The name of our class is Literature and technology, and the subject of our class (also an alternative title of the course) is centered on expanding our ability to be creative and expressive through literature and technology. My point is that technology is a huge benefit to us, and obviously so because we have a class focused entirely on it; however, we are also speculative and skeptical about whether it is an entirely positive medium. Every scholar must delve into every aspect of his subject, even the purview’s negative features if he is to truly understand its nature and effects. Our professor invites us to do exactly that; moreover, I’d like to briefly draw your attention to one of my concerns with technology–Individual Liberty. I capitalize this because there is no greater issue concerning humanity than the degree of Liberty we enjoy in our every day lives, and even if its scope is diminished infinitesimally, we should prodigiously barrage those responsible. In this case, technology is the assailant, so our modus operandi thus becomes problematic.

Decreasing peoples’ right to technology is likewise a liberty, which cannot be impeded upon; furthermore, our course of action is haltered because removing one liberty to give  breathing space to another is correspondingly unjust. What am talking about? Where is technology impeding on our liberty? The multifarious curtailing capabilities technology yields in regards to liberty are ubiquitous; I am particularly disquieted by the stifling impact it has on our Right to a fair trial.  HOW IRONIC! The courts are supposed to be the very avenue through which we are supposed to be able to challenge anything adversely affecting our individual liberty, yet the courts allow technology to interfere with trials.

You cannot tell me that the media’s presence in the courtroom does not affect the outcome of a trial.  Let’s allow this hypothetical impact–for the present–be a beneficial for justice in general.  Naturally preceding this postulation is the question of justice, so before I talk about technology and the courts, I will “explain” justice.

What is justice? The corresponding penalty to a crime? A punishment of the same magnitude for whoever is culpable? NO! If there is a God (I believe there is, but objectivity renders this irrelevant), then an absolute justice would exist, however, since humanity will probably never know with 100% certainty, an ultimate justice does not exist. Socrates and other ancient scholars could not figure this out, and we still cannot today, but we as a community can decide what we shall place within the sphere of justice. Justice in the courts is not justice at all. I know we can not objectively define justice, but it is clear that the legal system does not encompass justice–in my definition. If you have enough money, however, you can get pretty close to justice; for instance, they say if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you, yet when they provide one to you a fee is conveniently issued.  One more quick example before returning to our hypothetically beneficial impact of technology within the courts: my father was issued a summons for failing to reconstruct a section of the sidewalk at my grandfather’s house. My grandpa was in Greece at the time, so my father received the ticket (are you serious bro). After fighting with the courts, and racking up a great deal of legal fees, the appellate court in New Brunswick reversed the guilty charge. When my dad went back to Highland Park expecting (as the superior court ordered) the case’s dismissal, he discovered that the judge apparently had some mommy issues growing up. The original judge was so bewildered that his order was reversed, he adjourned the court explaining that he didn’t have enough time to go over the reversal. Why does he need to go over it? A mandate issued by a superior court MUST be followed–no exceptions.  You know what this guy says at the next trial: he basically tells my father that if you’re seeking to expend your resources, I’ll be happy to accommodate.  Thats my point! All they want is money!! Like are you serious, this disgraceful imitation of a judge literally said that he is going to delay the judicial process at my father’s expense. There is no cause for any special concern besides for that which is already required by the current legal system; this conveyance does not seek aid, but merely an awareness that the “justice” system is great need of Justice.

The advent of technologies inclusion into the political realm (courts are of course a branch of politics), is beneficial in most instances–i.e., for the public’s knowledge and involvement with legislative activities–but when cameras put one’s right to a fair trial in jeopardy, we as a nation should be extremely worried.  You never know when you might face the same issue.

Back to my point! I previously posited that they may be beneficial to the acquisition of justice; furthermore, we now know that there is not an absolute justice, but only one that we determine. Our courts, whether they are “Just” or not, base the entire system on procedure and technicalities. Certain information cannot be divulged to the jury because it will affect their decision. This, reader, is a technicality. Procedure restricts particular influences from entering the court room. On this foundation I make the claim that the courts are committing an injustice, for they apparently perceive a characteristic of justice to include technicalities, by allowing the presence of the media in the courts. Cameras will always affect someone’s actions, so how can they allow cameras to influence the court, but not other particulars? The cameras are there, just as they are in Congress, so citizens can conduct studies and be informed of established precedents. I argue, if they are unwilling to take the cameras out, then at least abstain from releasing them until the case is concluded. It is unfair to the defendant, and perhaps even to the plaintiff.

Recently emerging, and serving to stimulate this post, is the case of Mr. Zimmerman. This guy apparently shot somebody who was allegedly bashing his head into pavement. His trial is on camera, and because the guy he shot and killed was black, the media is painting his trial in a harmful light. In the video below a correspondent states, “Obviously, there are security concerns over his safety given the high profile nature of his case,” which is ironic because the case is “high profile” because people like him are talking about it!

I can continue for a while longer expounding upon the adverse affects the media has on human liberty (as well as aiding to expand it), but this blog is probably already too long so as to have the affect of deterring an audience. Therefore, I conclude by allowing you to consider the issue on your own. Those types of books, movies, etc., usually have great considerations after anyway, right? So i leave you at the edge of our mountain of knowledge; you can either turn around, or you can take the initiative and fly to greater heights than I have taken you.