard has re-sparked the debate of the choosing the time of our deaths. She was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer and given six months to live. Brittany moved to Oregon in order to use the state’s Death with Dignity Act. She died on November 1, 2014 just 18 days before her 30th birthday. I’m on the fence with this debate. I feel so conflicted that I can’t make a decision. I see too much of both sides. Currently, Washington and Vermont have laws similar to Oregon’s. I will discuss Oregon’s law as well as the pros and cons of physician-assisted dying. During my research, I found long lists of pros and cons. I will focus on the top 3.

Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act legalizes physician-assisted dying with certain restrictions. Under the law, a competent adult who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness, which will take the patient’s life within six months, may request in writing from his or her physician, a lethal dose of medication with the purpose of ending the patient’s life. The law is voluntary and must be initiated by the patient. Once the request has been made, a physician will review the request and the patient’s medical records. It must be determined that the patient is free of any mental condition which could impair his or her judgment. A second, oral request is made before the prescription is written. The law protects doctors from liability and also states that the patient’s decision cannot effect his or her “life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy.” The law also allows doctors, pharmacists or healthcare providers to refuse to participate if they have moral objections.

The first item on the pro list is the end of pain and suffering of the patient. I have seen patients who were dying of cancer and I could see they were in pain. If a person knew the pain they would be in at the end, would that person not have the right to avoid such pain? The second item on the pro list is a person should be allowed to die with dignity without fear of losing their physical or mental capacities. I also have seen individuals who were at the end of their illnesses who were not the same person. One person comes to mind. At the end of her illness, she was not herself and I know she wouldn’t want to be remembered like that. Lastly, patients can arrange their final goodbyes. Who wouldn’t want to say goodbye on their own terms?

The first item on the con list is doctors can mistakes about prognoses and patients may be ending their lives sooner than necessary. There are countless stories of patients given a few months to live who go on to live a few more years. Prognoses are often educated guesses. Second, pain and suffering can be relieved through palliative care. Palliative care is specialized medical care for people with serious illnesses with no cure intended. Palliative care is similar to hospice care. The focus is providing relief and the goal is to improve quality of life. A team of doctors, nurses and other specialists provide care. Lastly, doctors aiding in dying violates the Hippocratic Oath of “first do no harm.” Could the “first do no harm” be applied to helping a patient find relief in death? Could prolonging the inevitable be doing harm to the patient?

In conclusion, for me there are still a lot of questions. I know that many people cite religious beliefs for reasons against death with dignity. There are seven documented suicides in the Bible and each one is not condemned in the text. It is my belief that only God knows what is in someone’s mind and heart (Psalm 139:1-2). Only He knows someone’s true motives. I don’t know what I would do if I faced a prognosis as Brittany Maynard did. I know I would focus on my bucket list and saying goodbyes but I don’t know if I could take a lethal dose of a medicine. I do know that I cannot condemn those who chose to end their lives.