A Deadly Profession: The Role of Journalism in Conflict Analysis and Resolution

Anna Politkovskaya, a Russian investigative journalist, is best known for her reporting on corruption and human rights abuses in Chechnya. She was shot in broad daylight in the lobby of her Moscow apartment building on October 7, 2006. In a CNN article titled, “Media Martyrs,” Anna Politkovskaya is put on a long list of reporters who have died working as journalists in the last 15 years. Her tragic story highlights a crisis around the world. According to NPR, the total of journalist deaths was almost 50% higher than in 2021. This is mostly due to the coverage of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, as well as violence in Latin America. Over half of 2022's killings occurred in just three countries, including Ukraine with 15, Mexico with 13, and Haiti with 7. This staggering report is the highest yearly number the Committee of Protecting Journalists (CPJ) has ever recorded for these countries since it began compiling data in 1992. In the recently released 2021-2022 Freedom of Expression report, UNESCO noted the deaths of 86 journalists last year, amounting to one every four days, up from 55 killings in 2021. The findings emphasize the serious dangers and vulnerabilities that journalists continue to encounter during their work and even once they go home. UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay stated this problem as alarming, noting, “Authorities must step up their efforts to stop these crimes and ensure their perpetrators are punished because indifference is a major factor in this climate of violence.” UNESCO noted that nearly half of the journalists killed were targeted while off duty, while the rest were targeted while traveling, or while others were in their homes at the time of their killing. This report not only showcases the horrendous, dangerous conditions journalists must face during their work, but it gives a warning to us all about the perils of providing coverage and reporting to the population in times of conflict and widespread human rights crises. Journalists construct the foundations of healthy political societies with vital information. Their position is particularly important in areas of conflict, violence, and under repressive regimes.

According to the Freedom of Expression report, despite improvements in the past five years to limit risk, the rate of impunity for journalist killings remains high at 86 percent. Journalism continues to remain a deadly profession with nine times out of ten, the murder of a journalist is unresolved. From 2016 to the end of 2021,  UNESCO recorded 455  journalists killed for their work or while on the job. Murder is not the only crime for which journalists are at risk. Disappearances, kidnappings, detention, legal harassment, and digital violence all remain likely possible threats. While institutions and organizations continue to monitor these crimes, the increasing numbers since 2015 continue to be a cause for concern. Even more concerning, journalists are being killed outside of war zones, including half of the deaths that were documented last year were in the Latin America region, which is officially not in any conflict. With global insecurity and political instability, this is an indication of the disregard for democracy and could lead to an increase in censorship. It isn’t just other parts of the world in which this threat can be felt, with one killing of a journalist being reported in the United States in 2023 so far. Dylan Lyons, a Florida TV journalist, and a nine-year-old girl were fatally shot near Orlando, Florida. In 2021, there was a new global high in the number of journalists being imprisoned, with the total number reaching 293. This is another glaring red flag that could be detrimental to the global community, suppressing journalists to report on corruption and mistreatment. Commenting on this dangerous environment, the president of the Committee to Protect Journalists, Jodie Ginsburg, stated, “When you think about it, the killings and the imprisonments of journalists are just the tip of the iceberg. They're indicative of a much broader pattern of declines in press freedom more generally. We see thousands of journalists harassed online every day, and unfortunately, often that turns into offline, real-world violence, physical threats against journalists, and that's something we're seeing more and more.” Seeing this decline in democracy is accompanied by an undermining of democratic norms, the target is increasingly becoming journalists who can report on wrongdoing by leaders, organizations, and institutions. Additionally, UNESCO reported that over the past five years, press freedom has continued its downward trend across the globe with 85 percent of the world’s population experiencing a decline in press freedom in their country over the past five years. What would the world look like if the number of journalists continued to be in a downward spiral? Furthermore, what would the world look like if journalism became only censored, restricted, and blocked in times of conflict? 

The essential service mission of journalism is particularly vital in times of crisis, like reporting on wars and conflict zones, environmental and climate issues, natural disasters, and on public health emergencies like COVID-19.  This is why many countries under the curfews introduced under the pandemic recognized journalism as an essential service. Journalists are not only important in spreading the news to the international community, but journalists and media institutions can also help diplomats contact intended target audiences. When embassies, diplomats, and other international foreign affairs institutions invest in their media presence, they are awarded. The U.S. Embassy in Pakistan, for instance, has more than 200,000 followers on Twitter and more than 6,000,000 page likes on Facebook. Using social media, embassies can communicate directly with the local population and use the media landscape to their benefit. Journalism cannot now fully be understood or analyzed apart from globalization. This process refers to the intensification of social interconnections, which allows apprehending the world as a single place, creating an interconnectedness and greater correspondence. Using communication media, journalism can be studied to showcase social interactions, movements, and the intersection of identities. International media sources such as the BBC, CNN, al Arabiya, and al Jazeera have global reach, and as such have an "agenda-setting effect." This effect, as professor of Media and Public Affairs and International Affairs at the George Washington University Steven Livingston, explains, “revolves around the ideological components of political disagreements, and more specifically the way key actors in conflict seek to manipulate public perceptions of the disagreement. That is, actors in any conflict will seek to either minimize or exaggerate the conflict, depending upon their relative position of power.” The international media can sweep communities, drawing them together, and has the potential to influence governments and international organizations. This is seen in countless occasions and case studies, including when studying Cyprus. 

In conflict-affected communities, journalism has a crucial part in shaping the public’s perception and knowledge of a given issue, surrounding topics such as identity, conflict, and important peace efforts. When mediating a conflict abroad and at home, journalists do more than information reports, they also define, frame, deliberate, and promote it. Using Cyprus as a case study, a 2021 journal article titled, “Journalism in conflict-affected societies: Professional roles and influences in Cyprus,” highlights just how journalists define their roles and responsibilities. Disseminating political and military messages, journalists took part in the very creation of these messages for the public. Journalists on both sides of Cyprus articulated proficient roles that varied from monitoring the political and business elite, acting as watchdogs, promoting social change, and educating and informing the public about societal problems. When asked about professional roles, journalists on both sides of the island stressed that accurate reporting is a crucial part of their professional roles. In both communities across the divide, information, especially on the Cyprus problem, can be controlled and manipulated by the political elite and be shaped by outside interests. The journal research shows that journalists in conflict and post-conflict societies assume more comprehensive obligations than other journalists in democratic countries, and advocacy for peace is one of them. Journalists are more likely to adopt an active role in the resolution of the problem. When asked about it, in a 2019 personal interview, a journalist remarked: “If we lived in another society, one without conflict, then we could have answered this question differently, but we live in Cyprus and we have concerns about our future.” This underlines that journalists’ identities are not fixed but fluid and journalists struggle to find a balance between their professional role and their identities. Depending on the state of the conflict or the transition their communities are going through, journalists renegotiate and reproduce the meaning and role of journalism. They outline the potential to harness social change and change policy, informing the public and persuading the population. With the increasing number of targeting and deaths related to the field of journalism, the advocacy to promote journalists' individuality and press-related freedoms is pivotal in maintaining a transparent world. 

There is no doubt that journalism is an essential, integral part of the international community. UNESCO’s work on monitoring and reporting on the safety of journalists helps keep this information accessible and able to be used in policy-making decisions, forming an integral component of the UN Action Plan on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity. Media organizations must be sure to adopt safety protocols, allocate enough resources to protect journalists, and ensure proper training of journalists. Deputy director of the International Press Institute, Scott Griffen, emphasizes the need for accountability, noting, "If some of these journalists were directly targeted, we need to start collecting the evidence for possible war crimes prosecutions." The need to be vigilant and prepared to adapt has never been more useful than now. With a public health crisis and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, journalism remains a critically ingrained part of humanity. If journalism is declining and persists to be as dangerous as it is heading, this says a lot about society and the future of everyone in the world. The voices of so many communities will increasingly become silenced, leaving a painful disregard for verity. 

Macron’s Ideal France: Free Speech or Blasphemy?

Muslims across many parts of the world remain in disbelief after hearing President of France, Emmanuel Macron’s  problematic comments in early October pertaining to characterizations of the Prophet Muhammad, which are considered blasphemous to Muslims, and calling Islam a religion that is in crisis all over the world today’ as he unveils plan to defend secularism. Comments as such have prompted wide-scale protests to occur in many Muslim countries ranging from Bangladesh to Turkey, with placards demanding an apology from Macron. However, it is critical to consider how this is not an isolated incident, but rather a pattern of characterizing the Prophet Muhammad and breeding fear and distrust, allowing anti-Muslim sentiments to manifest through censorship and gradual political repression of Muslims in France. This pattern thus has led to small and large scale terrorist attacks, perpetuating even more of a divide between Macron’s vision of secularism and tolerance and acceptance of Islam within the country. While another recent statement from Macron stated that he understands the frustration of Muslims over the displays of these cartoons, these words and the continuation of the Prophet being used as satirical relief simply does not demonstrate  the empathy needed for French and Muslim communities. The French in wanting to uphold secularist ideals have perpetuated a common belief that Islam is opposed to secularism and modernity, while an overarching argument held by Muslim communities argues that the Prophet Muhammad’s satirical presence is disrespectful and furthter contributes to the Islamophobia in France. This paper will breakdown a recent knife attack which prompted Macron’s comments earlier in October, the Charlie Hebdo publications of the Prophet, as well as the societal norms and legalistic steps that have reinforced anti-Muslim sentiments, concluding with what actions have taken in place thus far in Muslim communities across the globe and what practices must be implemented for substantial change to occur. 

Charlie Hebdo and Free Speech: 

Charlie Hebdo,  a left-wing, anti-establishment newspaper is part of a tradition of serious satire in France. While its publications have a reputation for mocking everything — powerful politicians, pop culture, religion — there has always been a particularity for lampooning Islam and Muslims, often with raunchy cartoons. The newspaper’s interest in depicting the Prophet has stemmed back to 2011 when it showed a cartoon of Mohammad and a speech bubble with the words: “100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter.” Despite the fact a firebomb was targeted at the publishing building, the company relentlessly went forth with reproducing the image with other caricatures in a special edition distributed with one of the country’s leading newspapers. Over the years, caricatures have varied in narrative, such as of the Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban in the form of a bomb; which could be easily interpreted as a direct attack on Muslims as a group and disregard for Islam. Many Muslims have objected towards any representation of Allah or Mohammad, or to irreverent treatment of the Quran, and such incidents have inflamed protests in the past, which have escalated to violent methods. 

Among Muslims who live in France to the French government, there has been a spectrum of opinions; whether to interpret these cartoons as offensive and Islamophobic or as an example of free speech and free media. Debates on freedom of expression are difficult exercises, often characterized by equivocation and self-contradiction. To answer the question if these specific publications are really blasphemy, it is quite simple: Mohammed is a well-respected figure among Muslims, who often perceive cartoons and other material critical of him as an attack on their Muslim identity. Along with a tradition of not depicting God or the Prophet, part of the offense may also come from the fact that the cartoons can appear explicitly designed to provoke. Thus, publications that print such cartoons may often be attempting to provoke an extreme response in order to make a statement about who belongs in European secular culture. At the time of the attack, the French government responded with an uptake in a military presence throughout the country along with comments made by the government that they are at war with radical Islam. 

Have Laws in France Helped to Alleviate the Situation? 

Prior to the publications in Charlie Hebdo and the nonviolent and violent responses it has invoked over the years, there have been protracted debates about the compatibility of Western values and Islamic ethos. I argue that the consideration of controversial policies continues a pattern of stigmatizing Muslims as a group within the country. One of the laws introduced in 2010, banning the “Niqab,” a full covering that some Muslim women choose to wear, only leaving the eyes exposed and can be fined up to 150 euros ($172). It is critical to note here as well that laws as such have not been excluded to just France. Countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands have passed similar bans on face-covering garments, thus displaying an overall apprehension towards specific religious symbols.  

The law perpetuated opinions that, from a security standpoint, it would not do anything, but rather infringe upon a person’s right to manifest their religious beliefs in a specific way. Not only did this hinder the  right to practicing Islam in a specific way, but there has been an increase in divisive rhetoric of “us versus them” among secular what right-wing consider “pure” French citizens and French Muslims who have citizenship. It is these Muslims living in France who categorize themselves as ‘French Muslims’ as their primary form of belonging, but an identification bolstered by ambivalent interpellation as, on the one hand, they are subject to suspect by members of the French nation under the policing and surveillance procedures of France's crackdown on Secularist ideals. People have recalled experiences of  receiving direct insults, threats and even physical violence towards them if they carried on wearing the full face veil. This sense of isolation among Muslims living in France also specifically comes from the fact that ministries of education have been more lenient with allowing other religious symbols, such as necklaces with the Star of David, etc. Not only has this created a divisive environment, but unrest and fear among Muslim Youth who are trying to uphold their religion’s beliefs and visions of their parents as well as assimilate in society. People narrate their experiences as being seen in a “negative light, feeling judged and an overall lack of trust” towards them. France, dating back to the colonial period has been for the most part more conservative than other countries. It sees itself as the heart of European secularism, hence immigrants are thrown the options of assimilation with the French system or isolation. 

Over the years, this has manifested as many immigrant families, specifically their children, feeling the brunt of rigid secularism. There has been a law since 1905 that separates church and state. The original objective with this law was to regulate religion, in this specific context, symbols attached to the Christian faith; projecting an overall notion that religious beliefs were inferior thinking and a form of alienation. The historicization of this law is generally rooted in the longstanding idea that faith should be confined to the home and not public and political matters, a tactic to promote supremacy of the state and state leaders. However, it is ironic to examine that while the intention of the law was to prevent social alienation, in a contemporary context it has justified behaviors in alienating people who wish to practice their religion publicly with peace and respect. There is a growing number of Muslims within France who feel that the bannings towards religious symbols are not done on equal terms, but are vocal representations of growing islamophobia in the country and the act of adhering to rigid and exclusionary ideologies as a scapegoat. Muslims don't often fit into this cookie-cutter model of what it means to be French, with the cultural and religious liberty of Muslims entrapped by the Western European set-up of institutions, thus positing a loss of respect and empathy for majority and minority communities within France. 

What is Being Done: The Muslim Community Steps Up 

The culmination of rhetoric represented through France’s legal fixtures, coupled with Macron’s comments over the years pertaining to Islam, and Charlie Hebdo have triggered a variety of responses from Muslims. On October 16th, there was a knife attack outside a French school in which a man of Chechen origin beheaded Samuel Paty, a teacher who had shown pupils the cartoons of the Prophet in a civics lesson, justifying that the pictures were examples of freedom of speech and expression. France has had multiple incidents of displaying cartoons of the Prophet, which are considered blasphemous by Muslims. In a statement this past Tuesday, Macron paid tribute to Paty, describing him as a “quiet hero” dedicated to instilling the democratic values within young students. Members of the Muslim community in France have consistently denounced the French government’s support of these cartoons being published and shown on a number of platforms and schools, describing them as going against the precepts of their religion. The upsurge of these recent most attacks have further charged the already anti-Muslim and anti-Islam atmosphere. 

The perpetuation of anti-Muslim rhetoric has prompted  further effort onpart of the Muslims in Europe to ascertain the impeccability of their community. While there have been bolder and violent responses, the other side of the spectrum shows protests as a means to legitimize the voices of Muslims. Protests with up to 40,000 people rallied in Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka, and many other countries condemning Macron’s comments, so much as to wishing to boycott French products in their countries. Arguably, the mainstream complacency of Muslim voices was disrupted as the demand for active public visibility by them rises. The demand for equal representation and visibility in the public sphere by Muslim Europeans had brought conflicts of interest to the surface. These conflict of interests include a growing need among Muslim communities to defend themselves and the religion they practice; for others to recognize the respect every Muslim has for Prophet Muhammad, and an overarching consensus to not be looked upon as enemies of the European social fabric, but as friends, students, and neighbors; everyday citizens just like the next person. 

The Future of France: What Lies Ahead?

While there have been varied responses towards France’s position on the Charlie Hebdo cartoons to the upsurge of what is considered as a rise in Islamic radicalism in France, the path towards change must be addressed. European Muslims want to be assured that they are not marginalized, excluded or considered as second class citizens. Institutional and legal alienation must cease. In the backdrop of this, the potency of Muslim radicalism and the radical need to find social space to assert their voice will die a natural death, if the circumstances of socio-economic marginalization, dislocation, political and economic disenfranchisement are suppressed- if not entirely eliminated. There is potential to uphold a secularist ideal within France but still remain respectful of every majority and minority community. Islam remains a social capital tying up an estimated 30 million currently in Europe. Countries such as France have served as beacons of hope for Muslim refugees wanting to start new lives in their country, but as analyzed above, with a number of people who remain on a pendulum of creating a better life for themselves and their families and lingering feelings of alienation, isolation, and antagonization towards their beliefs. Muslims wish to settle permanently in Europe, with the vast majority wanting to live in peace, that European integration policies have been erratic and inconsistent and that only a tiny minority of Muslims are engaged in radical activities. The work of policymakers, then, is to figure out how to prevent these individuals from acting impulsively, on the basis of some unpredictable trigger. This can only be done if there is a motivation and sense of need to build belonging that will prevent extremists from feeling destructive. If they feel alienated from their society and feel they don’t belong there, then they can also feel that other people deserve to suffer or die, manifested through small and large scale terrorist attacks. If anything, differences should be celebrated among people, not highlighted in order to create tension and heightened polarization. The contribution to dialogue in order to cease these tensions is through education. Our generation plays a critical role in enforcing intermingling and true understanding and empathy among people in society regardless of race, gender, and religion. We need to promote the dignity and honor of those around us, to encourage interfaith dialogue, and understand others. We are all part of the larger journey to understand one another’s experiences and respect one another, but how and who we learn this from, has a great effect on our efforts. 

Cuban Connectivity: The rise of free speech in the Digital Age

The virgin telecommunications market that is Cuba, has large tech corporations such as Amazon, Google, and Apple ready to invest as soon as restrictive United States sanctions are removed for the island to enter a smaller globalized world. Freedom of speech via global internet connection would give Cuban citizens an unprecedented arena to project their grievances, and access world information. An article by Freedom House labels Cuba as one of the world’s longest ranking repressive environments for information and communication technologies. The lack of digital communication on the island has also left the Cuban people frozen in time; and although around 27 percent of the people in Cuba have access to the internet, it is often through illegal streaming sites, extremely slow service and costly fees. But, through pressures being put on the Cuban government, by human rights campaigns, and the international community- the people of Cuba are growing ever more connected and facing less internet restrictions and punishments for projecting their beliefs. Rather than having the Cuban government see the internet as a tool of coercion, they should perceive it as a tool to unify the people

New technology, has been empowering individuals, in both positive and negative ways. And over the past couple year, the Cuban government has made progress to make internet access more feasible to its citizens, although recently this has become harder to accomplish due to the Trump  administrations rollback on Cuban – U.S. foreign policy, “cancelling” plans to ease cold- war tensions with Cuba, hindering negotiations being made by the government and companies such as Google. The Trump administration has not made it easier to for U.S. companies to provide commercial telecom and internet services, as well as to export cell phones, computers, and set up joint ventures with Cuban entities.

Technological corporations should not see this new U.S. policy as an opportunity to pull their small but growing investments, but as a reason to ensure the Cuban people that their voices will continue to be heard, because as the current President Raul Castro is proposed to retire in early 2018, Foreign Affairs magazine calls for in response to these difficulties, demands from centrist activists for a greater say in future economic decisions and in the coming leadership transition. The Cuban are already demanding more from their government, from better living conditions to more WI-FI. The people’s continuous effort to surpass government internet restrictions while pushing for better internet accessibility to promote progress and social changes within the country, should encourage more technological companies to invest more resources into infrastructure development. These internet spaces that create free speech promote movements can be important vehicles for social and political change, and have the potential to transform the systems of institutionalized politics in which they occur. Social movements can give us an insight into human action and why people voluntarily cooperate, mobilize and could have potential positive implications in the spread of democracy, or regime change.

A younger Cuban generation is hoping to emphasize the importance of internet connection for all, a “promise” their government is working to achieve for all its citizens by the year 2020, announcing plans to expand broadband access to 80 percent of business entities (private and state-owned), 95 percent of educational and health centers, and 50 percent of households by 2020. This level of connectivity would require significant investments in infrastructure, and with new regulations being rolled out by the Trump administration, unless the Cuban government supports heavy investing in their technological industries, change could take years longer than hoped for by the international community and the Cuban people.  

Cubans, have become much more aware of the power the internet possesses through projecting social justice projects to address their poor living condition, and shrinking gross domestic domestic through the closures of small businesses on the island. The internet is critical tool to advocate for government reform, and although the government believed that limiting access was for the safety and betterment of their people, it in fact, only hinders the progress the country is making toward government and economic reform.

The government has begun to take notice, of the positive possibilities that come from joining an interconnected world and has even increased education funding to computer software and computer sciences industries. Cuban universities have begun expanding their technology science curriculums, making it possible for grassroots efforts to provide more multimedia accessibility to the island. From these investments, emerges a generation of highly skilled graduates whose technical and abilities known as the “knowledge economy”, often go underdeveloped due to the lack of resources and support from the international community. In order to unlock the “knowledge economy”, the international community should aid in the WiFi revolution, by ending technological barriers between Cuba and its trading partners.

German Sociologist, Lorenz von Stein, introduced the term ‘social movement’ into scholarly discourse in the 1950’s. It conveyed the idea of a continuous, unitary process by which the whole working class gained awareness and power. Luckily, at the touch of a button, the Cuban working class is beginning to feel that power, along with the pressures and luxuries that come with internet exposure. While becoming more aware of how other people live and talking about their experiences to people all over the world, feeling that they are finally being given the chance to speak up and express their grievances and the actions other countries should be taking in order to facilitate a smooth transition of power from a communist regime to a more democratically based one.

Before the Obama administration began to normalize relations with Cuba, there was already an interconnected underground system that aimed to provide an alternative internet broadband. There is an entire informal job sector network growing out of these grassroots internet distributors working to provide affordable online streaming services to the people of Cuba. American corporations such as Netflix are beginning to stream to the island, but at 8 dollars a months, it is unaffordable to a majority of citizens that work at a wage between 20 and 60 dollars a month. More needs to be done by the government to support these efforts to secure the economic future of its small business and technological informal sector.

Weak infrastructure and innovation-stifling corruption are just some of the obstacles technological companies have been facing. Investing in telecommunications towers, and creeping away from government run-wifi would be a huge step in providing accessible internet. Since 2008, when the Cuban government lifted an almost total ban on the World Wide Web, there has been a skyrocketing number of Cubans beginning to engage in internet consumption. While Cuba remains one of the world’s least connected societies, ordinary citizens’ access to the internet has exploded since 2015 due to the government’s opening of over 200 public WiFi spots in parks and street corners all over the country. With an increasing number of WiFi hotspots becoming available to the public, spending the day outside scrolling through phones is becoming a daily routine for a younger Cuban generation. We are not only seeing WiFi being provided in hotel lobbies, and internet cafe’s; today’s WiFi availability in public spaces is creating a new type of socialization among the people.When most Americans think of internet consumption they picture a recluse teenager sitting, spending the entire day inside; but in Cuba, where internet at home is a rare luxury, many people have to go outside to public spaces to get connected.

Social movements are caused changes in organizational structures such as economic, institutional and social contexts of a country occur. In this context by growing the country’s access to social media,these changes in structural conditions make movements more likely. Social movements are not created by a single variable but rather by a set of variables that create an interaction effect, but successful movements are about mobilizing people for action and when they can persuade a significant amount of people that their cause is relevant and significant to the society’s betterment.

People in parks now sharing with each other what they find on the internet and holding discussions about what they are missing out on is just a stepping stone in the reform the Cuban people are hoping to achieve.  The internet being used as a tool for mobilization is giving their cause more attention and deeply worrying communist supporters who are wary about the impact it would have on the future of their party and political life on the island.  Discovering new ways to mass organize is just as essential for the occurrence of social movements as the grievances that would intrigue the people to organize in the first place, and social media is just one of the many websites giving voices to those people who would have not had one. By having ordinary people challenge the status quo and expressing their grievances in public spaces, potentially could lead to a new social movement. This is a step up from the extremely slow internet connection, and government run websites where most of the material posted was censored, and privacy rights violated.

Improving the ability of Cubans to the connect with the rest of the world will help foster economic growth and improve human rights on the island.

By being able to engage in discussions on relevant issues facing the community in open spaces with others listening,could one day lead to a new type of government for and by the people. Freedom of expression in internet communities could potentially lead a younger more exposed generation to radicalize through exposure to centrist, capitalist policies. This new type WiFi revolution would open the people of Cuba to unlimited reproduction and instantaneous distribution of digitized intellectual property of any kind worldwide virtually without cost.

The Cuban people do not want their growing right taken away, nor do they want to abuse their newly found power. Pressuring government authorities to facilitate talks with representatives from companies such as Google and Amazon to build partnerships and secure the economic future of small businesses, would open the door to new economic endeavors and allow declining industries that have been hindered by slow or no internet connection to prospers on the island.It may take some time to see some government reforms in Cuba by the people, but the eagerness and willingness by the people is there, they just need a better outlet to form a platform and united coalition.

Charles Tilly, who also defined social movements as a series of contentious performances, displays and campaigns by which ordinary people make collective claims on others, would agree when I say, that in a competitive world; in order to succeed we must be capable of handling technology in an appropriate matter, to express those opinions that matter the most to us, in order to catch up to other leading global players and not stay trapped in the 1950’s as Cuba once was.

To Salute or to Burn: The Battle Over Flag Desecration did not End with Texas v. Johnson

“You are a fucking scumbag traitor piece of fucking trash.” In Missouri Donald Trump supporters shout at flag stomping Anti-Trump protesters. Violence erupts as more than 200 people take part in a standoff at the very same Trump rally. Another rally in Wisconsin includes members of the “Fuck Your Flag Tour” protesting against racial discrimination while stomping on an American flag.

Flag desecration and in particular flag burning is not a new controversy. While the act o flag desecration has been declared legal and a legitimate form of free speech by the United States Supreme Court; controversy and emotions are building over the issue again. The views of our potential candidates on this sensitive issue may be worthy of more discussion given the huge impact on our society another era division over this issue would cause.

History

In 1984 a man named Gregory Lee Johnson protested the policies of Ronald Reagan by burning an American flag outside of the Republican National Convention in Dallas. His conviction for the act was brought to the Supreme Court. Here in Texas v. Johnson (491 U.S. 397), the Court decided that “flag burning constitutes a form of ‘symbolic speech’ that is protected by the First Amendment.” The ruling was the first to protect flag desecration based on the freedom of speech. Writing for the dissent Justice Stevens argued that the government had a state interest in limiting the right to desecrate the flag due to the flag’s unique status in the United States.

When congress tried to circumvent the Johnson ruling with the passage of the Flag Protection Act the decision was upheld in United States v. Eichman (496 U.S. 310). After this ruling there were various attempted to work around the ruling by congressional statute and state laws, there were also attempts to overrule the ruling through a constitutional amendment.

Current Presidential Candidates

The most recent political battle over this issue was in 2005 and 2006 with a flag desecration bill (in 2005) and constitutional amendment (in 2006) introduced in Congress. The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was cosponsored by Hilary Clinton. This piece of legislation was different from past bills in that it sought to punish flag desecration if it were to incite violence. The New York Times equates the bill with, “attempt[ing] to equate flag-burning with cross-burning, which the Supreme Court, in a sensible and carefully considered 2003 decision, said could be prosecuted under certain circumstances as a violation of civil rights law.  A middle ground between those who want to keep flag desecration legalized and those who wish to completely forbid it under all circumstances regardless of consequences or content. Both Democratic candidates, Sanders and Clinton voted no on the 2006 Amendment due to its lack of clarity and broad nature. However, Clinton did endorse a counter measure similar to her 2005 bill to replace the 2006 Amendment.

Relevance

With flag desecration issues and events popping up more frequently in this present election the votes of the past could become more relevant than the candidates would believe. Donald Trump has stated that he believes that flag desecration should be illegal and events at his rallies have shown that violence can result when people on opposite ends of this spectrum confront each other. The candidates may need to confront this issue head on at some point in the future.

The most dangerous part of this issue aside from the violence is the near 50/50 divide among the public. A Gallup poll asked for the public’s opinion on the issue in 2006 while the Flag Desecration Amendment was being discussed. The poll asked two questions, one that gave some information about the issue and the other that was more specific, the polls fluctuated the majority on each side of the issue but still hovered around 50/50. With the public so sharply divided on the issue any conflict resulting from it would be hard to resolve. Even more difficult would be to amend the constitution in favor of those rallying against flag desecration.

This particular election has seen an unusual degree of polarization. American’s have seen what they perceive to be their own American values questioned. The foundation of the system of our democracy and electoral system has been questioned by Trump through criticisms of the nomination process. Sanders has brought an economic ideology to the table that many Americans are uncomfortable with in the form of Democratic Socialism. Donald Trump has also touched nerves with his comments on race, women, and immigration. These clashes of values are extremely volatile. The question of flag desecration is even more toxic in this environment as America is redefining its image. The American flag does not stand for the same principles for everyone anymore and these polarizing points of view of America make this a nasty time for such a dangerous discussion.