Online, freedom of expression changes depending on where you go. Proper policies have yet to be put in place on the internet in regards to universal freedoms of expression.

In 2012 a woman hit another car carrying four teenage passengers and promptly posted to Facebook, “My dumb (expletive) got a dui and I hit a car…lol” according to NBC News. She was jailed for two days after failing to comply with the judge’s orders to deactivate her account. Not recognizing the seriousness, this woman blatantly disregarded decency and drastically diminished the harm of her online words.

“The internet as a human right,” by Catherine Howell and Darrell M. West through Brookings Institution mentions women and girls are especially “heavily impacted by the digital divide.” This article addresses when Article 19 was passed in 2016, making the internet an official human right under Section 32.

Although now information is more easily accessible to both consume and produce, this access can be swiftly taken by a nation’s government. This was happening in 2016 and it still exists as a problem in 2023 – as can be seen here. This article predicted the continuation of this issue, as it was written, “In a world where internet shutdowns are increasing year to year.”

Creating a ranking of values for the internet is nearly impossible as it is a global conglomeration. Different countries lead by differing values with separate codes of conduct.

For example, in Germany, an online statement led to an arrest – as detailed in this article. “‘There has to be a line you cannot cross,'” said a state prosecutor. He advocates for consequences of online words. Under the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Article 1 translated for English speakers, it reads, “(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.” Germany’s values uphold the ideals of their country. However, what is fitting for one country may bar someone’s First Amendment rights in the next.

And in May of 2021, it was made a crime to use hate-motivated insults in Germany. This article mentions the country finds it their responsibility to protect its citizens, “from hostility and exclusion.”

The United Kingdom has similar regulations. “A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another,” under The Communications Act of 2003 in the United Kingdom. These great cultural differences make policing free speech on the internet difficult.

An article regarding a ACLU defamation suit detailed an arrest after comments written on a news article. A comment was made calling an officer corrupt, but this wasn’t allowed under New Hampshire’s law. More specifically, “…criminal defamation law, which makes it a misdemeanor to intentionally and falsely,” the web page goes on to explain.

While the man tried to appeal the charge, it was denied. Through the state’s public radio more details were provided: there was no evidence to back the hateful statements and the man also had an extensive criminal history. This may be taken into consideration.

The legal director at New Hampsire’s American Civil Liberties Union stated, according to Seacoastonline, “We’re disappointed that the First Circuit failed to recognize the vagueness that permeates this statute and authorizes sweeping discretion for law enforcement to arrest and prosecute their critics,” which mirrors the previous article’s distain for the situation.

As shown, it is difficult to specifically rank values such as freedom of expression, right to privacy, or even the impact of one’s speech on others.

Privacy rights are essential, and almost nonexistent in the current media landscape. As privacy concerns are not new, take spam mail and email from unknown sources for example, each day is a greater cause for concern to maintain privacy. Personal data and information needs to be protected. I believe this can be a universal digital standard.

This selected artifact is a whimsical storybook painting from the early 1900’s created by Warwick Goble.

While it is unclear exactly when this particular piece was created, it can be surmised as he created the majority of his illustrations around the aforementioned time. This is evident if a fan, but you can also see this on his Wikipedia page. Information of this mysterious artist is hard to come by as his works far outnumber the amount of personal information there is about this elusive man.

The easy to follow infographic ‘How to Do a Visual Analysis’ sheet created by Curtis Newbold outlines pathos as asking, “Does the artifact employ devices (colors, images, words) that cause an emotional reaction to it?” In response to this, I find the above image to cause much emotion. I also see ‘Rule of Thirds’ being displayed in this work, as well as ‘Red Effect’ where the viewer’s eye is drawn in certain areas with this color.

‘Hind’ means female deer, but it also means ‘posterior’ and ‘back’ and I see this as meaning to showcase the woman present as an Artemis figure, the backbone of the forest. This theme of protection is evident with the feminine character shielding the deer from harm. The creator’s attitude amplifies the power of femininity – which is present throughout his other works, with women being exalted.

While this artifact was originally intended to be in the houses of exclusive people, it can now be found on creative common image websites. I am lucky enough to be able to use his works on my blog posts in modern day.

According to Dorothy Barenscott’s article “Focus on Research | The Elements of Art: Form, Content, and Content,” content more simply means “message.” I think the message here is to tell a story, showing another perspective than the usual. The man is rightly represented as a fool, seemingly hunting for sport, and this man’s fun and folly in the woods has been stopped short with a moment of insight. The story, beauty, and meaning make the viewer care about the message.