Can the United States Restrict Chinese Reporters?

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

The Chinese government is notorious for its media censorship and propaganda. Reporters Without Borders has ranked China number 177 out of 180 countries in terms of their freedom of the press. Several months ago, the United States announced that reporters from five different media outlets will have to register as "foreign agents" due to the Chinese government's intense control of their nation's media coverage. The following day, China expelled three American reporters based on an editorial  concerning the coronavirus outbreak that originated in China. A month later, China has expelled two more reporters who work for American media outlets.

In response, the United States has announced that China's primary news outlet, Xinhua, will have to reduce their United States based staff from 160 to 100 reporters. A United States official claims that the reduction is long overdue and allows for a "level playing field". The United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claims that this does not take away from the freedom of the Chinese press as the content of their reporting is not being restricted. Pompeo hopes that the change in policy will encourage Chinese leaders to change their practices. Pompeo stated, "It is our hope that this action will spur Beijing to adopt a more fair and reciprocal approach to US and other foreign press in China".

When I first read about this story, I felt that the United States may be going out of bounds by restricting the Chinese reporters. Now that I have had a chance to think about the issue, I can better understand Pompeo's claims. As long as we are not controlling what the Chinese reporters can and cannot report, I see the United States' reasoning. With that being said, I am not completely on one side or the other. I think that we need to do our best to protect the integrity and reputation of our country, but we need to be careful not to limit the freedom of others to do so.


BBC's Report on the New Restrictions

The Stop Guilt by Association Act

Senator Sandra Cano

A controversial bill was introduced in the Rhode Island Senate before it was withdrawn on March 5, 2020. The bill, referred to as "The Stop Guilt by Association Act", would have have placed restrictions on the press. According to the bill's sponsor, Senator Sandra Cano, a primary goal of the bill was to protect those who have been charged with and then acquitted from a serious crime. Currently, when a media outlet initially covers a case, it is under no legal obligation to broadcast the conclusion of the case. A problem arises when someone is charged with a crime and then not convicted; a person accused of a crime could have his or her reputation damaged even if he or she is found to be innocent of the crime.

Cano decided to withdraw the bill after receiving persistent opposition from the New England First Amendment Coalition. The coalition claimed that the bill was "unconstitutional" and that it was not the job of the government to regulate how public matters are broadcasted. The group stated that the bill could "turn newsrooms into an arm of the judicial system and ultimately discourage crime reporting altogether for fear of liability".

The language used in the bill has also received a lot of negative attention. The potential act claimed that the state should "stop the press from serving as a slander machine". Cano has announced that she did not intend to disrespect the media by introducing the bill, and that she understands how the language used was inappropriate.

While the bill didn't make it through the Rhode Island Senate, it has raised an interesting question. Do the media have an obligation to finish the stories they start? Is this especially true when the unfinished nature of the story threatens to harm someone's reputation or put an inaccurate slant on the story? There is certainly a moral obligation to share the conclusion of a story, and I would argue that there is a legal one as well. If a suspect or defendant has been named, then the news station should have a moral and legal obligation to announce if the defendant is acquitted; otherwise, I fear that many people will be defamed.

An Article from a Local News Station in Rhode Island

Facebook Bans Face Masks

It is hard to go anywhere without hearing about the threat of coronavirus. People are racing to buy hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes; many are even buying face masks in an effort to prevent the sickness from spreading. With all of the buzz surrounding coronavirus, it is easy for people to get in a somewhat frenzied state while they use resources that could be used elsewhere. Facebook has decided to address this issue head-on.

The social media giant announced that it will take down all Facebook ads and commerce listings that promote the use of face masks. Facebook claims that the ads seem to be an attempt to "exploit" an international health emergency. In addition to banning ads, Facebook has made the decision to remove any unofficial medical claims related to coronavirus and will remove any listings for products that claim to effectively prevent the spread of coronavirus.

Instagram (which is owned by Facebook) is making similar efforts. The site will remove any misinformation on coronavirus in addition to any ads exploiting the illness.  Instagram will also be sending some posts to fact-checkers while insuring that posts from/the accounts of leading health organizations will be the first results for those searching for anything directly involving COVID-19.

I normally am not a fan of hiding content from viewers, but I think that the severity of the coronavirus warrants Facebook's and Instagram's actions. I have met several people who are terrified of catching coronavirus; reading false information or being bombarded with ads for face masks would only heighten their fears and lead to more chaos.

A Microsoft News Article on the Facebook Ban

Chuck's Controversy

Senator Chuck Schumer

On Wednesday, March 4th, Senator Chuck Schumer was speaking at a pro-choice rally when he made some controversial comments. While addressing the crowd, Schumer appeared to threaten two Supreme Court justices. Schumer claimed that justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would be punished if they voted in favor of restricting abortion rights. Schumer stated, "I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions". 

The comments made by Schumer are seen by many to be out-of-line. Several people are questioning what "price" Schumer was referring to. Did he mean "price" in terms of a violent threat, economic loss, or simply political damage? Several officials in Washington have taken issue with Schumer's words; President Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Chief Justice John Roberts have all spoken out against Schumer. In a statement, Roberts referred to Schumer's remarks as "inappropriate" and "dangerous". 

A spokesperson for Schumer claims that he was referring to a political price when he challenged the Supreme Court justices. The spokesperson stated that the comments were meant to warn Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that if they voted in favor of restricting abortion, there would be "a major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision". 

I think that Schumer's comments against the justices were certainly inappropriate, but I don't believe that they were meant to be of a threatening nature. His remarks were likely referencing a political price; however, he never should have referred to specific justices by name. Doing that was unnecessary and could prove to be dangerous to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Schumer did not intend to incite violence, but some of his followers could potentially misinterpret his statement. Despite this possibility, Schumer should not have to deal with legal repercussions for his words. If we begin restricting speech on the basis of a remote potential for it to lead to violence, none of us would ever be able to speak again.  





The Response from Chief Justice John Roberts

More Details on Chuck Schumer's Remarks

How Ray Tomlinson Changed the World

Ray Tomlinson

Ray Tomlinson permanently changed the world of communications when he sent the first email in 1971. Tomlinson, a Rensselar Polytechnic Institute and Massachusetts Institute of technology graduate, was an employee of  BBN Technologies at the time of his infamous invention. However, Tomlinson did not invent the email as part of his regular job; he was merely working on a side project. At the time, scientists were already using electronics to communicate, but they were only able to send messages between multiple users of the same computer or to mailboxes that required the message be printed in order to be visible. Tomlinson sought to find a way to transmit a message from one computer to another. To do this, Tomlinson altered already existing programs to develop the first email software. The term "email" did not come to be until several years later, but Tomlinson was responsible for using the "@" symbol to distinguish the name of the recipient from the location of the email address.

Since its advent, email has had a profound impact on how society operates. Email provides individual people with a means to communicate messages instantly and globally. People can communicate with more people in more locations in less time and for less money. This same idea of instant peer-to-peer messaging is still emphasized today as we develop various message transmitting applications and devices; without email, these technologies may not have ever come to fruition or may have taken longer to be invented. Email had also added variety to our communication abilities. Email enables users to send more than just texts; senders can transmit images, videos, links, documents, and presentations.

Here at HPU, we are required to use our emails daily. Email allows us to communicate with professors and to receive notifications from the university. HPU's email network has provided the university with a means to connect the students with the school. The invention of the email has affected the communications' structures of this university and the communications' structures of the world.

An Article from Guinness World Records

More Information on How Technology has Impacted Society