“Half-Criminals” or Urban Athletes? A Plea for Fair Treatment for Skateboarders”

David Langley wrote this article portraying the skateboarders’ situation in an urban city life. Being a skateboarder himself, Langley expresses his opinion in the piece by asking for the fair treatment of skateboarders in the urban society. In his view, “People in general, eye most of the skateboarders as misfit or delinquents, adult think of them as criminal types or associate skateboarding with anti-social behavior “(141). This irrational thinking about skateboarders needs to be changed, the city dwellers should keep in mind that skateboarding is just like another form of sport for the urban environment, as natural as riding a bike or ice-skating, Langley claims. There are two reasons for skateboarders to feel mistreated in the urban society that Langley talks about in the article. Firstly, there is never legitimate space for skateboarders to practice their sports. Secondly, the laws that regulate skateboarding are either highly restrictive or never clear enough. So, as Langley offers, first, the city needs to make room for the skateboarders by building more skate parks. Second, the rules and laws should be clearer and more specific so that the cop’s behavior towards the skaters to target them for tickets stops.

Furthermore, Langley does not deny the fact that the cities have tried to treat skateboarders fairly before by building parks, but he complains it still does not solve the problem because most of them are made by non-skaters. Also, Langley argued against the general people's thinking of skateboarding being the reasons for urban environment to get dirty and vandalized. He rather thinks, skaters help to keep it clean since they need smooth surfaces to skate, and they never have to deal with healing ozone, which means they are not polluting the environment.
In my opinion, there is no environmental harm from skateboarding and the skateboarders should be as admired as any other athletes. But, it’s also true that skateboarding can cause accidents by flying skateboards to windows, cars or rolling into traffic in a everyday urban-city life. So, is it really just about the image of skateboarders being rebellious, drug-users, “hooligans”, Or it’s about the safety and keeping the roads less dangerous and less occupied?

"Would legalization of gay marriage be good for the gay community?"

Sam Isaacson wrote an article analyzing the opinion of the gay community on legalizing same sex marriages. It is somewhat of a controversial issue with the gay community whether or not marriage is a good thing. He divides the community into two groups: integrationists and liberationists. The controversy is caused because of these two different philosophical views. The integrationists want to be as normal as can be. They want to "integrate" themselves into society. On the other hand, the liberationists cherish their gay culture with their own customs and values. The integrationists want gay marriage and the liberationists object to same sex marriage. Isaacson's belief is to consider the objections of the liberationists. However, he believes that legalization of marriage would benefit gays and society.

The liberationists do not care for being part of the "normal" society. They believe marriage would take away from their way of living and would show that marriage is the right way to live. Isaacson states, "We not only abandon the sexual minorities of our community, we strengthen society's narrow notion of what is "normal" and thereby further confine both straights and gays." Liberationists do not want to lose the unique characteristics of gay culture. Some gay writers have said, "Gays have been forced to create different forms of relationships that often allow for a greater and often more fulfilling range of life experiences." Gays are more likely to stay friends with their ex-girlfriends/boyfriends and they form very close relationships without becoming romantically involved. The communication in their relationships is better than most straight couples. The liberationists think that marriage "limits and normalizes personal freedom. They do not want to be faced with the social pressures of marriage and their culture is forgotten.

Isaacson agrees with the liberationists but many benefits would come about from the legalization of gay marriage. Marriage is stability that is good for a society. Children need a stable environment so that they are well adjusted. Couples tend to be happy in long-term relationships. Isaacson adds that when a person gets old, ill, or depressed it is nice to have someone who will take care of them so they are not alone.

Furthermore, Isaacson does not want to forget the real benefits that come with marriage. For example, legal rights, tax benefits, insurance benefits, inheritance, and voice in medical treatment or funeral arrangements. He feels that gay love is not respected. Society does not care whether gays have relationships or families. Isaacson wants to send a message to the world that "gay love is just as meaningful as straight love."

Letters from Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King

After a non-violent protest in the merchant section of Birmingham Alabama, Martin Luther King Jr. is put in county jail. There he recieves a letter from local clergyman proclaiming his decisions to be rash and unneccesary. In which they understand a part of King's struggle, but felt his actions to be against the public safety. Mr. King writes back with a letter stating that his "actions" were not only loong overdue, but well in the means of what needed to be done. The black Americans have long been segrgated at this time and were seeking integration. Birming Alabama was one of the most segrated cities in the South. When the clergymen praised the police force for their actions, King criticized that the police were violen and lashed out against minorities. The clergymen also pointed out how impatient Mr. King was. This was replied with they were already waiting for such a long time, and they could wait no longer. For every criticism the local clergymen had to offer, the civil rights activist had a long and awesome response.

Martin Luther King did an excellent job of considering his audience's perspective. He knew since his audience were preachers that they would have a religous perspective of things. So Mr. King made sure to put many biblical remarks about Jesus and Moses (626). Since Mr. King could read exactly what the clergyman's opinions were, he could directly answer them all. He covered the civil rights activists' patience, the timing of the march, unlawful arresting, and even his dissapointment in the church's role in civil rights. But his biased opinion leaves much to be undecided. Were his actions in good correlation with what the citizens of Birmingham wanted? Did he carefully consider the clergymen's point of view? Most people would say yes.

The Cause for the Draft

In Philip Carter and Paul Glastris’ piece, “The Cause for the Draft”, they explore the need for soldiers to be posted in Iraq. The U.S. army is made up of an all-volunteer crew., but their just isn’t enough men willing to fight in Iraq. We have a strong need for soldiers without the means to expand our all-volunteer army. We have enough men who are active in the army, but not enough of them are currently serving in Iraq. We have a demand for about 250,000 to 300,000 more men to serve oversees. We could possibly force active soldiers to serve in Iraq for longer periods of time in order to expand our number of troops, but it would be like “plowing a field with a Ferrari” in that it could not ever be done again. If men are forced to serve, it would decrease our number of reenlistments. Soldiers would not reenlist if they fear being held in Iraq for longer than they feel necessary.

There are others ways to increase the number of troops in Iraq, some be unethical. One solution being to convince other countries to join our troops in manning Iraq. This solution is unrealistic considering that Europe opposes our presence in Iraq. Another method would be to send more private military contractors over and depend less on other military servers. But this method also proves unreliable due to the high costs, and the fact that the idea of military contractors manning our troops has been pushed to its limit. We may also reshape our armies and move men into different section in order to have only the necessary amount of troops to each area needed. We could also offer a higher salary for our soldiers, which would recruit more men, though this option would prove too great a cost for the U.S. in the long run. There is always the option of drafting young men out of high school, but this method proves to be unethical and digressive. Men who are forced to join are less motivated and serve for shorter terms. Carter and Glastris then make their claim by discussing a method that they have themselves come up with. They feel that we should require all students, male and female, graduating from high school who seek to get a college education to choose serve a year or two doing one of the following; serving for AmeriCorps, doing homeland security assignments, or serving in the military. This way, it is their choice whether or not to serve, but we are still able to increase our troops in number.

Separating Science From Stereotype

A speech given by the president of Harvard University, Lawrence Summers, started an uproar when he suggested that innate biological differences may help explain why men have better career success in science and mathematics than women. Summers’ is reported to have said that men are biologically inclined to outperform women in the higher end of the math and science spectrum. The evidence to support this hypothesis is quite small. Summers also cited that there was a gender difference in the SAT mathematics scores. He states that boys tend to be the worst performers but the best scorers. In a 2003 study, boys outperformed girls by a statistically small margin. Although boys did score higher in 7 of 43 countries, boys and girls had similar scores, and in one country, girls even outperformed the boys. In neuroscience terms, there is evidence that male and female brains are different anatomically in complex ways, but no one knows how these differences relate to cognitive performance. Even though they have differences, males and females score equally well on IQ tests. One of the clearest cognitive gender differences is spatial reasoning and navigation, which is reportedly linked to math ability. Spatial cognition is organized different in males and females. A single testosterone injection will improve a woman’s performance on a visuospatial task. Social scientist found that changing a females name to a male name on identical work increases its perceived value. It is also stated that female and minority students who are aware of who are aware of gender and racial stereotypes score lower on tests such as the SAT. The comments that Summers has made are more likely to make it tougher for aspiring female mathematicians and scientists who are now being told that they are at a biological disadvantage.

After reading this whole article I found that there have been many test done to prove that men are better in mathematics and science than women. Though the facts usually show that men score higher on certain test such as the SAT, they do not mention any other test that you need to take. Also, it states that boys and girls perform equally well in IQ test. Females also outperformed males in one country in the 2003 study. Should all women be put into this “spectrum” or should you look at a female’s individual performance? Are gender roles in math and science really that big of a deal?

Harvard Prez’s Admission: Men and Women Are Different Linda Chavez Blog by: Jennifer Ibert

In his speech, while president of Harvard University, Lawrence Summers opened up the debate of why women are underrepresented in positions in the science and engineering fields. He justified his thoughts with three hypotheses: 1. The high-powered job hypothesis, 2. Different availability of aptitude at the high end, 3. Different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. To explain these three hypothesis further he is basically saying woman are more inclined than men to find jobs that have a balance of work and family life. The second hypothesis, which heated the debate, was that in tests of math and science aptitude the distribution curves are different between men and women. In addition, Summer’s is saying that women are socialized to be less competitive than men. In the article “Harvard Prez’s Admission: Men and Women Are Different,” Linda Chavez makes the argument that as heated as Lawrence Summer’s speech may have been, should his idea that differences exist between men and women when it comes to math and science be correct? In her article Chavez states, “Boys outnumber girls in remedial reading classes—by large ratios, in most studies—but they are even more likely to outnumber girls among the most gifted in math and science.” It was even shown in a study by Johns Hopkins University, “boys outperformed girls among the top scoring students on math by 13-to-1.” Chavez believes that although many people may not agree with Summer’s speech, he deserves high marks on this intriguing debate.

Chavez does an adequate job of presenting the counter argument with many concrete examples. She talks on how feminists have been trying to explain the reasoning behind the differences of men and women in science, one of their reasons being, “girls are not encouraged properly to pursue math and science.” She also goes on to give the example of Hopkins revealing gender discrimination in MIT in their actions of, “allotting them less lab space and giving them fewer plum assignments.” Would fault be brought in to the argument, regarding men and women in science, when bias is brought in to the picture? Are gender roles still a main issue in our world even though we are in the 21rst century?

Plugged In, Tuned Out: Young Americans Are Embracing New Media but Failing to Develop an Appetite for News

Dan Kennedy

In this article, Dan Kennedy looks at the ongoing changes in how the human race operates when it comes to media and the news. An assistant professor at Northeastern University’s school of Journalism in Boston, Kennedy often writes on the media trends of the era. Kennedy examines that over the past decades the population of young Americans has decreased in news interaction. In his starting argument, Kennedy explains that if you were to examine an American in their late teens to 30s, they would not be doing something a person of this age did 50 years ago. Kennedy has many things to blame his reasoning on. He explains that with technological advances many young adults reach out to different sources rather than the traditional newspaper. He also states that young adults are entering an age where they were not brought up with strong news enforcement. ““What’s happening, I think is that many more of them are entering adulthood without a news habit,” says Tom Patterson, the Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government (474.)” Kennedy does state that though Americans have decreased in the traditional news, they have developed an interest in online services. From Facebook to online news services, more young adults are reading the news from the easiest way they can reach it, which would be with their technology.

After reading Kennedy entire article, it is easy to say that he is very strong on suggesting that many young adults are uninterested in the news. He blames many of this on technology and that the news is very uninteresting. Kennedy speaks that we need ways of entertainment to be interested in the news. Even though this may be true, I think that the news does not need to be entertaining to meet the needs of young readers. The news is a very important aspect in the survival of our country. Just because, young people are more interested in technological advances does not mean we have subjected the news to a back burner. Many young adults understand that the news is a very important aspect and keep up with this. Whether it from the television or to online services, many people are keeping up with the news. Just because a person does not know all of the leaders of our country does not mean that they are not up to date on our current standing.

“The Massless Media”
By: William Powers

William Powers examines how mass media has changed since the 1800s. CBS, NBC and ABC news television channels have lost viewers for multiple reasons. Their viewers have found quicker ways to retrieve the same information as provided on these channels. With the advancement of technology, the success of mass media has decreased. Web blogs, news sites and radios have been more successful in providing the public with information than the mass media. Radio now has satellite and web variants that let listeners choose their taste pods with exceptional precision (468). Powers also states that channels focusing on certain products attract the viewers’ eyes more often than none. Business Week magazine reported the following quote about preferential viewers. “The country has atomized into countless market segments defined not only by demography, but by increasingly nuanced and insistent product preferences.” (468). With the advancement of technology and partisan viewers, the success of mass media has declined over the past two hundred years.

Powers does not effectively speak on the opposing argument, that mass media has not declined over the years and it is still the same as the 1800s. He focuses more attention on getting his argument across that mass media has changed significantly. Although Powers provides reliable sources such as Business Week magazine, a college professor and a Washington journalist, he does not take into consideration the views of the opposing side. He puts more emphasis on the idea that advancing technology affects the use of mass media. Some citizens select which type of news they want to follow allowing selective magazines, radio stations and websites to get more attention than mass media.

BLOG POST: “Is Pop culture Dumbing Us Down or Smartening Us Up?”

By. Sally Moon

“Brain Candy: Is Pop Culture Dumbing Us Down or Smartening Us Up?”

Malcolm Gladwell

Are you actually learning something while you’re watching that favorite TV show of yours? While you’re playing that video game that was just released at midnight? Is today’s pop culture actually making you smarter in ways that books cannot provide?

Malcolm Gladwell explores the various ways pop culture benefits our learning process, as a response to a book by Steven Johnson, which fully supported the idea that pop culture actually makes us “smarter” in many different ways. Whether it’s playing a video game or watching a television show, today’s pop culture is very different than that of 20 or 30 years ago. Today’s video games and television shows are far more complex than ever before, the complexity of these games and shows require complex interaction from the viewers/players. As Gladwell claims, greater cognitive demands are thrown at us by these television shows that require such in-depth thinking and thought processing. Watching and understanding some of these popular shows require scrutinizing the actions going on in the shows, second-guessing to try to figure out the plots, and approaching problems from many different points of views. While watching television shows has you on the edge of your seat, using your brain in ways that reading a book would’ve never been able to provoke, playing video games also plays a huge role in developing your collateral learning process. Playing video games requires the players to use their complexities. Every video game comes with a full imaginary world, along with very complex details. Playing video games requires the players to “manage a dizzying array of information and options, craft long-term strategies, and actively intervene to look for hidden logic, and find order in chaos” (Gladwell 455, 456). Gladwell’s appeal to logics succeeds at persuading the readers that pop culture does in fact benefit people’s learning processes. However, he concludes his argument by giving credit to both sides of the arguments. He states that the real importance is the balance between the collateral and explicit learning. While reading a book is important, credit should also be given to the extensive collateral learning promoted by today’s popular culture.

Gladwell successfully addressed the opposing point of view by presenting various questions that may have been raised by the opposing side. He even mentions possible downsides of the opposing approach. He quotes Steven Johnson’s response to the opposing arguments such as “books are also tragically isolating…”, “reading books chronically understimulates the senses…”, and “…this risks instilling a general passivity…”. This approach appeals to the logical perspective of the issue, which successfully supports his claim. However, is this enough evidence to disprove the opposing claim? Are his claims and approaches powerful enough to overpower the opposing side? Will supporters of reading and traditional learning be persuaded to switch their teaching methods from this argument? What more could he have done to make his argument more persuasive?

Reality Bytes: Eight Myths about Video Games Debunked

By: Henry Jenkins

The public’s perception of video games and what the research actually shows is a big issue for children, teens, and parents. Video games are being preserved as one of the top influencers for violence. Even though, ninety percent of boys and forty percent of girls play video games not all video games are harmful. Some people blame video games on anti-social acts, but according to a 2001 Surgeon General’s report, the strongest risk factors for these crimes are more centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure (451). People believe that violent video games lead to them becoming violent in their everyday life. Research has shown only when coupled with other real-world influences, do violent video games become harmful to the game players. People say that playing video games is socially isolating, there has been a shift towards the globalizations of video game play. Although the gamer might be alone in his/her room this still might be playing online with multiple gamers (453). For example, Xbox live is like its own social network. There are many myths as to why video games are corrupting our youth today, but through research all these myths are proven to be wrong.

People may object that video games are a major influence on children’s violence. But parents are a major influence in children’s violence, because 83 % of parents purchase violent video games for their children (452). David Grossman argues that because the military uses games in training the generations of young people who play these games are being brutalized and conditioned to be aggressive in everyday life (452). But if you watch teens and children play these games you can see that they understand fake from reality. They enter a “magic circle” when playing these games then after the come back to reality and understand that it was just a game. Video games are sometimes played way too often, but it’s just like if a girl went shopping every day or a boy played a sport every day. It is just a way for teens and children to escape real life, just like the generation before them did when they played Gameboys or Zelda.

Amnesty? & Why Blame Mexico? By: Cody Boyd

Amnesty?

Let Us Be Vigilant and Charitable

By: John F. Kavanaugh

&

Why Blame Mexico?

By: Fred Reed

Issue Question: Should we pardon immigrants for illegally pursuing a life in the United States of America, and who should be blamed?

My Claim: I believe every person is equal, and should be treated equally. If a person is wiling to risk everything to create a better life for another person, then they deserve the decency to be given a chance. Though to be a citizen they should be required to act as a citizen. They should pay taxes, speak English, read and write, etc. I also believe that America is at fault, and that it is our problem we’ve created.

Because: The 14^th amendment states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”.

Because: America creates chances for these people that their country may not provide.

Because: “See this river? Don’t cross it. If you do, we’ll give you good jobs, drivers license, citizenship for your kids born here, school for kids, public assistance, governmental documents in Spanish for your convenience, and a much better future. There is no penalty for getting caught. Now, don’t cross this river here?”

How smart is that? We’re bating them (47.)

Because: The Catholic bishops of Mexico pointed out I January that the recent surge of immigration is a direct effect of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Opposing Claim: Some Americans believe that immigrants are criminals, who have broken the law to sneak into our country. Americans have created these laws, and they have found ways around them. “They have broken the law.” This is an interesting standard of ethics, justice or charity for a nation that sees itself as Judeo-Christian and humane (40.) The Government made a mistake, so its either go against everything America stands for, or welcome them into our country and make them do as we do.

Because: Mexico is a country, not a prison. It has no obligation to enforce American laws that America declines to enforce (47.)

Because: As for making the law our bottom line, do Christians know how many times Jesus was in trouble with the law? Do they know that the natural law tradition, articulated in the work of Thomas Aquinas, holds an unjust law to be no law at all? Do they forget that our nation was founded upon an appeal to a higher law than a positive law than positive law, an appeal shared by the labor movement, by Martin Luther King Jr., and by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony (40.)

Enthymeme:

Claim: America did not thoroughly look into the 14^th Amendment when writing it, causing the problems with illegal immigration.

Reason: Back when the 14^th Amendment was written, the US was not even close to what it is today, so we had no way of knowing. We have caused this problem; we should step up and take responsibility.

Grounds: We are not going to round up millions of people and physically throw them across the border. Whether we should doesn’t matter. Its fantasy. Too many people want them here or don’t care that they are here or don’t want to uproot families who have established new lives here. Ethnic cleaning is ugly.

Warrant: If the 14^th Amendment wouldn’t state that if a person was born in America they are automatically a citizen.

Backing: If the Amendment said a quick background check of the parent’s citizenship, to approve the newborn child’s citizenship, America would not even be worrying about Illegal immigration at a severity it is now

Would have, Could have, Should have, we cant look back now. America is going to have to take responsibility, and find a solution to its mistake.

Summary of Argument:

Illegal Immigration is wrong, it is against the law, but America created the problem as a whole. Illegal Aliens are coming over trying to create a better life for them and their families. They are harder workers and do the jobs we don’t want to do, because they have to provide for the ones they love. Some may be criminals, but some of us Americans are criminals. “The Pursuit of Happiness” that is why we are America, to be able to pursue happiness. How can we be the judges of taking that away from somebody? We cant, and being the Christians we are supposed to be need to figure out a way for it to be right on both sides.

Youthful Indescretions: Should Colleges Protect Social Network Users from Themselves and Others?

Youthful Indiscretions: Should Colleges Protect Social Network Users from Themselves and Others?
By: Dana L. Fleming

ISSUE QUESTION: Should social networking sites be monitored and interfere with students education?

MY CLAIM: Social networking sites should not be monitored, only if necessary and the information on someone’s profile, blog, etc. should not have an effect on that persons educational career.

Because: The 1st Amendment gives us “Freedom of Speech”
Because: If there is a life or death situation the website should be monitored
Because: A review of a student’s profile may be appropiate where that student is involved in a disciplinary proceeding (443.)
Because: Some schools use material from Myspace and Facebook in their judiciary proceedings while others turn a blind eye to the site (442.)

OPPOSING CLAIM: Social networking sites should be monitored and consequences shall come to the students that display disorderly conduct online.

Because: The dangers of online social networking transcend disciplinary actions and reputational harm (442.)
Because: Nonetheless…we are all expected to behave on campus, in public, and online in a manner consistent with the Universities Honor Code and Guiding Values (442.)
Because: Courts treat people online postings as evidence in criminal procedures (443.)

ENTHYMEME

CLAIM: Students should be allowed to say what they want online and if law enforcement needs to monitor something which will help them bring a criminal to justice it should be allowed.

REASON: They are only expressing themselves, which isn’t inteferring with their education, and justice will be served.

GROUNDS:
Courts treats people’s online postings as evidence in criminal proceedings, and college and university lawyers routinely check student’s online proceedings (443).
It would take a full-time staff working around the clock to scratch the surface of a single network (443.)
A young woman was denied her teaching degree after a fellow student one of her Myspace photos to the attention to the school administrators.

WARRANT: If school officials wouldn’t examine profiles a lot of students would be in a better predicament.

BACKING:
In May 2005, two swimmers at LSU lost athletic scholarships for making disparaging comments about their coach on Facebook(441.)
A chemical engineering major sabotaged his career in a similar manner by confessing in his online bio that he liked to “blow things up.)(441)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT:
Social networking sites are very popular among our youth today. It sometimes is a way for one to express his or herself. The users wouldn’t think that their post will be seen by a teacher at school and will cause them their scholarship. There are dangers to online social networking. The things that are posted online are out for the public to see and colleges and parents are trying to find out a way to protect users.
Dana L. Fleming is a Boston area attorney specializing in higher education law. In this article Fleming talks about our social networks today that are used by millions. She explains what happens to students when they say or post something that is unsuitable. As a result of that comes a consequence for those actions. These online sites have become a place for predators to trick and stalk girls. She believes that there needs to be a way to make everything more private and safe.

A False Wikipedia “Biography”

A False Wikipedia "Biography"
By: John Seigenthaler

ISSUE QUESTION: Should websites such as Wikipedia, Answers.com, and Reference.com be monitored for false information?

MY CLAIM: The owners of these websites should monitor information before it is published to eliminate public embarrassment from false or malicious information.

Because: John Seigenthaler thought that he would not be hurt my anything negative said about him but he was. (436)

Because: Representatives of Answers.com and Reference.com said their computers are programmed to copy data verbatim from Wikipedia, never checking whether it is false or factual. (437)

OPPOSING CLAIM: These websites should not be monitored and the reputation of others is not of issue.

Because: Wales insisted that his volunteer editors correct mistakes within minutes (437)

ENTHYMEME:

Claim: Websites such as Wikipedia, Answers.com, and Reference.com are unreliable sources for information.

Reason: Millions of people visit these sites daily for quick reference “facts,” composed and posted by people with no special expertise or knowledge—and sometimes by people with malice. (436)

GROUNDS:

• Directly quoted from Wikipedia, “John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960’s. For a brief time he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother, Bobby.”(436)

• The individual who posted this particular information had no connection or inside knowledge about Seigenthaler.
WARRANT: The publishing of offensive and false information is publicly embarrassing, hurtful, and can be misjudged; this issue needs to be controlled.

BACKING:

• The story that Seigenthaler tells is very personal to him. (436)

• John Seigenthaler states “I thought I was beyond surprise or hurt at
anything negative said about me. I was wrong.”

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT:

Websites such as Wikipedia, Answers.com, and Reference.com have been in use for many years. They are designed for individuals to post information whether it is accurate or false. These individuals may also post false information out of malice. The people “employed” by these sites, Wikipedia for example, are volunteers. These volunteers are those who edit the information that is published on the website; still not insuring that the information is completely accurate.

John Seigenthaler was a Journalist for the Nashville Tennessean newspaper. In a recent post on Wikipedia, Seigenthaler was falsely accused of being involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and his brother Bobby. John had never been hurt by anything negative slandering his name until this “biography” was posted. He attempted to find the “biographer” but was only led to an IP (Internet Protocol) number provided by Wikipedia which only sent him on a wild goose chase. Knowledge of Bellsouth being the individual’s Internet provider was the only knowledge he had. However, Bellsouth has a policy that protects the identity of their customers and John would not receive the name of the person who posted this false information unless he filed a lawsuit and was given a court subpoena. After multiple meetings and interviews, executives of these websites have now removed the false content about John Seigenthaler at his request. But they do not know, and cannot find out, who wrote this “biography”.