http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/12/27/obama-advises-prince-harry-leaders-must-use-care-on-social-media.html

The title of this ‘FoxNews‘ article sounds somewhat benign and harmless. In fact, had I not read the quotations in the article, I would totally agree with the premise that not just leaders (but we all) are responsible for what we say. It sounds perfectly reasonable and smart even – all be it obvious. It even sounds logical and common-sensible. So, why does Mr. Obama warn Prince Harry (as an adult mind you), about the so-called ‘perils’ of free speech online in an interview that took place last September in Canada? Is Prince Harry a child? By the way, it’s nice to see the Prince’s engagement to a native of my own state of residency. Congratulations you two. Back to the topic of the article, after you read this, you will possibly understand Mr. Obama’s subtle message which puts free speech proponents like me into justifiable defense mode. Hence, this post.

With the context of the article, and my own assertions: I don’t think that Prince Harry needs Mr. Obama’s advice regarding free speech. Do you? What is Mr. Obama’s real underlying motivation? Is he trying to separate the success of the Internet from the prosperity he speaks of? And, if Prince Harry wants to use social media, can’t he? If his family wants to, can’t they? Yes. I would encourage them to take part in this transparency movement. Okay, so some people don’t like to use “social media” at all – and that’s fine too. Really, I don’t force Internet down anyone’s throat, but I sure do like what it’s enabled for me. It’s not a behavior to mandate (Internet use). Not everyone needs a site. Not everyone has the job to write. Not everyone has much to say in such manner necessarily. Some people just like the ‘social media’ to keep up with friends who live far away. That’s great! The communications over the Internet are every bit as real as those which take place “outside” the Internet (as if there were an “inside” TV and “outside” TV too?). Mr. Obama suggests that there is an “outside” and and “inside”. He couldn’t be more wrong. Yes, there is an “online” and an “offline”. But, this is comparable to being on duty at work and off duty. You’re usually never entirely “off” or “on”. If you’re off duty, you might be thinking about some on duty project you’re involved in. And while you’re at work, you might be thinking about your wife or husband, or your kids. With the Internet too, you can be on duty and off duty, yet still connected. While connected, you might be entertaining yourself, or you might be working on some important business. Responsible people know how to use the Internet. And those who are not responsible don’t. That is why in my view, every professions still requires managers. No, management is not “dead”. You might want to read the following article for further study:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/12/is-management-era-over/

Where I agree with Mr. Obama about “dangers”, in the Internet, is in areas he did not even mention: the instances of dangers that mimic the “outside” dangers and exploit that there as well. I’ll get to that in subsequent paragraphs. In case of persons whose profession it is not, to write or preach, there might be less dependency on the Internet for making a living. Maybe those who do not have any contribution to or use for the Internet would be “outside” the Internet, as Mr. Obama suggest.

I would like to point out that many of the same dangers in the analogue world, exist in the digital. But, many do not. It’s two parts of the same reality and the same world. I assert that it is dangerous for persons to be addicted to digital games or virtual reality. Brainwashed into combat, young children (lab-rats) can get trapped in the motivations of the game programmer. But, in moderation, the same games can stimulate brain development much like a card game, board game, or puzzle can. In the case of online gambling or pornography, the danger is much more harmful. That is why families are the first line of defense. It’s also dangerous for people to go street-racing, or to be addicted to adrenaline rushes by bungee jumping or engaging in perilous extreme sporting too. Maybe we need corrective behavior for those persons. And, that’s in the analogue world (such behavior). So, how dangerous is the Internet compared to that? Does the Internet give you drug addiction or alcohol addiction? No, more often than not, it is instead a consequence of damaging personal relationships and abuses that are either online or offline. Perhaps it is neglect, abuse, bullying which cause a person to seek refuge in addictions. Does a computer give you second hand smoke? Does it shoot bullets at you? Speaking for myself, that is not at all the case. The Internet does not replace friendships and it has only enhanced my own. You can also get a college degree using it. You can perform your job using it. You can sell products using fair trade practices. You can publish literature. You can write an opinion blog, publish news, dispense medical journals or science journals. Why would we demonize this shining light?

Most recently, Will and Kate (sorry if I sound too informal in title) have decided and announced publicly that social media by way of Twitter, won’t be for them – this was made known on US public TV recently. This is perhaps in response to public questioning as we see the sitting president take great command of the modern tool. Like his, this is their prerogative. I don’t think they have any intention of putting together a Christmas music album anytime soon either. The point I am making, is that some people like golf, others don’t. Some people write books and others don’t. Some people have impairments that other do not. And, not everyone is good at the same thing as much as they might wish themselves to be compared to another. And I personally have no aversion to people who decide not to use a smart-phone or apple I-phone. Do you get it people? It’s about freedom to do or not to! That’s inclusion. And for those who have a bit of unnecessary aversion to something new, they can learn and be coaxed in.

I read this FoxNews article I am writing about this morning, and [of course] I have an important message to share on this topic with you my readers. In the article, Mr. Obama comments on how he believes that the Internet needs rules that are better modeled after society (obviously as he knows it to be-a society). Which by the way, was arguably only a figment of reality that most Americans and others will ever know in their lifetime. I can vouch for the fact that his life experiences are not equivalent to my own, yet neither his nor mine are less valid as a qualifier as to what is “reality”. In my view, the Internet is “Rated R,” and therefore more a reflection of reality, than a( highly regulated) “Rated G” Internet would be, as it might favor certain advertisers and leaders with deep pockets. Is that the ‘reality’ he thinks the Internet should become? I don’t share that limited vision. Internet, reduced to a less “real”, fictionalized, and highly regulated world, may as well simply be an additional cable TV channel if Mr. Obama’s way of thinking had its way. As a teacher, my view is that the Internet is far from artificial, as it exists. And, in the USA… we have standing laws already, that extend from our Constitution and well beyond, into the regulation of free speech online. In other countries, perhaps not so much. But, their laws dictate their own use of the Internet in their respective territory. It is true that the USA traffics the Internet to much of the world, but each country does have different restrictions of content domestically.

If the Internet is a fish bowl, it sure has more transparency and accountability to the people, than many governments or companies do. Calling free speech “dangerous”, as if people need to be shielded from each other because they disagree with one another, reflects the delicate nature of modern discourse – not to our credit. This type of concept that we need to protect ourselves from ourselves, seeks to destroy the very purpose of free speech to begin with. While engaging in free speech, clearly there are “sharks” and “minnows”, yet there should never be a jury that sensors the free exchange of ideas outside of the existing laws that protect privacy and rights. This view of mine does reach a limitation with regard to content that is clearly destructive and harmful. I speak mostly of child pornography, militant terror propaganda (state sponsored or not), and criminal enterprise/organized crime. Again, it is laws that need to be applied in such cases.

With texts, disagreeing with one another… coming to know the other opinions… choosing to engage or not… that is a privilege and a right! Some writers prove that they are not just giving accounts of news, but are also shaping hearts and minds. Not everyone is equipped and educated to do that very well, but many of us are. Also, as powerful a force to speech, is lack of speech. But, being a “ghost” (“Casper”) can get pretty boring and meaningless if you have something on your mind. So, engage in communications! Today, more people are meeting their life partners “online” than “offline” (I add). This certainly does not make online communications fictional.

Mr. Obama’s idea and suggestion that thinkers and writers like me (anyone who primarily works online) are deluded, have no life, live alternate realities; that we spend “too much time writing”, reflects his insinuation that we are ‘deplorable’, much like his democratic party counterpart characterized much of America about one year ago. Even though it is untrue, if it were true, then I would blame him for the condition that he criticize – and what life demanded of us, with 8 years of an Obama presidency. Perhaps that does require some talking about. I’ll try to bite my tongue.

Writers like me write for an audience. If one wished not to read what I say, then he or she doesn’t have to. I give people a choice to read or not, to listen to or not. I can also choose to let my voice be a ‘tree falling in the forest’, with no one to hear it. The truth is, the message I usually share, is alive and well. I have something of value to communicate too. I have a college degree in communications; and I do it better than many. Mr. Obama attained his college degree with the ambition to serve in public office. Now that he’s reached the highest level of politics and been retired from it, he seems to be frustrated that there’s nowhere else to go but to warn other people about free speech, as he did in Canada last September – as if they and we were children?

After reading this article, Mr. Obama participated in his own “bias” and “different reality” (I quote his own words), by speaking his perception about “dangers” of the Internet. And, it is a bias. So, he’s effectively “cocooned” himself in his own “bias” by saying what he just has – on the Internet mind you. And I chose to read it. The publisher, in this case FoxNews , published his ideas as a news article which covered his interview in Canada with the English prince.

His therein stated concern that people have “entirely different realities” is an obvious and true statement. But, is not a legitimate reason to undermine free speech on the Internet or anywhere else, except when Constitutional law is breached. And without him, we will have people to do that. He is a man familiar with Constitutional law, as he studied it, but I wouldn’t bet on him protecting my rights.

While there are certain truths that are rooted in creation and reality (available to all human beings), and while many people choose to deny those truths, the diversity of preference is rightly safeguarded by free speech. It is true, that knowledge has been safeguarded over the centuries; but knowledge (unlike wisdom) should not be kept hidden from all people. So, if you have knowledge, it is your obligation to share it with others. And that’s what I like to do. Listen to smart people. I like to do that. If you only pretend to have knowledge, then you should not communicate what you do not know. Mr. Obama and all of us, are better off listening to the messages that are presented down from the most credible sources. Opinion warfare is unfortunately a reality we have to live with. But, we can trust who we choose to trust. And that’s a right as well.

To the extent that writings shape civilization and express theology, a degree of conformity is a necessity for all to benefit from. Those benefits are the hope of such a writer as I, because everyone shares in that benefit. That is a definition of collective prosperity. To that end, I agree with others who share that goal. Diversity of opinions in and through publication, is good still. And, that is why Mr. Obama’s opinion was even featured and quoted in this article. And, in this article that I cited, Mr. Obama too is participating in using the Internet to broadcast his view. So he should be careful not to criticize free speech that protects his own.

In the same article, he expresses his own musical taste. Well, has he not “cocooned” information that [“reinforces [his] current “biases”]? Yes he has. He is a man who did that in his presidential speeches with a nauseating scope. We’re free to talk about him now. We’re free to talk about his presidency. Obviously, that makes him uncomfortable. It would make me uncomfortable too, but I’m not a retired president who led a controversial presidency for 8 long years.

Obviously he does not want anyone talking about him using the “dangerous internet” as he calls it. Well, I’d rather not spend my time talking about you Mr. Obama, so you should not worry about that. To my readers I would say additionally a few more things:

Whether we use newspaper, book, Internet, TV, movie, or other; it is a reality to share with other people. These are things and perceptions that are reality. Casting such reality off as unreal perception, would be a falsehood and totally dismissive. There is reality even in works of fiction. The fiction in a work of fiction, is a claim that it is 100% fiction. So, as long as there is acceptance that opinion is shaped by any reality, people can find peace in disagreements. But, some things are not opinion. Some things are complete and 100% truth. An example would not be, “the Internet is dangerous”. Rather, an example would be, “today is Wednesday”. We who are writers also know that there’s also speculation, farce, humor, jest, opinion, correspondence, cartoon. These are called devices. I’d also like to mention that we’ve been rather delicate with you, and you survived your presidency.

Don’t worry about where people get their information from or who associates with whom. Practice your listening skills, and don’t worry anymore about what people read or don’t read. That’s their business.

Months ago, relating to political discourse, Mr. Obama called on his own party… suggesting that it was time for them to do their fair share of “listening”. He went on to say that his party, the “democratic party” wasn’t doing their fair share of listening to parties of other opinion. What happened to that mantra? Did it get boring to listen? Obviously, by the time last September rolled around (the time of the article), Mr. Obama thought it was more important to “recreate a common space on the Internet”. “Einstein”, that has already been achieved. The common space need not be shaped to fit your world view. Mr. Obama, do not take jabs at those who use their free speech in a way that you don’t appear to like very much.

Also thanks to the Internet, political activism, and publication, we know now that “105,662,975 US dollars worth of Obama family travel was at US taxpayer expense [Judicial Watch lawsuit (no. 1:17-cv-01007)(Freedom of Information)]. Without F.O.I.A. lawsuits, and publication, the American people would not know. Mr. Obama, you have not retired to some sort of judgeship over the Internet.

The 8 years up to 2017 were not easy… don’t you think you should count your blessings? And, you mentioned Tina Turner’s music in your Canadian visit, whose music I immensely enjoy. You said you prefer Aretha Franklin. Enjoy your music and be quiet ex-president.