Blog Post #9: Ethics, Advertising and Thank You for Smoking

 When I initially watched Thank You for Smoking I was surprised how funny it actually was, I expected it to be a more serious movie or even a documentary about the tobacco industry. Though I did audibly laugh at a lot of the scenes, it made me realize that some careers can actually “force” people to question their own morals. At what point does one actually support the product they are promoting, and at what points are you just doing it for the benefits? That thought really stuck with me after the movie had ended.  

Shockingly, I actually think I could do Nick Naylor’s job because I find the tactics used in advertising and persuasion extremely interesting. I liked watching how quick Naylor was when he was put on the spot and would convince people to see his point of view. But that being said, I think the product I am representing would make a massive difference. If I were promoting something like cigarettes, I would be constantly questioning my morals and whether I actually believed in what I was selling. Doing Nick Naylor’s job would make me wonder if I was supporting the product because I actually believed in it or if I was “just doing it for the mortgage”. While a high salary would be tempting, I would not let it cloud my judgement or make me question my morals.  

One part of the movie that really stood out to me was the reporter's desperate determination to expose the tobacco industry’s efforts to hide the dangers of smoking. I think she was right in the sense of investigating the issue because the public does deserve honesty but I do think the way she went about getting the information was extremely inappropriate and not professional. I think it is important for journalists to get information ethically and in a professional manner, all while still keeping their credibility. 

On top of that I would not support editing classic movies to remove cigarettes after they have already been produced. I think the beauty in film is that you can see history unfold and advance over time, changing historic films defeats the purpose and it alters the original work. Instead of trying to erase the past, I think we should be educating views about the historic context and the health consequences of smoking. We can’t just pretend smoking was not a major part of society, and still is in certain parts of the world.

Thank You for Smoking made me truly think about whether the government should ban advertising for explicit products. I understand why many people support restrictions but I don’t believe the government should ban advertising for explicit products, it would take away the whole point of the first amendment. The first amendment protects many different forms of commercial speech, though the government can regulate advertising that is misleading in regards to products that are harmful. I do think we could regulate those types of advertisements towards minors, but I do think adults should still be able to get truthful information and make their own decisions based on those advertisements and other resources. 

Lastly, all of this talk about vice advertising made me think about energy drinks. While they are completely legal to sell and advertise, many companies market them as something hat will improve performance and boost energy. I don’t think there is anything necessarily wrong with adults choosing to drink them but I do question how companies deliberately direct their advertisements towards teenagers. The Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports between 30% and 50% of teens consume energy drinks, even though the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that they should not consume energy drinks due to the potential health risks that are associated with high caffeine intake. This is another example of something that is completely legal to advertise but still may raise an ethical concern. Companies have the right to market their products, but I do believe they have the responsibility to consider who they are directing their advertisements to and how it may influence that population. 

Overall, Thank You for Smoking showed me that there is typically a gap between what is legal and morally right. The move made me think way beyond the law and consider what are ethical responsibilities of advertisers and marketers. Because I plan on pursuing a career in law, I want to make decisions that follow the law but also reflect honesty, integrity and concern for the public's well being. 

Sources:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025, September 22). Energy drinks https://www.cdc.gov/school-nutrition/energy-drinks/index.html

Gill, L. L. (2026, March 26). Caffeine levels in energy drinks are risky for teens. Consumer Reports. https://www.consumerreports.org/health/beverages/caffeine-in-energy-drinks-risky-teens-a2915223215/

Blog Post #8: Reflecting on Frontline: In the Age of A.I

Watching Frontline: In the Age of AI totally changed the way I think about artificial intelligence and machine learning. Prior to watching the documentary, I mainly saw AI as something that powers ChatGPT and other chatbots, something that creates algorithms and can create images and videos. After watching the documentary, I realized that artificial intelligence is constantly evolving every aspect of society, including healthcare, transportation, national security, the economy and even democracy. While AI does offer amazing opportunities, it also opens the door to serious ethical and social challenges that may be unavoidable. 

One of the biggest takeaways for me was the enormous potential AI has to improve peoples lives. The documentary showed how machine learning can actually detect diseases such as breast cancer earlier than doctors and the current precautions. AI might be able to analyze thousands of medical images and identify patterns all at once that us humans may miss. Which made me think about Neuralink which is a neurotechnology company that was founded by Elon Musk that created an implantable brain computer. Their main piece of technology is called Telepathy that is implanted into the skull to translate brain signals into digital actions, allowing people who have severe physical disabilities to control computers or mobile devices whilst only using their thoughts. Which in both instances is extremely interesting. AI is also making transportation safer through self driving cars which has the potential to decrease accidents caused by human error. Though I don't necessarily love the idea of self driving cars, I do think it could be helpful in the long run. I was very surprised by how fast AI has advanced and how many industries are starting to rely on it to solve complex problems. 

Along with that, the documentary emphasized a few concerns that I found alarming. One of the biggest issue is privacy. Currently many companies already collect a large amount of personal data, many of the times without us even realizing. The documentary explained that companies will use the data they collect in order to predict our behavior, personalize content and influence our belief systems. While personalized resources can make everyday life easier, it also raises a major concern about how much control we as individuals have over our personal information. Which that made me truly think more meticulously about what app I use and the websites I view and how much personal information I am intentionally sharing. 

The documentary also talked about national security, specifically the increasing competition between the United States and China to become the front runner in artificial intelligence. This shocked me because I had not considered AI to be a geopolitical issue. Both countries acknowledge AI to have the potential to aid military's, grow the economy and grow technology. However the documentary showed how AI powered surveillance systems like facial recognition can impede on our personal freedom when they are used without careful management. While AI can improve public safety,  it also has the potential to infringe privacy and limit civil liberties. 

One last issue that truly stood out to me was identity theft. AI systems rely on major amounts of personal data, hackers or cyber criminals have more of an opportunity to steal personal information. AI is constantly being used to create scams and phishing emails so convincing you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between real and fake. As AI continues to be integrated into our society it is extremely important for individuals to have strong security over their information, and educate society on how to protect their information. 

Though we have touched on major issues that AI could bring, one of my biggest concerns about artificial intelligence is the possibility of AI becoming sentient. Sylvain Lavelle explains that artificial sentience would essentially allow AI technology to mimic human emotions, experiences and even the possibility of consciousness. However, the article demonstrates that human actions are driven by intentionality, real intentions, desires and beliefs and even if AI starts to act like a person, it doesn't fully have those qualities.  Even with that information, I can't help but think about the movie Ex Machina, in which an AI robot created by a tech CEO becomes so convincing and manipulative that it is almost impossible to tell the difference between human and technology. As AI continues to advance, the possibility of technology appearing as human is extremely horrifying. 

Overall, Frontline: In the Age of AI showed me that AI is not fully good or entirely bad. Like most advances in technology, it purpose is based on how we decide to use it. AI does have the potential to revolutionize so many aspects of society, but as it continues to be integrated into our everyday lives society as a whole needs to be responsible with this technology and we need to protect our own rights and ensure that AI benefits everyone and not just a select few. 

Source 

The machine with a human face: From artificial intelligence to artificial sentience - PMC. (n.d.-d). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7225510/ 

Blog #7: Why we Believe, Repeat and Stay Silent: Three Powerful Theories that Shape our World

Everyday we are encompassed by information from television, the news, websites, social media, etc. We typically think we make decisions based on known facts and logic but psychology and communication research suggests that our thoughts are swayed in way that we as people don't always notice. Confirmation Bias, the Illusory Truth Effect and the Spiral of Silence, can all help explain as to why our thoughts and opinions are affected by outside forces rather than just facts. Together these concepts shows how opinions are truly formed and why misinformation is easily spread while also explaining why some people choose not to exploit their opinions despite their differing opinions than majority. 

Confirmation Bias is our tendency to search for, interpret and remember information that confirms preexisting beliefs while ignoring disputing evidence.  Recent research suggests that this bias is not solely limited to how people understand information but also influences the information they actively choose to learn about Kaanders et al. (2022) found that people inherently spend more time looking for information that supports preexisting beliefs, especially when a person is extremely confident in their decision or opinion. This natural likelihood makes people more likely to stand by their original beliefs, even when contradictory evidence is presented. While confirmation bias can clarify decision making, it can also strengthen stereotypes, political polarization and the spread of misinformation. In todays environment, confirmation bias can influence the news sources people follow, the social media posts people interact with and the recommended content as well. As people continue to absorb information that aligns with their beliefs, they become less likely to come across information that differs, which then leads to misinformation, political polarization and misunderstands to happen more often. Recognizing confirmation bias is so important because understanding and evaluating information from a variety of sources helps people become more informed and educated on important topics. (Kaanders et al., 2022) 

Another very powerful theory is the illusory truth effect, which is a psychological phenomenon where people are more likely to believe a statement is true just because it has been repeated to them over and over again. Hassan and Barber (2021) explains that people will believe a statement just because they have encountered the same statement multiple times even if there is little to no evidence that actually supports the statement. Their research found that repeated exposure increases the perceived truthfulness of information, with the largest increase occuring after the second exposure to the information provided. This
happens because repeated information becomes easier for the brain to process, causing familiarity to be mistaken for accuracy (Hassan & Barber, 2021). Today, we still this every where on social media, where headlines, viral videos and trending post are shared over and over again across different platforms. For example, for years that was a claim that Area 51 was secretly housing or studying aliens, when in reality it is military base used for the development and testing of experimental aircraft, advanced stealth technology and top secret defense systems ... NOT aliens. Because this theory being repeated for decades in TV shows, online forums, videos and social media posts people began to assume that Area 51 was something entirely different. While repetition can be helpful when it comes to promoting public safety or educational messages, it can also lead to the spread of misinformation, conspiracy theories and fake news. In todays society of modernized technology, information spreads like wildfire, understanding the illusory truth effect is important for evaluating information with a closer eye and avoiding the spread of false news (Hassan & Barber, 2021). 

The spiral of silence explains why people tend to choose not to express their own opinions when they think their opinions do not align with the vast majority. According to the theory, people have a natural fear of social isolation, which causes them to pay attention to the opinions and reactions to the people around them. When people think their views are unpopular they may avoid speaking up in order to avoid
criticism, rejection or disapproval. On the other hand, those who think their beliefs are popular will often express them openly and confidently. As more people choose to stay silent, the dominant or popular opinion appears a lot more, creating a cycle in which one viewpoint becomes louder while differing perspectives becomes more silent. This process can sway how public opinion is formed, even if the popular view is not actually supported by the majority (Petersen, 2026). 

These three theories influence many different groups of people in different ways. My generation, Gen Z has grown up with social media and instant access to information, making us very vulnerable to confirmation bias and the illusory effect. Social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram uses algorithms that recommend content that is similar to what we have viewed or interacted with, which reinforces our existing opinions and exposing us to repeated information that might actually be incorrect. Older generation can still experience these effect but through a different source of media for example TV, online news or facebook. Other groups like minority groups or people with unpopular views may be affect by the spiral of silence because they might fear rejection or confrontation about their opinions. Regardless of age, gender or background these psychological phenomenons have the potential to influence everyone equally. 

Sources 

Humans actively sample evidence to support prior beliefs - PMC. (n.d.). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9038198/ 

Spiral of silence | social psychology, Communication & Group Dynamics | Britannica. (n.d.-b). https://www.britannica.com/topic/spiral-of-silence 

‌The effects of repetition frequency on the illusory truth effect - PMC. (n.d.-b). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8116821/ 

Blog Post #6: The Importance of Dissent and the Marketplace of Ideas

One of the major themes from this weeks material was the significance of dissent during times of war.

During World War I, many United States citizens who opposed the war were punished just for expressing their opinions about the war. The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 were instated so it could be used to prosecute antiwar activists, socialist and communist who opposed the U.S. involvement in the war. The Quartet of Cases in 1919, people such as Charles Schenck, Eugene Debs, Jacob Abrams and Jacob Frohwerk were all punished for expressing antiwar views. These four cases are a demonstration on how limited First Amendment protections were during this period and how the government viewed antiwar speech as a threat rather than protected political expression. 

The Schenck case was an extremely important case because the court held that the Espionage act did not violate the first amendment and it was an appropriate exercise of Congress' wartime authority. That being said it was the first that the "clear and present danger test" was articulated. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that the First Amendment does not protect speech that approaches creating a clear and present

danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent. However, the Abrams case also became a monumental First Amendment case because Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the famous dissent that defended the freedom of speech. Holmes states that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market" (Abrams v. United States, 1919). This famous dissent presented the new idea of the Marketplace of Ideas, which proposed that society benefits when all viewpoints, opposing or similar can compete openly and the strongest ideas will prevail. According to the Free Speech Center , the Marketplace of Ideas continues to be "one of the most influential theories supporting freedom of speech" because it supports open debate rather than government censorship. 

After exploring Antiwar.com and The American Conservative, I noticed that both websites provide different perspectives on war and foreign policy, that vary from what is shown in mainstream media. Prior to this assignment, I have never even thought to visit either of these websites. Antiwar.com depicts itself as being "devoted to the cause of non interventionism" (Antiwar.com)  After reading a few articles from both sites I realized that strong antiwar or antipolicy viewpoints are very strong today, but they recieve a lot less of attention than perspectives that support military intervention. 

I believe one reason antiwar voices can be hard to find is because major news companies report on government officials, military leaders, and political experts as sources when they cover international conflicts. This can inherently results in more attention being given to the governments view rather than the opposed. Besides, social media algorithms and news organizations will typically promote stories that
create the most engagement which then makes it hard to see opposing viewpoints. Antiwar perspectives are not purposefully being silence, but because of mainstream media and what is reported it is a lot less common to see the opposing viewpoint, meaning people have to actively seek them out rather than encountering it through the media. 

The history of the Progressive Era demonstrates why protecting dissent is extremely important. Many Antiwar activists during World War I were punished for expressing opposing opinions, when today those opinions would receive strong constitutional protection. Cases that took place later in history like Gitlow v. New York expanded the First Amendments safeguards to include incorporation, which meant that the court incorporates all parts of the bill of rights into the word liberty int he due process clauses in order to reach down to the state and local level, which was a major step in expanding our First Amendment rights. Near v. Minnesota established that any prior restrains are considered almost always unconstitutional, and only involved 3 exceptions. Together, these two court cases helped create what we know as the modern First Amendment which strengthened the protections for unpopular or opposing speech.  

The main idea that I got from this weeks material was that democracy relies on allowing people to challenge government policies and opinions especially during times of conflict. Whether someone supports or opposes military involvement the First Amendment protects their rights to express those opinions. The Marketplace of Ideas is a reminder that unpopulae opinions shouldn't be silenced just because they are controversial and not the mainstream voice. Instead, they should be allowed to compete openly in public debate, allowing us to evaluate different views and make informed decisions for ourselves. 

Sources

    Abrams v. United States | Constitution Center. (2022). National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.org. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/abrams-v-united-states

On Liberty. (n.d.). The Free Speech Center. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/on-liberty/

‌‌Who we Are - Antiwar.com. (2026). Antiwar.com. https://www.antiwar.com/who.php

Blog Post #5: Privacy in the Digital Age: Balancing Innovation and Personal Freedom

Prior to watching the TED Talks posted for this weeks post, I mainly though privacy concerns involved social media companies collecting our data, and advertisers tracking our online behavior. However, the TED Talks by Nita Farahany, Cathrine Crump, Christopher Soghoian, and Juan Enriquez made me understand that privacy violations can be much broader than only social media activity. All of these TED Talks are aimed at drawing public attention to the dangers associated with violations of our privacy, which occur as a result of government policies, corporate actions and even our own use of the internet. 

One of the most eye opening talks was Nita Farahany's discussion on brain privacy. She explains that advances in neuroscience and artificial intelligence are making it possible to collect information directly

from the human brain using devices like EEG headsets.  Although the ability to use this technology can be useful for people as it helps them to monitor their state of heath and provides additional services, such as communication between disabled people or assistance with certain daily tasks. But, Farahany warns that they also create the possibility of governments, employers, or corporations gaining access to our thoughts, emotions and mental states. She argues that society may need a new right called "cognitive liberty" to protect our individual freedom of though and mental privacy. What disturbed me most was her warning that we may willingly give up access to our brain data in exchange for convenience, discounts, or workplace benefits. The idea that technology could someday reveal what we think before we choose to share it feels like a direct threat to personal freedom. 

Catherine Crump's TED Talk focused on another side of the privacy debate: government surveillance. Prior to watching her presentation, I had no idea of the amount of location data that is collected through technologies. Crump states that systems like Automatic License Plate Readers as well as other types of systems are recording the movements of ordinary people like myself, often storing information about where we drive, when we travel, and who we might be with. Crump points out that this type of information is extremely personal, and can reveal things about our every day lives. What makes this especially alarming is that much of this data is collected from people who have done nothing wrong to provoke this type of surveillance. Her presentation made me realize how easily our phones can turn every day activities into a permanent record that can be stored and analyzed for years. 

The TED Talk by Juan Enriquez approached privacy from a different perspective. Rather than focusing on government monitoring, he discussed how our own online behavior creates what he calls a "digital tattoo." Unlike a temporary mistake that might once have been forgotten, comments, photos, videos and social media posts can remain online forever. Enriquez argues that many people, especially younger generations, do not fully understand the long term consequences of what they post online. His message made me think about how quickly a single post can shape someone's reputation. Even if society becomes more accepting over time, digital content can spread far beyond its original audience and remain accessible for years.

Finally, Christopher Soghoian's TED Talk highlighted the importance of encryption and secure communication. He explains that modern communication networks are built with surveillance abilities in mind and argues that strong encryption is very important for protecting ordinary people from governments, hackers, criminals, ETC. One of the more intriguing points he makes is that there is no such thing as a "terrorist phone" or a "criminal laptop." The same exact technologies used by ordinary people are still used by everyone else including criminals, also making it clear that weaknesses built into communication systems can affect everyone. His presentation strengthened the idea that privacy and security are close knit. 

These issues affect me, my family and my friends because we rely on technology every day. We communicate daily through text messages, social media, navigate with GPS, shop online, and store personal information such as health data digitally. Most of all, we don't even stop to think about where any of this information is going and who may have access to it. The TED Talks made me realize that privacy is no longer just about protecting our personal information. It is also about protecting our movements, our communications, our reputations and potentially our thoughts. 

I believe our government should establish stronger privacy protection that keep up with the technological advancements. Companies should be required to clearly state and explain how they collect and use our data, as well as we should have more control over our personal information. At the same time, law enforcement and government agencies should be required to prevent the misuse of surveillance technologies. New types of technology shouldn't just be accepted just because they are available, society as a whole should consider how the misuse of technology affects individual rights and freedoms. 

There are also steps we can take ourselves. We can use stronger passwords, enable two factor authentications, review privacy settings, think carefully before posting online, and take advantage of encrypted communication tools. Most importantly, we need to stay informed. Privacy is no longer something that can be taken for granted in the digital age. 

After watching these TED Talks, I came away with a new understand of how fragile privacy has become. Whether it is governments tracking our movements, companies collecting our data, social media preserving our mistakes, or technology that may someday decode our thoughts, the threats to privacy are growing. The challenge for our generation will be finding a way to embrace technological innovation while protecting the freedoms and personal autonomy that makes privacy worth defending in the first place. 

Blog Post #4: Can a Machine Detect a Lie? The History, Impact and Controversy of the Polygraph

When most people hear the word "polygraph", the first thing that comes into mind are mostly related to crime shows, murder cases, or any other television show where a person is asked, "did you do it?" While the polygraph is typically known to the public as a "lie detector," its history and how it came to be the modern technology it is today is a lot more complex than most individuals realize. In fact, the polygraph was not originally invented to help aid in criminal cases. Over the past century, the polygraph has influenced criminal investigations, government employment, and public perceptions of truth. While also sparking continuous debates about science, privacy and ethics.  

From Medical Device to Lie Detector 

One of the most surprising facts I learned during my research is that the polygraph began as a medical device rather than a tool for criminal investigations. According to Theodora Burbank in The Origins of the Polygraph, "the original polygraph machine had nothing to do with lies and criminal investigation: it was actually a medical device" (Burbank, 2020). Scottish physician Dr. James Mackenzie developed the first ink-writing polygraph in the 1892 to monitor patients' heartbeats and study irregular heart rhythms. 

Mackenzie's invention used rubber tambour attached to a patients neck and wrist to record pulse patterns onto paper. At a time when physicians lacked effective methods for tracking heart activity, this technology represented an important breakthrough in medicine. Although the machine was eventually replaced by the electrocardiogram (EKG), its basic concept of recording physiological responses would later become the foundation for the modern polygraph. 

Later in 1895 Cesare Lombroso used the scientific instrument to measure physiological response. Lombroso modified an existing instrument called a hydrophygmograph and used it to measure physiological changes in the blood pressure and pulse of a suspect questioned by police. After Lombroso came William Moulton Marston, an American lawyer and psychologist credited with the invention of a basic form of the lie detector in 1915. Dr. Marston used a standard blood pressure cuff and a stethoscope to take intermittent readings of the systolic blood pressure of a subject during an interview to determine deception. 

The modern polygraph emerged in 1921 when John A. Larson, a Canadian psychologist working for the Berkeley Police Department built which many people consider the "original" lie detector. A device that measured several physiological responses at the same time. Using this polygraph Larson was the first person to measure and record continuously and at the same time the heart rate, blood pressure and respiratory changes of a person during interrogation. In 1939, Leonarde Keller patented what was considered the prototype of the modern polygraph (the Keeler Polygraph). Today Leonarde Keeler is known to be the father of the polygraph. 

Finally in 1993, the official entry of the polygraph into the modern age of technology happened when statisticians at John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Maryland completed a software called Polyscore, which used a mathematical algorithm to analyze the polygraph data in order to estimate the probability level of lying or sincerity of a subject. This advancement helped standardize
the interpretation of polygraph results, reducing some of the subjectivity involved in human analysis and paving the way for the computerized polygraph systems that are commonly used today. 

How Does a Polygraph Work Today?

Opposite to popular belief, a polygraph doesn't actually detect lies. Alternatively, it measures physical responses that are linked to stress or anxiety. According to Jenifer González of the Law Library of Congress, "The modern polygraph records multiple physical measures simultaneously: respiration, heart rate, blood pressure, and sweat gland activity" (González, 2022).

A modern polygraph examination generally follows three stages: 

Step 1: Pre-Test Interview 

The examiner starts by explaining the process and reviewing the questions, which then establishes a baseline for the individuals physiological responses.

Step 2: Polygraph Examination 

The examinee is connected to sensors that monitor breathing, blood pressure, heart rate, and perspiration while answering a series of questions. These questions often include relevant questions, comparison questions, and neutral questions. 

Step 3: Analysis and Post-Test Interview 

The examiner reviews the physiological data and looks for significant reactions to particular questions. If unusual responses are detected, the examiner may conduct a follow-up interview.  

Today, polygraphs are commonly used by federal agencies such as the FBI, CIA, and NSA during employment screening and security clearance investigations. González notes that "the FBI require all applicants to pass a polygraph exam as part of the employment process" (González, 2022). While the results are often used as investigative tools, they are rarely considered conclusive evidence 

How the Polygraph Changed Communication 

With its creation, the polygraph revolutionized communication by showing how technology can measure honesty and reliability. Prior to the polygraph, investigators depended primarily upon verbal statements, witness testimony, and confessions. The design of this new device gave way to additional forms of communication based on the honesty and reliability of individuals through the use of physiological data instead of spoken or written expression alone. 

The device also influenced how society views honesty. Many people began believing that machines could determine truth more accurately than humans. This perception helped make the polygraph a powerful psychological tool. In some cases, suspects confess before the examination even begins because they believe that machine will expose deception. 

The polygraph's influence extends beyond law enforcement. It become a fixture in television, movies, talk shows, and true crime programs. Even people with little knowledge of criminal justice recognize the phrase "lie detector test." Through popular culture, the polygraph helped shape public beliefs about truth, deception, and trust 

The Controversy Surrounding Polygraphs 

Despite their popularity, polygraphs remain highly controversial. One major issue is that they do not actually detect lies, they detect physiological reactions. A person may show signs of stress because they are nervous, frightened, embarrassed, or simply uncomfortable being questions. Likewise, a deceptive person may remain calm and produce few noticeable physiological changes. 

This debate has existed almost since the invention of the machine. In Frye v. United States (1923), one of the first major court cases involving the polygraph, the court ruled that the technology had not gained sufficient scientific acceptance to be admitted as evidence. Nearly a century later, courts remain skeptical. 

In United States v. Scheffer (1998), Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that "to this day, the scientific community remains extremely polarized about the reliability of polygraph techniques" (González, 2022). Because of this uneasiness, many courts either prohibit polygraph evidence or allow it only under very limited circumstances. 

Researchers John Synnott, David Dietzel, and Maria Loannou also found that while polygraph often perform better than chance, they are far from perfect. Their research suggests that polygraph examinations may be useful investigative tools but should not be viewed as definitive proof of truth or deception. 

Why the Polygraph Still Matters

More than 100 years after its invention, the polygraph remains one of the most recognizable communication technologies in the world. What began as a device for studying heart rhythms evolved into a tool used by law enforcement agencies, intelligence organizations, and employers. It changed the way investigators gather information, influenced government security practices, and shaped public perceptions of honesty. 

At the same time, the polygraph raises important questions about privacy, scientific reliability, and the role of technology in determining credibility. Should an employer or government agency be able to determine an individuals honesty using objective data from a device? Is it even possible for a device to determine whether someone is telling the truth? While the answers to these questions may be impossible to know for certain, the history of the polygraph demonstrates how communication technologies can significantly shape both communication and society. Even though the machine may not always be able to "detect lies" the way the polygraph has influenced law enforcement, public trust and modern communication is undeniable. 

Sources 

Burbank, T. (2020). The Origins of the Polygraph. Warren Anatomical Museum. https://countway.harvard.edu/news/origins-polygraph 

González, J. (2022). To Tell the Truth: A Short History of the Polygraph. Law Library of Congress https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2022/11/to-tell-the-truth-a-short-history-of-the-polygraph/ 

Kelley Polygraphe | Brief History of the Polygraph. (n.d.) http://www.kellypolygraphe.com/polygraph-history.php

Synnott, J., Dietzel, D., & Loannou, M. (2015). A Review of the Polygraph: History, Methodology and Current Status. Crime Psychology Review. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23744006.2015.1060080#d1e451

Blog Post #3: Why Free Expression Matters

When most people think about the First Amendment, they think about the right to speak freely or criticise the government. Freedom of expression is important, but in studying the Eight Values of Free Expression, I saw it has a larger meaning in American society. The value that resonated most with me was Individual Self-Fulfillment, although I also found strong connections to the Marketplace of Ideas and Protect Dissent. These theories help to explain why free expression is so important in our everyday lives, particularly in a world of social media and digital communication. 

C. Edwin Baker's theory of Individual Self-Fulfillment argues that freedom of expression allows individuals to grow into their identities, express their beliefs, and exercise personal autonomy. Of all the theories, this one is most personal for me. As a college student, I am constantly learning more about who I am, what I believe, and what I want to do in the future. Whether it is pursuing a Criminal Justice degree on the Pre-Law track, studying Italian culture and language, participating in organizations on campus, or expressing myself through my interest in the arts, I am using free expression to shape my identity. 

Social media is one of the best modern examples of Individual Self-Fulfillment. According to the Pew Research Center, social media has become one of the primary ways people consume news and engage with public discussions. TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube have allowed millions of people to make their creativity, opinions, talents, and experiences visible and be shared with others. Though social media has its drawbacks, it also allows us to connect with people with shared interests.  As someone who enjoys following true crime cases, legal issues, and the arts as a whole, I have been able to connect with creators who discuss all of these interests in ways that make complex topics more accessible and easy to understand. Through these discussions, people are not only sharing information but also expressing who they are and what matters to them. 

Another value that I find important is the Marketplace of Ideas, first proposed by John Milton in Aeropagitica. Milton believed that truth emerges when different ideas compete freely in public debate. This theory is valid today because we are constantly hearing different points of view online. Whether one is discussing politics, criminal justice reform, court decisions, or even current events, the ability to hear and understand perspectives other than our own allows individuals to assess evidence given and form our own ideas. Although misinformation can sometimes spread online, I do still believe that society benefits from an open discussion rather than allowing a very small group of people to decide what everyone else is allowed to see or hear. 

The importance of protecting open discussion can be seen in ongoing conversations surrounding freedom of expression in the media. The First Amendment Encyclopedia demonstrates that the Marketplace of Ideas remains one of the most influential justifications for protecting speech because it inspires American citizens to actively engage with varying viewpoints rather than just accepting information at face value.  In a way, the Marketplace of Ideas theory wants us to think critically instead of allowing other people to think for us.

This idea carefully connects to what we have discussed in class pertaining to the role of the press and freedom of speech when it comes to holding institutions accountable. As someone whose interests lie in law,  I believe Protecting Dissent is extremely important because it encourages people to question authority and advocate for the things they believe are right. One example is the Innocence Project, which uses advocacy, public awareness movements, and legal action to reveal wrongful convictions and flaws within the criminal justice system. Without the freedom to defy government decisions and publicly criticise institutions, many wrongdoings would remain hidden. 

Current events also highlight how these theories continue to come into play today. Debates about content restrictions on social media platforms raise important questions about being able to balance free expression with concerns about wrong information and toxic content. The New York Times regularly covers these debates and the issues they present for a democratic society.  These debates highlight the continuous tension between protecting speech and protecting society. Despite where one stands on these issues, the conversation itself demonstrates the significance of free expression in a democratic society. 

Finally, Individual Self-Fulfillment is prominent because it highlights that free expression is about more than just politics or government. It is all about allowing people to discover who they are, share their experiences, and connect with other like-minded people. Combined with the Marketplace of Ideas and Protect Dissent, it aids the creation of a society where individuals can grow, challenge other beliefs, and contribute to important conversations. In a society where it is shaped by technology and social media, these values remain just as important today as they were when the First Amendment was first introduced. Free expression doesn't just protect our right to speech, but it also helps us become who we are.