Lee is the first-person narrator of the short story and works for a public relations (PR) firm. She is a Black woman whose job is to manage the public image of clients. At the beginning of the story, one of the company's most successful wellness influencers has been caught using the n-word in public, and a video of the incident has spread quickly online. As a result, the influencer is close to being "cancelled", and Lee's company has to deal with the growing public outrage.

When Lee wakes up, she immediately realises that the crisis has escalated overnight. Since the East Coast team started working hours earlier, she already has numerous urgent messages waiting for her. She has to join an emergency Zoom meeting with her colleagues and superiors, who discuss how to protect the influencer's reputation and limit the damage to the company's business.

Throughout the meeting, Lee remains largely silent while her colleagues focus on finding a strategy that allows the influencer to recover from the scandal. Instead of discussing the racist nature of the incident, they mainly concentrate on preserving the influencer's success and maintaining the company's campaigns. As the only Black employee whose perspective is hinted at in the extract, Lee feels emotionally detached and uncomfortable. She suppresses her own reactions and carefully observes the behaviour of the others, who seem more concerned about business than about the harm caused by the racist slur.

By the end of the extract, Lee has not voiced her opinion. Instead, she resists joining the others' agreement and silently questions whether everyone involved can really be "heard", revealing her growing frustration and inner conflict.

Lee's state of mind is presented as one of emotional exhaustion, inner conflict and growing alienation. Through the use of a first-person narrator, vivid imagery, irony and contrasts between Lee's inner thoughts and outward behaviour, Jade Jones enables the reader to understand the psychological pressure Lee experiences while working in a predominantly white corporate environment.

From the beginning, the first-person narration allows readers direct access to Lee's thoughts and emotions. Rather than objectively describing events, she shares her immediate reactions to the crisis, making her frustration and stress highly personal. Her statement that she is "already behind" when she wakes up (ll. 8-12) immediately creates the impression that she has lost control before her working day has even started. The urgent messages piling up increase the feeling of pressure and urgency.

Lee's emotional exhaustion is further emphasised through hyperbole and self-deprecating descriptions. She describes her apartment as serving as her "office, nap space, and [...] scream cave" (ll. 16-18). The humorous exaggeration reflects how work dominates every aspect of her private life while also suggesting that she has reached an emotional breaking point. Likewise, she describes herself as looking "haggard and dry" (l. 28) and even "a minstrelized version of my former self" (ll. 29-30). This metaphor is particularly significant because it combines her physical exhaustion with her awareness of racist stereotypes. Instead of recognising herself, she feels reduced to a distorted image of her identity.

Another important narrative technique is the contrast between Lee's external behaviour and her inner feelings. During the Zoom meeting, she greets everyone cheerfully: "Hi everyone!" (l. 31). However, she immediately admits that the cheerfulness is artificial, explaining that "My smile flicks up like a switch" (ll. 31-32). The simile suggests that her emotions have become mechanical and performative. Her reflection, "It shouldn't be this easy to pretend" (l. 32), highlights how accustomed she has become to hiding her true feelings in the workplace.

Furthermore, Lee increasingly distances herself emotionally from her surroundings. After greeting her colleagues, she states that she lets "my mind go on a hiatus" (ll. 33-34). This metaphor illustrates her attempt to mentally withdraw from a situation she finds exhausting. She explains that "self-inflicted numbness takes less spirit, soul, energy [...] than whatever [...] is shrinking by the minute" (ll. 35-37). The accumulation ("spirit, soul, energy") emphasises how emotionally drained she feels, while the metaphor of something "shrinking" suggests that the constant need to suppress her feelings gradually destroys an essential part of her identity.

Lee's state of mind is also conveyed through irony and sarcasm, which reveal both her intelligence and her emotional distance from the corporate world. She mocks her manager's inappropriate use of a GIF showing "the black guy from Scrubs screaming" (ll. 19-23), pointing out that she only likes such GIFs "when they don't contain black people" (ll. 22-23). This ironic comment criticises the superficial handling of race by her colleagues without confronting them directly. Similarly, she compares her superior to "Piranha Plant interviewing for her next gig" (ll. 49-52). This humorous image exposes Lee's silent resistance and helps her cope with the absurdity of the meeting.

At the same time, Lee closely observes the behaviour of the people around her. When Grand-Manager excuses the influencer's behaviour by saying she "got carried away" (ll. 43-45), Lee internally compares this attitude to "boys will be boys" (ll. 45-46). This allusion criticises the tendency to excuse harmful behaviour instead of taking responsibility. Lee then looks around the Zoom meeting to see "who nods and whose eyes seem to be looking at me with fear or apology" (ll. 46-47). This observation demonstrates her awareness of being the only person personally affected by the racist slur while simultaneously feeling isolated from her colleagues.

The company's priorities further intensify Lee's inner conflict. Throughout the meeting, the discussion repeatedly focuses on "growth" (ll. 54-57) and the influencer's public image rather than on racism itself. Lee ironically undermines the company's supposedly moral "forgiveness campaign" by revealing that it consisted of "unattributed Gandhi quotes" which she had found by Googling "'inspirational quotes + forgiveness + smart'" (ll. 58-60). This ironic disclosure exposes the campaign as superficial and commercially motivated, reinforcing Lee's growing cynicism.

Finally, the ending symbolises Lee's silent resistance. While everyone else nods in agreement and repeats "feel heard" (ll. 70-72), Lee consciously refuses to participate: "I will my neck to stay stiff. To be stone." (l. 73). The short, fragmented sentences and the metaphor of becoming "stone" express her determination not to conform any longer. Although she still remains silent, her refusal to nod symbolises an act of inner protest and shows that she can no longer emotionally support the company's response.

Overall, Jones presents Lee as a woman who is mentally exhausted by the emotional labour of navigating racism within a corporate environment. Through first-person narration, irony, metaphors, contrasts between appearance and reality, and vivid imagery, the reader gains deep insight into Lee's frustration, alienation and quiet resistance. Her silence ultimately speaks louder than words and underlines the psychological burden of constantly having to suppress her true feelings.

The excerpt from Live Today Always by Jade Jones illustrates how social media can intensify public outrage and create enormous pressure on individuals. The wellness influencer's use of a racist slur spreads within hours, triggering a wave of criticism and forcing Lee's PR company into crisis mode. This raises the broader question of whether social media contribute to the brutalization of society.

On the one hand, there are strong arguments supporting this view. Social media often encourage extreme opinions because emotionally charged content attracts more attention than balanced discussions. As seen in the excerpt, the influencer is almost immediately at risk of being "cancelled" after the video goes viral. Instead of allowing time for reflection or context, platforms reward quick judgments and emotional reactions. This can create a hostile online environment in which insults, hate speech and public shaming become normal forms of communication.

Moreover, the anonymity of many online platforms lowers the threshold for aggressive behaviour. People often write comments online that they would never express face to face. Hate campaigns, cyberbullying and personal attacks have become common features of social media. As a consequence, many users are afraid to express controversial opinions because they fear online harassment or being publicly humiliated.

Another problem is that social media algorithms promote sensational and polarising content. Posts that provoke anger or outrage generate more engagement and are therefore shown to more users. This contributes to an increasingly divided society in which people tend to communicate in ideological "echo chambers" rather than engaging in respectful dialogue with those holding different opinions.

On the other hand, it would be wrong to blame social media alone for the brutalization of society. These platforms also give marginalized groups a voice and make discrimination visible. In the excerpt, the influencer's racist behaviour becomes public because someone recorded and shared the incident. Without social media, such misconduct might never have reached a wider audience. Online platforms therefore play an important role in holding influential people accountable for their actions.

Furthermore, social media have enabled social movements such as #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo or campaigns supporting Ukraine to reach millions of people worldwide. These movements have raised awareness of discrimination, abuse and injustice and have encouraged many people to become politically active. In this sense, social media can strengthen democracy instead of weakening it.

Ultimately, whether social media brutalize society depends less on the technology itself than on how people use it. Platforms can amplify hatred and polarization, but they can also promote education, solidarity and democratic participation. Governments, platform operators and users all share responsibility for creating an online environment that encourages respectful discussion while protecting freedom of expression.

In conclusion, social media do contribute to a harsher public discourse because they reward outrage, accelerate public condemnation and facilitate hate speech. However, they also provide opportunities for social progress and political participation. Rather than seeing them as the cause of society's problems, they should be understood as powerful tools whose effects depend on responsible regulation and responsible use.

Freedom of Speech – Should There Be Limits?

Freedom of expression is one of the cornerstones of every democratic society. It allows people to express their opinions freely, criticize governments and participate in public debate. However, the rise of social media has made it easier than ever to spread misinformation, hate speech and extremist views. This raises an important question: To what extent should freedom of expression be limited?

Many people argue that freedom of speech should be almost absolute. They believe that open discussion allows society to discover the best arguments and prevents governments from abusing censorship to silence unpopular opinions. History provides many examples of authoritarian regimes that restricted freedom of expression in order to maintain power. Without this fundamental right, democracy itself would be at risk.

Nevertheless, freedom of expression has never meant the freedom to say absolutely anything without consequences. In most democratic countries, certain forms of speech are already prohibited because they directly harm others. These include threats, defamation, incitement to violence and, in many countries, hate speech. Such restrictions aim to protect people's rights and public safety rather than to suppress legitimate political debate.

The increasing influence of social media has made this balance even more difficult. False information can spread worldwide within minutes, influencing elections, damaging reputations or even putting lives at risk. At the same time, algorithms often amplify emotional or controversial content because it generates more clicks and advertising revenue. As a result, online discussions frequently become more polarized and less fact-based.

The excerpt from Live Today Always illustrates another challenge. After a racist incident becomes public, the PR agency focuses primarily on protecting the influencer's image instead of discussing the harm caused by her words. This shows that public discourse can be manipulated not only by governments but also by companies that try to shape public opinion for economic reasons. Media literacy is therefore becoming increasingly important. People need to recognize manipulation, verify information and critically evaluate what they see online.

However, restrictions on freedom of expression must always remain proportionate. If governments or technology companies remove content too aggressively, they risk suppressing legitimate criticism or minority opinions. Clear laws, transparent moderation policies and independent courts are therefore essential to prevent censorship from becoming a political tool.

Education may ultimately be even more important than regulation. Schools should teach young people how to distinguish reliable sources from misinformation, identify manipulation and engage respectfully with different opinions. A well-informed society is less vulnerable to propaganda and online radicalization.

In conclusion, freedom of expression remains one of democracy's greatest achievements, but it also carries responsibilities. Limited restrictions on speech that directly threatens the rights and safety of others are justified. At the same time, democratic societies must ensure that these limitations are transparent, proportionate and subject to legal oversight. Only by protecting both freedom and responsibility can public discourse remain open, respectful and democratic.