Author: jh staff

TikTok Lawsuit May Forever Change Social Media

A lawsuit was recently brought against TikTok, which may end up altering the legal landscape for social media platforms operating in the U.S.

The lawsuit has its origins in the tragic death of a 10 year-old girl who, while engaging in a trendy but extremely dangerous activity on Tik Tok, sadly lost her life.

In 2021, young Nylah Anderson, was exposed to a viral meme in her TikTok feed. The video that presented itself was called “The Blackout Challenge.”

Social media platforms are loaded with supposedly cool game-like challenges, many of which are relatively harmless. But this particular challenge was anything but low risk.

Devastatingly for Nylah and her family, the specific activity that was advocated was to choke oneself until one lost consciousness. Nylah participated in the challenge and tragically passed away in the process.

Her family filed a lawsuit against TikTok, but the trial court threw out the case, based on the traditional statutory protections enjoyed by social media platforms.

However, a federal appellate court came to a different conclusion. The court held that the lawsuit could go forward because of the manner in which TikTok used its technology, finding that the platform’s algorithm may have promoted the harmful content that led to a fatal outcome for the young girl.

The court’s decision stated the following: “While no one person at TikTok curates content for anyone’s feed, it is fair to call the algorithm the arbiter, and the algorithm is programmed by TikTok…”

Social media platforms, such as TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and others, have been protected by a 25 year-old law passed by Congress, which was intended to shield platforms that came into being during the internet’s infancy.

The early days of the internet featured platforms such as AOL, Compuserve, and Prodigy, which functioned as conduits that passively provided access to content, rather than actively influencing what would appear in users’ accounts.

Consequently, as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, protections were set up in order to shield these passive online services from liability for content that was posted by third parties.

For these early gateways to the web, revenue arrived in the form of subscription fees.

Today’s platforms have a completely different revenue model. Advertising as well as sharing user data comprise the primary sources of income.

The aim of modern social media companies is to acquire, and perhaps more importantly, to maintain its users.

The complex and sophisticated algorithm is the tool that enables a company to consistently maintain its users.

TikTok’s “For You” page, Facebook’s feed, Instagram’s recommendations, and X’s “For You” page are controlled by algorithms that learn what an individual likes to view, and subsequently, based on knowledge of a person’s interests, bring content from other users into the individual’s account. 

In essence, not only do modern social media platforms provide access to content, but they curate what users see via pre-programmed algorithms.

The TikTok lawsuit could have major implications for all of the major modern social media companies, since they all use algorithms to curate content.

If Nylah’s family prevails in its lawsuit, the resulting precedent could mean an effective end to the legal protections under which social media concerns have been operating.

TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, X, and other platforms would then face a significant shift from the protections they have enjoyed under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

In order to avoid future liability, modern social media platforms would be legally responsible to re-design their algorithms in such a way as to prevent the delivery of harmful content.

It very well may be that loss of a precious life will spell the beginning of the end to the outdated legal protections that social media platforms have been enjoying at the expense of the innocent ones.

Matthew Perry’s Passing Becomes a Criminal Case

Matthew Perry’s Hollywood tale is all too familiar. A talented celebrity prematurely dies due to a lethal dose of prescription drugs.

Perry’s untimely death from a prescription drug overdose is one of the more recent Hollywood tragedies.

His starring role as Chandler Bing on the massively successful NBC television sitcom “Friends” thrust him into the international spotlight. The show ran from 1994 to 2004 and remains in syndication to this day.

Perry also appeared in numerous other television shows and feature films.

In October 2023, he left the earthly realm at age 54. An autopsy indicated that he died from the acute effects of a drug called “ketamine.”

The ketamine that killed him is an off-label application of a medication, which is FDA-approved for sedation but can also assist people who suffer from treatment-resistant depression.

Ketamine is highly dangerous when used outside of a clinical facility and without experienced mental health professionals controlling the drug’s administration and monitoring its effects.

Perry was found to have ketamine in his body at a level much higher than the blood level typically used to treat depression.

Circumstances surrounding his death have taken on a different tenor in more recent days and are being examined within the context of criminality, due to the investigative work of multiple law enforcement agencies, including the DEA, Los Angeles Police Department, United States Postal Service, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Five people have now been criminally charged in connection with Perry’s death.

Having had previous struggles with addiction, his addicted state recurred prior to his death. This placed him in a vulnerable position with regard to the actions of the five defendants.

The two lead defendants in the case are a doctor known as “Dr. P.,” and a woman reportedly known as “The Ketamine Queen,” who is accused of selling Perry the ketamine that took his life.

The prosecutor indicated he has evidence that defendant “Dr. P.” was aware of the danger of the drug in Perry’s case and also knew that Perry’s addiction had returned. Despite these factors, the doctor continued to offer ketamine to Perry.

According to the prosecution, the evidence indicates that the doctor allegedly provided altered and falsified medical records, which allegedly sought to influence the investigation into Perry’s death.

The female defendant is accused of selling ketamine over a two-week period to Perry, including the batch that took the actor’s life.

The charges are serious. If convicted, “Dr.P.” faces a maximum of 120 years in federal prison. The alleged female drug seller faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Three other defendants, including a second doctor, an alleged distributor, and the actor’s assistant, are pursuing plea bargains for their respective charges.

The second physician is accused of selling ketamine to the female alleged drug dealer, a male individual is accused of distributing the drug, and Perry’s live-in assistant stands accused of administering the ketamine on the day Perry died.

All three defendants have admitted in court documents to their respective accusations as part of their plea deals. Due to the strength of the case, it is highly likely that the plea agreements will include cooperation with the prosecution, which would ostensibly make the case against the two lead defendants even stronger.

According to the indictment, the defendants allegedly used encrypted messaging and coded language that referred to ketamine as “Dr. Pepper” in order to hide the actual name of the drug.

The actor’s family, including Perry’s mother and stepfather, has reportedly received some comfort from the prosecutorial efforts.

They indicated in a statement that “…it [prosecutorial efforts] has helped to know law enforcement has taken his case very seriously.”

The pursuit of fame is no doubt on the rise in this Hollywood nation of ours.

Is it the result of social media, TikTok, or the influencers phenomenon?

Yes and no.

At our core we are social creatures, ever-needing one another’s approval, acceptance, and love. Fame is a type of quantifiable measure of how much of these intangibles one has accrued.

The arc of fame also has a life of its own, with successes, failures, joys, sorrows, and so on. The public is frequently unable to process this reality.

So folks are understandably confused and wondering how a tragedy such as Perry’s could have occurred.

Perry was different from other celebrities, though, in that he had an openness about his struggles. I view this as a gift he gave to his fans.

He allowed folks to peer into his world, was honest about his struggles, and let it be known in a humble way that one can achieve lofty levels of fame and fortune and appear to “have it all,” yet still be plagued by depression, addiction, heartache, and the like.

Sad that the lyrics of the “Friends” theme song didn’t ring true for the fallen star.

The Real Archetype and the Fake One

From our earliest beginnings to our senior years, stories have a way of capturing our attention, touching our hearts, and lingering in our minds long after the tale has ended.

We simply never outgrow our “tell me a story” yearning.

Embedded within so many stories from history, literature, and mythology is an enduring figure, the hero.

Renowned psychiatrist and founder of analytic psychology Carl Jung placed the hero figure under the umbrella of the archetype of the collective unconscious.

Archetypes surface from the collective unconscious and enter our conscious minds as mythological characters.

Images of the larger than life personas take root within our thoughts, experiences, and memories.

Hero figures that are bona fide archetypes actually have the potential to influence our perceptions. Examples include real life military and sports heroes and fictional comic book superheroes.

Recently, former President Donald Trump was catapulted to hero status, when after being shot during an attempted assassination, he stood tall, pumped his fist in the air, and uttered the unparalleled words “Fight, fight, fight!”

In an instant, he became the archetype.

Everyone could see how compelling a moment it was, including the former president’s political opponents.

Democrats and the complicit media were well aware that something needed to be done to slow the momentum, reverse the narrative, and ultimately prohibit the continuance of his hero archetype status.

Initially, the response of the former president’s opponents was scattered and unfocused. Big Tech attempted to censor the iconic photo of his blood-streaked face, and social media influencers tried to change the narrative of the assassination attempt.

Nothing seemed to be working.

That’s when President Joe Biden was encouraged to hand over the governing reins to Vice President Kamala Harris, which he did quite swiftly and without using the correct protocols or going through the proper channels.

Still, there was another extremely important task that had to be accomplished. The vice president’s highly damaged image had to be remade. And more importantly, she had to have the appearance of having risen to the level of archetype herself, one that could stand toe to toe with the authentic hero status of Donald J. Trump.

Handlers went to work on giving the Biden administration’s social media accounts an extreme make-over. The Biden TikTok account’s name was changed to Kamala HQ, memes began to be posted by GenX influencers, and there was a focus shift to online discourse and pop culture.

Handlers also made sure that the vice president avoided holding any formal press conferences or making appearances in venues at which challenging questions might be asked.

A campaign rally was held, which used Megan Thee Stallion’s performance to draw a significantly larger audience than the vice president had previously been attracting.

Her far-left positions on key issues, such as the banning of fracking, confiscation of guns, outlawing of private health insurance, decriminalization of border crossings, defunding of police, abolishing ICE, and promoting the Green New Deal were scrubbed from the internet, and more palatable positions were substituted in.

Her ranking as the “most liberal” member of the Senate by GovTrack in 2019 was stripped from the web.

The news was adorned with fluff pieces about her collection of cookbooks, family life, etc., and somehow her grating laugh was recast as “joyful” and “charismatic.”

But they still weren’t finished crafting the fake archetype of their preferred presidential pick.

Despite the existence of extensive video footage and news reporting to the contrary, there was a flat-out denial that the vice president had been tasked with the job of securing the border, insisting that she had never been assigned to that position.

All this having been said, the Democrats and their allies in the media have two huge problems: The hero archetype in any story has to be believable, and real hero status has to be earned.

Bottom line is you just can’t fake being a real hero.

Public Demand for J.D. Vance’s Backstory Continues to Rise

We’ve heard a lot about polls lately, and although polls certainly have their place, spontaneous sales of print and streaming content oftentimes speak louder.

In the week following the announcement that J.D. Vance would be former president and current GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s pick as running mate in the upcoming 2024 election, book sales of Vance’s memoir “Hillbilly Elegy” rose a humongous 13,000%.

And that’s not all. During the week following the announcement, 197,000 print copies flew off the shelves, and the book became the #1 seller across all genres.

Additionally, when the e-book and audio book sales are taken into consideration, over 650,000 copies of “Hillbilly Elegy” were purchased during that monumental week, bringing the total sales since its release to more than 3 million copies.

Current demand has been so great at retail outlets that to meet the increased need the publisher, HarperCollins, has ordered a new print run consisting of hundreds of thousands of copies.

Back in 2016 the phenomenal success of “Hillbilly Elegy” catapulted Vance into the celebrity realm long before he entered the political arena. Readers of the book loved it and spread the word of its unique story.

Vance’s real life tale is a compelling one.

A fatherless home, a mother who fell prey to drug addiction, a poverty that defies description, a rescue by family members, an ascent to Marine Corps manhood, an undergraduate college advancement, and a Yale Law school trophy.

Truly the embodiment of the American dream.

The book also provides something else: A window into the Appalachian culture, featuring virtues to be treasured as well as vices to overcome. So reminiscent of sociological traits that are seen in various other multi-cultures across our country.

This all lends to the relatability and, of course, the popularity of Vance’s life story.

His backstory has been routinely cited by a wide variety of political experts (including his present political opponents) in an attempt to more fully understand the Trump campaign victory in 2016.

The candid portrait of Appalachia in particular and of rural poverty in general has helped many to appreciate the appeal of the former president to the forgotten members of the working class.

Interestingly, the critics heaped praise on Vance’s book.

The book’s original title is “Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis.”

In 2020 Hollywood produced a film adaptation of the book with the shortened title “Hillbilly Elegy.”

The movie was released in select cinemas before its streaming release on Netflix. It was the most-watched film on the site the first day of its release, before finishing third in its debut weekend.

Glenn Close portrays Vance’s “Mamaw” (which in 2021 earned her a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination), Amy Adams plays Vance’s mother, and Gabriel Basso portrays the teen version of J.D.

Despite having the Oscar-winning director Ron Howard and a stellar cast, many in the film critic community slammed the movie. The aggregated critics on the Rotten Tomatoes website gave the film an unduly low 25% rating.

However, much like the book, after the announcement that Vance had been selected to be the GOP vice presidential nominee, the movie almost immediately trended on Netflix, and viewership grew by more than 1,180%.

The interest in Vance’s backstory caused the film version of “Hillbilly Elegy” to debut in the eighth position on the Netflix Global Top 10 Movies chart the week of the announcement of the veep nominee. The movie had a whopping 4.8 million views.

The organic success of the book as well as the movie is reflective of how people from all across the social, economic, and cultural strata can relate to a story that features the triumph of the human spirit.

“Hillbilly Elegy” may just end up translating into votes that echo throughout the mountains and valleys of the American landscape.

Ban on Smartphones in Schools Earns Bipartisan Support

Just when it seemed that no common ground between the right and the left in the country could be found, an issue has emerged where both sides are in agreement: It’s time to rid the classrooms of mobile digital devices, aka smartphones, during school hours.

In numerous places across the country, school districts have been banning cell phone usage by students, due to the increased awareness of the detrimental effects that unsupervised technological and social media engagement can have on the physical, mental, social, and emotional development of our children.

Counted among the diverse states, counties, cities, and towns that have opted to restrict mobile devices in schools is none other than the Left Coast’s deep blue City of Angels.

Recently the large and highly influential Los Angeles Unified School District Board approved a resolution to develop a policy to ban student use of cell phones and social media platforms.

The actual implementation of the policy will not take place until 2025. However, California Gov. Gavin Newsom has apparently taken a cue from Florida, which back in 2023 was the first state to enact such a ban.

Gov. Newsom recently proposed statewide legislation regarding a smartphone ban in schools, which will take effect in 2026.

Other blue state governors have also joined in the mix, including New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who is pursuing a statewide ban on smartphones beginning in 2025.

Gov. Hochul recently commented about what she referred to as “these addictive algorithms,” stating that the technology is able to “literally capture them [schoolchildren] and make them prisoners in a space where they are cut off from human connection, social interaction and normal classroom activity.”

Earlier in 2024 Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb signed a ban on smartphones in classrooms, which recently took effect on July 1.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed legislation that leaves decisions up to local school administrators to create their own smartphone bans if so desired.

The Virginia Senate is working on a similar bill, which would empower school boards to develop and implement smartphone bans.

At the federal level, two U.S. senators, Republican Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Democrat Tim Kaine of Virginia, recently joined forces on legislation that allows for a nationwide study to be conducted on the effects of smartphone use in schools.

Bans on mobile digital decvices have been prompted by a flood of negative effects that have resulted from the excessive and escalating use of smartphones and social media apps by children.

A vast majority of teachers have determined smartphones to be a serious distraction in classrooms.

Nearly three-quarters of high school teachers in the U.S. view smartphones as a major distraction in the classroom, according to a November 2024 Pew poll.

Research continues to indicate that unrestricted smartphone usage can negatively impact the mental development of young people.

A 2023 University of North Carolina study found that when adolescents engage in the habitual activity of checking their smartphones, it actually “changes how their brains respond to the world around them.”

Co-author Mitch Prinstein stated, “Our research demonstrates that checking behaviors on social media could have long-standing and important consequences for adolescents’ neural development, which is critical for parents and policy-makers to consider when understanding the benefits and potential harms associated with teen technology use.”

The power of smartphones to distract is clearly supported by data. Children ages 8-12 spend more than five hours per day on smartphones, while teenagers spend in excess of eight hours per day.

However, the capacity of smartphones to distract may not be the most serious aspect of the issue. Many young people may be experiencing the fallout of the inherent addictive qualities that the devices possess.

In his recently released book titled “The Anxious Generation,” social psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues that the smartphone-driven “great rewiring of childhood” is causing an “epidemic of mental illness.”

The author states that his research has identified a strong link between smartphone use and declining mental health.

In April of 2024, Policy Exchange, a British educational think tank, published a study titled “The Case for a Smartphone Ban in Schools.”

The study suggests that there is a “link between smartphone ownership, social media use and a greater prevalence of mental and behavioral disorders amongst children and young people.”

The study also demonstrates that there is “a clear correlation between an effective phone ban and better school performance.”

It’s great to have the empirical data to bolster our parental, community, and common sense instincts.

It’s even greater to have a theme that we can all rally around: Ditch the smartphones and save the kids.

The Ten Commandments and the Nation’s Heartbeat

Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry recently signed into law a requirement that the text of The Ten Commandments be displayed in public school classrooms.

House Bill No. 71 applies to public schools from elementary to secondary and even post-secondary institutions, with an exemption for charter schools.

The Louisiana bill is the first of its kind to be passed into law, and support is currently building in Texas to pass a similar one.

While other states have attempted comparable legislation, such proposed bills have failed to make it through the legislative processes.

In an effort to emphasize the historical and foundational importance of The Ten Commandments, the Louisiana legislature also added a provision that calls for a four paragraph “context statement” to be posted nearby, stating that the Commandments “were a prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries.”

Even though the legislation does not take effect until 2025, institutions on the left are already pushing back.

— MSNBC’s website recently featured a headline that referred to the legislation as “a grave threat to civic morality.”

— Slate’s headline stated that the law “couldn’t be more unconstitutional.”

— Richmond Times-Dispatch published a piece that characterized the law as “a move toward theocracy.”

— The Intelligencer’s headline read “Christian Nationalism Marches on in Louisiana.”

Gov. Landry indicated that he is looking forward to defending the new Ten Commandments law in court.

“I can’t wait to be sued,” the governor stated, according to The Tennessean.

Apparently, leftist legal groups cannot wait to grant Gov. Landry’s wish.

The American Civil Liberties Union, including the group’s Louisiana chapter, almost immediately announced that it would be filing a lawsuit, as did the Americans United for Separation of Church and State as well as the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

Each of the groups is claiming that the new law violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

It is particularly ironic when groups such as these attempt to censor The Ten Commandments using the First Amendment as their basis, the constitutional amendment that safeguards freedom of religion at its start, prior to mentioning a series of additional rights.

The first part of the Bill of Rights, which memorializes both religious expression and freedom of speech, was penned in a manner that was clearly not intended to be used as a means of restricting the free exercise of said rights.

The Ten Commandments is no ordinary piece of prose, but is instead a historical description and delineation upon which the laws of our nation are based.

The Commandments detail the specifics of the “laws of nature and nature’s God,” which are set forth in The Birth Certificate of America, the exquisitely-worded Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration encompasses the laws that are “written on the heart,” the natural law that the founders of our nation imbued into our system of government, particularly our judicial branch.

The actual reason that the left is engaging in hyperbole with regard to The Ten Commandments may have to do with the challenges that the words within the Decalogue present to the left’s highly flexible standard for human behavior: Moral Relativism.

Rather than offering a situational ethics perspective, The Ten Commandments draw into focus the fundamental basis for the American legal system, which is expressed in the time-honored laws of Louisiana and the other 49 states.

In an April hearing for the bill, State Rep. Dodie Horton pointed out that the display of The Ten Commandments is “not preaching a Christian religion. It’s not preaching any religion. It’s teaching a moral code.”

In 1956, at the New York opening of the iconic film “The Ten Commandments,” director Cecil B. DeMille noted that “The Ten Commandments are the charter and guide of human liberty, for there can be no liberty without the law.”

And without the guardrails that uphold us, our nation’s heartbeat will no longer be heard.

No Equivalency between Trump and Biden Trials

President Joe Biden’s son Hunter was recently found guilty on three criminal charges: Making a false statement in the purchase of a gun, making a false statement in information required to be kept by a gun dealer, and possession of a gun by a person who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance.

After only three hours of deliberation, a Delaware jury convicted Hunter on all counts. Each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000. Additionally, the first son could be sentenced to a maximum of 25 years in prison.

Almost immediately after the guilty verdict had been announced, Democrats and the complicit media began singing from the identical song sheet. Phrases such as the tediously familiar “no one is above the law” echoed through the cybersphere.

Many supposed pundits made comparisons between Hunter’s trial and the unusual Manhattan proceedings, which claimed to convict current GOP presumptive nominee and former President Donald Trump.

First a little background on the current president’s son’s case.

Hunter ended up being tried on gun crimes. But this came about after a federal judge put the brakes on a plea deal that a previous prosecutor had attempted to push through.

The plea deal had been announced in June of 2023. Hunter had agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax offenses through which he would have essentially escaped with a slap on the wrist.

If the deal had been implemented, he would have received two years probation and a “diversion agreement,” which would have enabled him to avoid prosecution on the felony gun charge.

However, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika seriously questioned the agreement. Hunter’s lawyers tried to salvage it but were unsuccessful. Everything culminated in Hunter’s recent Delaware courtroom trial and his swift conviction.

Now for the main distinctions between the two high-profile trials:

— Trump was never offered any deal to avoid being criminally tried. Hunter was offered a very choice arrangement.

— In Trump’s case, the prosecution conflated a bookkeeping misdemeanor into 34 felony counts. In Hunter’s case, despite having possession of a now-authenticated laptop that was purportedly loaded with material indicating potentially serious crimes, the prosecution pared things down to a charge of lying on a gun application.

— Trump found himself in an extremely hostile venue, featuring conflicts of interest, star witnesses with credibility gaps, and evidence that was short on relevance and long on salaciousness.

On the other hand Hunter’s trial played out in a friendly venue, a place where people routinely viewed him and other family members as celebrities, and he wasn’t muzzled with a gag order.

— Lastly, Trump is running for president. Hunter isn’t.

The first son is set to return to the courthouse in late summer or fall 2024, this time in California. He will be facing charges of three felonies and six misdemeanors concerning $1.4 million in taxes.

The prosecution has alleged that he didn’t pay his federal income taxes from January 2017 to October 2020, and that he filed false tax reports to boot.

The back taxes have since been paid.

Under normal circumstances, a case such as this would pose greater potential legal jeopardy for Hunter than the case in Delaware.

But then again, there’s not much that can be considered “normal circumstances” these days, so it’s anyone’s guess what will ultimately happen.

Here’s one thing you can hang your hat on.

There is no equating the Trump and Biden trials.

Not in procedure.

Not in fairness.

Not in guilt or innocence.

Not in outcome.

And not when it comes to the dispiriting effect on our nation.