Shelf Life for Heroes?

 Old NFO (a blog I read) recently commented on today's social propensity to tear down and destroy any symbol that the few find offensive. If at any time you, or your ancestors even thought about owning a fellow human being there will be someone who wants you removed from the social conscience. If you approve of naming a school, sports team or even a stream after something or someone that somebody feels offended by you are in trouble in todays society.

There is a small stream near us that is maybe three miles long and at its widest is perhaps two feet wide. No one knows officially the how or the why the stream got named, but anecdotally it was named  after an escaped slave back in the 1850's who killed himself beside the stream. Negro Creek is now the focus of a concerted effort to rename it, since "Negro" is offensive to some people. It's too bad that if the story is true the name of the poor guy who killed himself could be applied to the stream. Instead, if the complainers have their way the new name will be Freedom Creek. (I cringe, because the suggested name does nothing to recognize the history of the area other than make the perpetrators of this awful name more self satisfied)

If we take the logic of removing any recognition if someone objects to something from the past I guess we need to remove the writings of Elizabeth Barrett Browning from the shelves. She was a 19th century poet, best known for her "Sonnets from the Portuguese" and for her effort in promoting equality between races and the sexes. But her parents wealth came from owning plantations in Jamaica that used slave labor to grow and produce sugar. Despite a lifetime of good deeds, she is condemned for actions of her family and cast aside.

In some peoples eyes naming anything after a minority race is "expropriation" and we need to rename the object of this insult. So I guess we need to rename the city of Seattle Washington since it is named after a local indigenous leader (I can't use the word Indian Chief for fear of hurting somebodies feelings) who worked to bring two cultures and races together and who just wanted to get along and live a peaceful life. The present residents of Seattle who are busy tearing down statues, renaming schools, legalizing drugs and defunding the police will never notice.

Our newest family member

We recently acquired a new dog, she is about 18 months old and came to us after being heavily abused at her original home. We also learned that she had, way too early in life, a litter of pups that were taken from her soon after birth. We needed to provide her with a new home, a new beginning and a fresh new way of living. To do that we also had to give her a new name as a signal that she was entering a new life.

But dogs are creatures of habit and new names are hard to learn. Since her old name was "Chewy" CC and I knew that any new name had to sound something like her old name, but be completely different, We found her new name in Spanish and re-named her "Chica" (girl). It might not be original, but it took Chica less than a day to respond to her new name and come when called. 

Chica is becoming a firm addition to our household, and while her relations with the cats needs improvement (on both parts) she is enjoying her life with new friends Amber and Bentley. Playtime occasionally gets a little rough but so far no blood has been shed and they all share the bed comfortably. Even leaving room for the humans at night.

Yesterday was an eventful day for Chica when we took her to the clinic and had her spayed. But looking at her today you would think that, except for the Cone of Shame nothing unusual had happened to her. I wish I had that level of resiliency! 

Unintended Consequences

 If you say something on the Internet that your service provider feels is inappropriate they can take action against you for saying something that in other venues is perfectly acceptable under your First Amendment rights. The question I have is; Is that legal? The answer is a lot more complex than a simple yes or no.

The debate about banning speech on the internet started with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Specifically Title V of the act was created as a response to minors access to pornography. During debate an amendment was added that became Section 230. That section was added to give the internet provider (including the social media networks) protection from liability after the Supreme Court ruled that operators of internet services are not publishers and are not legally liable for the words of third parties who use their services. The act was further amended in 2017 to make it illegal to knowingly assist, facilitate or support sex trafficking. The focus of the entire section is on pornography, but it includes words that allow the website to censor something that they, "in good faith" believe to be "otherwise objectionable"

So... is it legal? 

If you think the law applies only to pornography it's legal only if the subject matter is obscene (And even the Supreme Court shies away from defining that!) If you believe that the phrase "otherwise objectionable" means anything you want it to mean then the social networks are free to censor anything they want, using their own criteria.

My question is, Who is monitoring the monitors and isn't censorship the job of a government that is responsible to the people rather than the company owner?

I don't have an answer, only and opinion and mine is that if the "publisher" is not responsible for content than the First Amendment to the Constitution applies and I have an equal right to turn away from the originator of the content I find objectionable. If you think that the act is good for its intended purpose of protecting children from pornography there are more than a few apps that can be installed that shield minors from such websites and content.

Still Counting

 Today our country is celebrating its 244th birthday. During its life it has seen war and famine, good times and terrible times, but it has always celebrated its birthday with joy and exaltation. Birthdays should be a happy time. A time to forget stress and to ignore the works of those who would pull us away from the essential goals that are expressed in our Declaration of Independence and our constitution.

This year I'm going to celebrate my country's birthday with all the wonder and glee of a kid diving into the birthday cake.