On the topic of convergence of new and old media, two key things come to mind. In 2015 a series of protests against alleged racist/sexist behaviors by the staff of the University of Missouri were spawned by social media posts (Gutierrez, 2015), and in the Arab world, what has become known as the “Arab Spring” that occurred in the years of 2010 to 2012 has been credited a large part to social media (Arab Spring, 2017). According to a Wikipedia article on the topic of the Arab Spring and social media, protest and street demonstration occurred in Morrocco, Bahrain, Algeria, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman and Sudan – along with “minor protest” in Djibouti, Mauritania, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Somalia wit the battle cry of Ash-sha’b yurid isgat an-nizam (“the people want to bring down the regime’). These protests have been credited for the Tunisian Revolution that led to the ousting of their countries president in January of 2011. Social media played a role in the Arab Spring as it enabled communication and collaboration among the protests. They used it to organize, disseminate and raise global awareness (Arab Spring, 2017). While social media in this case was powerful, I feel that it was the traditional media who helped the information share along to a significant extent. In the case of either new or old media, I feel that they needed one another to be an effect of change. Had they worked alone, I don’t see as great of an impact. According to a Kansas City Star article, a “revolution” amongst college students was started in had already Columbia, Mo., near the campus of the University of Missouri in the Fall of 2015. According to the article, social media played a role in those protest that then spread across the country where the students demanded more fair treatment in a variety of areas and concerns (Gutierrez, 2015). In both of these cases, I feel that the convergence of the old and the new medias led to the power of communicating the concerns of the protest. And again, I sustain my claim that had the two medias operated in isolation without the other, the power and impact would not has been as great. Arab Spring (2017) . Social media and the Arab Spring . February 2017 . retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_and_the_Arab_Spring Guitierrez, L. (2015) . University of Missouri protests gave birth to dozens more across the U.S., powered by social media . November 24, 2015 . The Kansas City Star . retrieved from http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article46268740.html

*Introduction Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes has famously said that “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” According to Holmes, “the question in every case is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” To Holmes, the issues at hand center on the “question of proximity and degree” that determine whether the expression is an exception to the free speech Constitutional protection (Moore& Murray, 2012). On March 1, 2016 at a then presidential candidate Donald Trump rally, several political protestors claim to have been assaulted by Trump supporters while Trump, caught on video, points and repeats the comment “get them out.” According to Federal Judge David J. Hale, “It is plausible that Trump's direction to ‘get ‘em out of here’ advocated the use of force. It was an order, an instruction, a command.” In a preliminary hearing, Trump lawyers touted free speech as a defense. The case was referred to a Federal Magistrate on March 31, 2017 (Associated Press, 2017). Whether Trump’s comments will be designated as an exception to the freedom of speech has yet to be ruled upon; however, this timely exercise of a free speech claim is indicative of two ethical theories relating to communication. *Moral Rights The freedom of speech is a well-recognized moral right protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Tomkins, 2016), but it has some exceptions – in the case of this paper the issue at question is the “clear and present danger test,” which “has been frequently cited by the public and jurist alike in supporting restrictions on certain kinds of speech” (Moore& Murray, 2012), where the possibility of harm befalling other members of humanity are involved. Ethically speaking, moral rights are designed to “provide individuals significant protection from harm caused by government or other persons.” Part of these protections include one’s ability to act in such a manner of self-expression – as proclamation one’s point of view. However, another piece of this protection includes a protection of the “fundamental interests of individuals as human beings, especially in how others treat them,” which includes protection from the risk of physical harm (Tomkins, 2016). There appears to exist a collision of moral rights with the case of the March 1, 2016, political rally. It is a clash of free speech vs. physical harm – both outwardly, well-accepted fundamental moral rights. At the rally, individuals on all sides were apparently trying exercise freedom of political expression when some sort of violence broke out and was caught on video camera (Preovolos, 2016). *virtue Aristotle offered up the concept of “virtue” applicable to one’s character – which is based upon a “person’s disposition (emotions and personality) and their past actions.” It is important to note that “not all habits are virtuous, only those that are ethically good.” Malice, for example, is “always wrong,” according to Aristotle; however, some virtues can be viewed as some “mean or point of proportion between two vices,” which are either an “excess” or a “deficiency” of the person’s disposition. Figure 1 is offered to provide examples of Aristotle’s thinking. These things being said, it should be noted that Aristotle “notes” that “there are exceptions to ethical practices of virtue in a specific situation” (Tomkins, 2016). These exceptions are akin to Judge Holmes’ “question of proximity and degree” mentioned earlier which he made comment on dealing with possible exceptions to the right to free speech. As mentioned, Holmes used yelling fire in a crowded theater as an example of a situation where the proximity and degree offered a clear and present danger to harm others. Holmes’ admittance of some proximity and degree that merits an exception to free speech is countered by the point that Paula Tomkins makes in her, Practicing Communication Ethics, that “there is no complete agreement on what are fundamental moral rights” (Tomkins, 2016) – one of those rights being unfettered free speech. Considering these things, it is important to note that while we typically see the right to expression as a moral right, there are cases where ethics appear to dictate an exception. Figure 1: (Tomkins, 2016) Conclusion However, if we judge what occurred by the publicly documented video (Preovolos, 2016), we can make certain assumptions of character when relating to Trump, the Trump supporters, and the protesters – granted, this is obviously open to interpretation. Never the less, I observe Trump speaking with a deficiency of “Boastfulness” (“Self-Expression,” Figure 1), Trump supporters offering up excesses of “Malicious Enjoyment” (“Indignation,” Figure 1), “Boorishness” (“Conversation,” Figure 1), and “Cantankerousness” (“Social Conduct,” Figure 1). In contrast, the protesters appear to present the virtuous means of “Courage” (“Fear and Confidence,” Figure 1), “Modesty” (“Shame,” Figure 1), and “Truthfulness” (“Self Expression,” Figure 1). And hence, from my interpretation of the video evidence, the protesters offer virtuous character while Trump and his supporters behave with deficiency and excess. Considering these things, Tomkins points out the key to moral rights. “If you identify a moral right as part of your personal ethical standard, you have a duty or obligation to protect that right” (Tomkins, 2016). I feel that the protesters did present their right to freedom of expression, and Trump, his defenders, and supports also certainly have a right to defend their moral rights in the court cases to come. But it should be noted that at least one federal judge has already offered one preliminary opinion on Trump’s exercise of speech as being an exception to the rule – that is an judgement that the speech incited violence (Associated Press, 2017). Of course, more argument is yet to be heard. However, with the video evidence offered; we can make conclusions based upon virtue ethics and the excesses and deficiencies of Trump and his violent supporters. That conclusion is that ethically, just as Aristotle said malice is always wrong, so was the situational behavior of Trump and his supporters at the Louisville rally on March 1, 2016. References Associated Press (2017) . Judge to Trump: No Protection for Speech Inciting Violence: A federal judge has rejected President Donald Trump's free speech defense against a lawsuit accusing him of inciting violence against protesters during his campaign. U.S. News & World Report . April 1, 2017 . retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kentucky/articles/2017-04-01/judge-denies-trumps-free-speech-defense-in-protester-case Moore, R.; & Murray, M. (2012) . Media Law and Ethics . Ed. 4th . New York . Routledge . 2012 Preovolos, Chris (2016) . Video shows black woman being pushed out of Trump Rally in Louisville . SFGate . March 2, 2016 . retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Video-shows-black-woman-being-pushed-out-of-Trump-6865900.php Tomkins, P. (2016) . Practicing Communication Ethics . Routledge . New York .2016 #trumpLouisvillerally #Trumpincitingviolence #judgeallowslawsuitagainstDonaldTrump #Trumpethics #moralrights #freedomofspeech #clearandpresentdanger #yellingfireinacrowdedtheater #judgeallowslawsuitagainsttrump

I think it is important to start this discussion on the conflict that I often have between understanding the difference between morals and ethics. As far as I can understand, morality is an understanding of right and wrong. And ethics involves the application of that understanding of right and wrong. This discussion is primary concerned with ethics in communication. To elaborate on this definition and to focus it more, I turn to the teaching of Plato. Plato, in his Republic, proposed the “noble lie,” as a means to maintain social harmony by certain aristocratic elites among the lessor classes. He felt this as long as the misguided truths, or pure untruths, benefited the greater good of the people. This he described in Book III; Then if any one at all is to have the privilege of lying, the rulers of the State should be the persons; and they, in their dealings either with enemies or with their own citizens, may be allowed to lie for the public good. (Plato, Book II, n.d) Interestingly, he seemed to feel that untruths were recuperative to the lower classes such as medicines were, and goes on further to illustrate that only the elite have a right to lie while the common man is without that right. a lie is useless to the gods, and useful only as a medicine to men, then the use of such medicines should be restricted to physicians; private individuals have no business with them. (Plato, Book III, n.d) Paula Tomkins, in Practicing Communication Ethics, states that Plato “charged early teachers of communication with teaching techniques of flattery and deception….instead of truth” – something that “shadows the field of communication studies today” (Tomkins, 2016). I believe that the mentality of Plato’s noble lie is something that will work for a while, but over time its power will be fleeting, and once the lie effects the credibility of the speaker, whether that spokesperson be of an elite class or not, will lose whatever right or claim to deceive they once had. Tomkins states that as message receivers, once we begin to “consider most communication deceptive or trivial,” we are able and likely to “ignore what people communicate and stop listening” (Tomkins, 2016). When will Donald Trump’s untruths reach that point? When will these untruths become unethical? When will we stop listening and begin to ignore the honored position of the Presidential office? I don’t know, but that will indeed be a sad day for America. References Plato (n.d) .Book III. Republic . 460 B.C.E. retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.4.iii.html Tomkins, P. (2016) . Practicing Communication Ethics . Routledge . New York .2016

from the Washington Post: Five takeaways from Comey’s big day 1.) Comey did real damage to Trump 2.) The White House was quick to create distance 3.) Republicans want to make leaks the real story 4.) Comey won’t be easy to sully 5.) The White House is under a cloud From J-Ro #1) despite the liberal media, this shit seems real.....

From Rep Adam Schiff; "The only reason that Rex Tillerson should be going back to Russia is to hand back that Friendship Medal to Putin after what they did to us" "I hope that Reuters story is not true." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-tillerson-idUSKBN16S04I

I just watched Paul Ryan’s health care proposal. I suppose whether it was successful or not is still yet to be determined. How his pitch is going to be received will be very interesting over the next few days. I understand that the Affordable Care Act is resulting in certain individuals having higher premiums yet at the same time others are able to get health care for the first time because they did not have it before because they could not afford it. I suppose how one is going to receive this pitch is very political and largely based upon self interest. Which receivers have had their premiums go up are likely to receive it well, because they were the one’s who wish to have Obama Care repealed and replaced. But on the other side, there are those who are happy with the ACA because they now have better access to health care or even just have access to health care that they didn’t have before. In the Walker textbook, the first “Channel Considerations” that is listed is “Inspiring and motivating others.” The question is…did Paul Ryan inspire all of his audience or just his base? While he laid out some basic economic principals, the presentation was still overly filled with destroying Obama Care and less focused on the specifics of the plan. While this is all very political and hard to determine, and how you are to receive this message is based upon self-interest. How did Obama Care effect you the audience member. I feel that Paul Ryan’s treatment probably appealed greatly to audience members whose premiums went up under Obama Care, but I feel that he failed to appeal to the other side of this issue. But the question is, with such a labyrinth that health care is…can he, could he, or will this issue just swap back to the other side once another party takes over Congress. We all know that appealing to disinterested audiences is key to persuasion. If we are to judge Paul Ryan’s presentation based upon appealing to those who like Obama Care, I have to say that he failed. If we judge Paul Ryan by his ability to appeal to his base and those individuals whose cost went up, then he was a resounding success. Walker, Robyn (2015) . Strategic Management Communication for Leaders . 3rd Ed . Cengage Learning . Stamford, CT . 2015

How long with Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace remain at Fox News? From USA Today; Trump unhinged: Now he's even at war with Fox News - Alicia Shepard #FiredfromFoxNews #ChrisWallace #ShepardSmith #Howlong

Scott Bedley, fifth-grade teacher at Plaza Vista School in Irvine, Calif., says he's been trying to teach his students for a while to look carefully at what they're reading and where it comes from. He's got a seven-point checklist his students can follow: 1. Do you know who the source is, or was it created by a common or well-known source? Example National Geographic, Discovery, etc. 2. How does it compare to what you already know? 3. Does the information make sense? Do you understand the information? 4. Can you verify that the information agrees with three or more other sources that are also reliable? 5. Have experts in the field been connected to it or authored the information? 6. How current is the information? 7. Does it have a copyright? [read the article]

Excerpt: "Presidential Counselor Kellyanne Conway, Trinity Class of 1989, has played a large role in facilitating the manipulation of facts and encouraging the grave injustice being perpetrated by the Trump Administration’s war on immigrants among many other issues. She is one of President Trump’s primary spokespersons, an almost daily figure on cable news shows. Some people admire her staunch advocacy for her client’s positions, and others applaud the fact that she was the first woman to manage a successful presidential campaign. But in fact, as is true of many of President Trump’s statements, her advocacy on his behalf is often at variance with the truth. " [read the whole blog]

We should be more focused on solving problems rather than winning a debate.