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