Category: First Amendment

Cyberbullying, like other forms of bullying, is an increasingly serious issue, particularly in schools. Laws and regulations exist intended to prevent students from falling victim to it. However, as the process often happens outside of the school and does not necessarily involve any of its facilities, it can be challenging to detect and protect students from it. When detected, it requires action from the school faculty, which may include legal action. Fundamentally, case law, such as the precedent of Morse v. Frederick (2007), states that a students First Amendment rights are circumscribed in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Nonetheless, several precedents establish arguments related to the protection of student online speech that may constitute cyberbullying.

First Amendment Arguments and Responses

Several key arguments can be brought up in a cyberbullying case. The primary argument that involves the First Amendment directly was made in the Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969) case, where the Supreme Court ruled that students actions that interfere with the disciplinary requirements of a school are not protected by the First Amendment. More recently, Currently, Bittner (2013) identifies three key themes with legal arguments related to cyberbullying: the geographical approach, the substantial disruption approach, and the relational/duty to the student approach. Under the geographical approach, the defendant can argue that since the event in question occurs online and outside of school property, it is covered by the First Amendment and the school has no authority to discipline the student (Bittner, 2013, p. 177). Similar argumentation was used in Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist (2011), where the court ruled in favor of the student. However, the messages content, intent, and the possible effect on the school environment determine the relevant response, as well.A defendant in a cyberbullying case can argue that the speech on a Facebook page does not constitute a threat. However, following from the precedent established in Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969), a counterargument exists that a potential disruption of a schools instructional process by off-campus activity can be grounds for legal action (Bittner, 2013). Furthermore, the reasoning in Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser (1986) and Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier (1988) is that a school is obligated to provide certain protections to their students and faculty members, and, therefore, may limit a students expression to do so. Therefore, if it can be proven that the students messages can cause harm, including psychological harm and harm to academic performance, to another student, violate privacy, or interfere with the schools function and environment, the courts may be justified to rule against the defendant.

Required Actions

According to the Board Policy of LA County School District and California State statutes, school staff should immediately intervene to stop the incident of bullying. In the case of cyberbullying, this involves investigation and documenting the activity and identifying specific facts or circumstances that explain the impact or potential impact on school activity, school attendance, or the targeted students educational performance (California School Boards Association [CSBA], 2012, BP 5131.2(d)). Furthermore, if a social networking site or service was used for bullying, a request should be filed with the site or service in question, requesting that the offending material is removed and the bullying students social networking privileges suspended (CSBA, BP 5131.2(d)). Disciplinary measures against the offending student may include suspension and expulsion (CSBA, AR 5144.1(d); Los Angeles Unified School District, 2018). During the course of the investigation, the involved students parents may be notified, as appropriate (CSBA, BP 5131.2(c)). In general, these steps are aimed at minimizing harm and restoring school discipline.

References

1. Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
2. Bittner, M. L. (2013). Beyond the schoolhouse gate: Students First Amendment speech rights in the digital age. The Clearing House, 86, 174-178.
3. California School Boards Association (2012). Board Policy.
4. Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
5. Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist., No. 07-4465 (3d Cir. 2011).
6. Los Angeles Unified School District (2018). 2018-2019 Parent Student Handbook. Los Angeles, CA.
7. Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007).
8. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

Cyberbullying, like other forms of bullying, is an increasingly serious issue, particularly in schools. Laws and regulations exist intended to prevent students from falling victim to it. However, as the process often happens outside of the school and does not necessarily involve any of its facilities, it can be challenging to detect and protect students from it. When detected, it requires action from the school faculty, which may include legal action. Fundamentally, case law, such as the precedent of Morse v. Frederick (2007), states that a students First Amendment rights are circumscribed in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Nonetheless, several precedents establish arguments related to the protection of student online speech that may constitute cyberbullying.

First Amendment Arguments and Responses

Several key arguments can be brought up in a cyberbullying case. The primary argument that involves the First Amendment directly was made in the Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969) case, where the Supreme Court ruled that students actions that interfere with the disciplinary requirements of a school are not protected by the First Amendment. More recently, Currently, Bittner (2013) identifies three key themes with legal arguments related to cyberbullying: the geographical approach, the substantial disruption approach, and the relational/duty to the student approach. Under the geographical approach, the defendant can argue that since the event in question occurs online and outside of school property, it is covered by the First Amendment and the school has no authority to discipline the student (Bittner, 2013, p. 177). Similar argumentation was used in Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist (2011), where the court ruled in favor of the student. However, the messages content, intent, and the possible effect on the school environment determine the relevant response, as well.A defendant in a cyberbullying case can argue that the speech on a Facebook page does not constitute a threat. However, following from the precedent established in Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969), a counterargument exists that a potential disruption of a schools instructional process by off-campus activity can be grounds for legal action (Bittner, 2013). Furthermore, the reasoning in Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser (1986) and Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier (1988) is that a school is obligated to provide certain protections to their students and faculty members, and, therefore, may limit a students expression to do so. Therefore, if it can be proven that the students messages can cause harm, including psychological harm and harm to academic performance, to another student, violate privacy, or interfere with the schools function and environment, the courts may be justified to rule against the defendant.

Required Actions

According to the Board Policy of LA County School District and California State statutes, school staff should immediately intervene to stop the incident of bullying. In the case of cyberbullying, this involves investigation and documenting the activity and identifying specific facts or circumstances that explain the impact or potential impact on school activity, school attendance, or the targeted students educational performance (California School Boards Association [CSBA], 2012, BP 5131.2(d)). Furthermore, if a social networking site or service was used for bullying, a request should be filed with the site or service in question, requesting that the offending material is removed and the bullying students social networking privileges suspended (CSBA, BP 5131.2(d)). Disciplinary measures against the offending student may include suspension and expulsion (CSBA, AR 5144.1(d); Los Angeles Unified School District, 2018). During the course of the investigation, the involved students parents may be notified, as appropriate (CSBA, BP 5131.2(c)). In general, these steps are aimed at minimizing harm and restoring school discipline.

References

1. Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
2. Bittner, M. L. (2013). Beyond the schoolhouse gate: Students First Amendment speech rights in the digital age. The Clearing House, 86, 174-178.
3. California School Boards Association (2012). Board Policy.
4. Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
5. Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist., No. 07-4465 (3d Cir. 2011).
6. Los Angeles Unified School District (2018). 2018-2019 Parent Student Handbook. Los Angeles, CA.
7. Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007).
8. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

The controversy of rap artists’ lyrics and the First Amendment has been a debate long argued. A great amount of rap artists’ have been convicted and sent to jail for lyrics they’ve written. Most of the rappers are falsely accused of murder and drug use just for mentioning such in their songs; however, many rap artists’ use strong language and speak of events that many are unaccustomed to which may shock and offend many listeners. This brings rise to the question, “Are artists’ lyrics protected under the First Amendment?” The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”. This means that Congress cannot restrict our practices of religion or people’s right to free speech, including song lyrics, poems, speeches, etc. Therefore, controversial statements made during artists’ songs are protected by the first Amendment.

Carla Herreria, a Hawaii-based reporter, claims that, “Rap music is a means for many people to express their own inner turmoil and frustrations and, by ‘criminalizing’ rap lyrics, the court risks silencing many Americans.” She’s saying that people who rap do it to release tension and when courts turn their means of expression into a criminal offense, they’re taking away a basic human right. She is correct, and rap lyrics are no more than a means of self expression and creativity. The First Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” but when the court criminalizes artist’s lyrics, they’re doing just that.

In 1986, an American hip hop group from Compton, California named N.W.A., or “Niggaz Wit Attitudes”, was formed and were notorious for their gangster repertoire. In 1988 they released one of their most popular, yet contentious, songs called “Fuck Tha Police”. The song was structured to seem like the rappers are in a courtroom while each of their verses are a testimony. The title of this particular song caused a lot of controversy, but the lyrics are what really provoked law enforcement officers. The song included lyrics such as, “A young nigga got it bad cause i’m brown”, and, “…so police think they have the authority to kill a minority.” At first, these lyrics sound very indecent, but in reality these verses are meant to display police brutality and injustices towards certain races. A year later, while on tour, the group actually performed the song in Detroit, but ended up being chased off stage by Detroit police and later, arrested. The police said they had arrested the group because they wanted to show people that you cannot say “fuck the police” in Detroit. This censorship lead to riots both in and around the venue, and overall created a larger problem than it should’ve been. The rap was made to mock the procedures of the judicial system and prove that racial stereotyping is a huge problem. Like Carla Herreria said, they’re using this rap to, “release their inner turmoil and frustrations.” Even though this song contained explicit language and was directed towards the police, it was still a means of expression. Thus, the group was protected under the First Amendment and the police had no real reason in arresting them. They were simply speaking up on issues that weren’t being solved and might never have without the use of their platform. Even Ice Cube himself, a member of the group, said, “I ain’t gonna change nothing I do, cause I ain’t doin’ nothing wrong.”

A Similar case, in 2012, involved a young man named Taylor Bell; a senior at Itawamba Agricultural High School in Fulton, Mississippi. This student was disciplined by the court for posting a rap song online to Facebook and YouTube. The song included the lyrics, “Looking down girls’ shirts, drool running down your mouth,” and, “Going to get a pistol down your mouth.” These were meant to focus on the sexually charged comments and unwanted touching by two male coaches towards female students; however, the court badly misunderstood. “The song does carry a lot of strong, vulgar language,” said Bell. “If you don’t really listen to hip-hop music, sometimes that language can kind of blur the message of what you’re trying to get across.” That is exactly what happened to the school officials; they were “blurred” by all the language that they completely missed the point of the rap. Adam Liptak, an American journalist, addresses this problem in his article, “Hip Hop Stars Stand Up for First Amendment Rights of a Student.” He argues that he sees nothing wrong with the way a student expressed his feelings towards the behaviors of two coaches. He also explains how the government punished a young man for a rap song created to address sexual harassment concerning several females and two male coaches. His purpose is to inform the reader of injustices towards this student. While he expresses his thoughts mostly to other students, he also addresses other rappers along with ordinary readers. Liptak states, “I see a kid who saw wrong happening and was outraged about it, he wrote a poem about it over a beat.” The student was making the predatorial events known, just in his own creative way. Yet, even though he was doing justice to the girls that were harrassed, he still got punished. Hearing this story made many people furious with the court and school officials. Several of these people being big named artists such as, T.I, Big Boy, and Killer Mike. Disappointed in the treatment of this young man, the famous rappers came to his support and even went as far as defending him in court arguing that, “Rap music is a political and artistic juggernaut that deserves attention and First Amendment protection.” However, even with the support of famous rappers, the government still punished Bell by suspending him to a different school and saying he was, “Guilty of harassment, intimidation and, threatening two named educators with gun-related violence.” Again, a rapper used their talents to release their angers and frustrations, while addressing major problems. Despite the language Bell used, he saw an opportunity to confront injustice and took it.

In the same year, yet another young man, named Jamal Knox, was punished by the government and actually arrested for the lyrics used in his song “Fuck the Police”. The song stated this, “Let’s kill these cops cuz they don’t do us no good. Pullin’ your glock out cause I live in the hood.” These two verses were the only “threatening” lyrics that came from the song. Having lived in the “hood”, Knox’s intentions were to reflect on the many cases of police brutality and racial stereotyping; and like most rappers who have encountered racism and other injustices, he told a story over a beat. His story. However, the court told him he “crossed a line” that was not protected under the First Amendment. Once again, rappers were infuriated. Chance the Rapper, Meek Mill, Killer Mike and other high-profile hip-hop artists’ came together to defend the young rapper. They argued that, “Plenty of artists have songs that depict violence yet they’re not arrested and jailed.” They also added that, “The law can’t pick and choose who is guilty and who isn’t.” Nevertheless, that is exactly what the court was doing. Jamal Knox was sentenced to three to Four and a half years in prison for intimidation, terroristic threats, and conspiracy.

Even Though these rappers were justified in creating their raps and were supported by other artists, many still believe that they were making true threats and rap music is not protected. Scott Bomboy for example, in his article, “The conflict between rap lyrics and the First Amendment”, He claims that rap music, “…should be censored indefinitely. Expressing is one thing, But inciting violence, Riots, Violent protests, Threatening to kill innocent people, and invoking expression of violence in their songs is another.” He’s stating that rap music should be restricted because of the negative effects that may come with it. He is correct, to a point, that some songs may incite violence, protests, and perhaps even riots; however, artists are still free to express themselves and anything others do shouldn’t be their responsibility. Rap, and music in general, affect people differently and rappers are not obligated to keep their crowds under control. Another writer that shares the same beliefs is Larry Meeks from Detroit News. He claims, “It makes the singers appear to be malicious, brutal, and nasty. It also conveys the message they have a limited vocabulary and are unable to express themselves using socially acceptable words.” Like Bomboy, Larry Meeks feels that their choice of language also makes them sound ignorant and “unable to express themselves” in a civil way. It’s easy seeing where Meeks is coming from. Rap and “Gangsta rap” are two very controversial genres and contain strong language that is typically not seen as “socially acceptable”; nevertheless, that’s the choice people need to consider when attempting to listen to this type of music. Yes, it makes singers appear to be malicious and brutal, but that’s their form of expression. They choose to use foul language.

This type of music seems to be affecting the courts and police more than it affects the actual listeners. Then again, it’s hard to place the blame entirely on the police and courts when there are many people at fault. Most rappers tend to see themselves as bigger than the law and therefore, cause trouble for themselves. Even so, they rap stories of their experiences and if they have to curse, or be explicit to get their message across, why should it be a problem? When Johnny Cash, the famous American singer, said, “I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die,” no one questioned it. When the Jamaican songwriter, Bob Marley, came out with the song “I shot the sheriff”, no one believed it to be true. Courts appear to be singling out rap artists. Not only those mentioned, but many more. Perhaps it is because of the excessively violent lyrics, or the very nature of this genre. Still, but these are not valid reasons to convict and jail artists. Voltaire, a French Enlightenment writer and essayist, claims, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.” He is saying that his views may not agree with other’s, but he believes that everyone has a right to what they believe. Rap music fits well here because many people are in disagreement with the nature and style of it, but those who rap still have a right to say what they believe. As do pop singers, rock singers, poets, filmmakers, etc. The police and courts may disagree with what rap artists’ have to say, but that doesn’t mean they criminalize them.

I bet people raised an eyebrow when Mr. Cash sang his lyric about watching a man die, yet he wasn’t charged with murder and treating rap lyrics differently, just proves that there is some sort of double standard. Stuart Taylor Jr. writes about problems like these in his article, “It’s Time to Junk the Double Standard on Free Speech”. In this article, he writes about censorship on college campuses and how there is a double standard when it comes to punishment on “free-speech”. One example in his text, is from a man named Thor L. Halvorssen, who is the executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education Inc. (FIRE). He believes that campus speech codes are, “Applied selectively, with a double standard depending on your blood and culture,”; meaning, that depending on one’s culture, the speech codes may or may not apply. This is how rap and music in general is being treated. Society seems to apply a double standard when it comes to rap music and completely disregard any other genre that use strong language. Halvorssen also mentions a photograph taken on a college campus by a student. The photograph showed a crucifix submerged in urine and titled “Piss Christ”. He then explains that if a photograph of Martin Luther King Jr. were to be put in urine then, “The sky would fall and the entire school would have to be put through sensitivity training.” This relates to the song from Bob Marley where he sings about shooting the sheriff. Again, no one questioned this lyric; yet, when Jamal Knox rapped about killing the cops, he was convicted and jailed. Its safe to say that if Bob Marley were put into jail for his lyrics, much like the hypothetical scenario with Martin Luther KIng Jr., everyone would’ve freaked out. This is the double standard Stuart Taylor is talking about in the title of his article. The media is also accused for the double standard on speech in his text. He addresses the media saying, “But where have they been during the past two decades of efforts coming from…devotees of identity politics, racial preferences, and male-bashing brand of feminism…?” The media shines the light on what they want to make known. In turn, many stories go unheard of; especially the ones that breed controversy. In Taylor’s article, the media publicizes the shaming of a publisher and terroristic comments, but not the problems that have been present for years. The media is also seen at fault in the court cases mentioned previously with Taylor Bell and Jamal Knox. The media only covered the shocking parts like their explicit lyrics and language and not the full story. What they didn’t cover was the artists’ stories or reasons for writing those verses. They were just made out as troublesome teens who were rapping about violence and murder. Why does the media fixate on the negative and why do they come down on certain topics? As Stuart Taylor said, “It’s time to junk the double standard.”

Rap music is a means for many people to express their own inner turmoil and frustrations. Courts are taking away a basic human right when they turn rappers’ means of expression into a criminal offense. The right to free speech. It’s even stated in the First Amendment that, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”; however, this freedom is lost in translation when it comes to rappers and their style of music. Police are slicing their verses up and trying to piece together vicious events in relation to them. Their songs are not meant to be confessions, but that’s the way law enforcement and prosecutors perceive them. They tend to view any explicit lyric as a true event and therefore see fit to their conviction. Rappers are artists, and whatever they say over a beat is no different to that of another singer. People view rappers as gangsters while other singers are seen as creative artists. At the end of the day, rap is just another form of expression and any controversial statements made during artists’ songs are protected by the First Amendment.

Works Cited

1. Bomboy, Scott. “The conflict between rap lyrics and the First Amendment.” Constitutional Daily, 28, Mar. 2014, www.constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-conflicn-between-rap-lyrics-as-criminal-evidence- nd-the-first-amendmen, Accessed 25 March 2019.
2. Burgess, Natalie. “Essay 4 Prompt.” English 1 class meeting, 7 May 2019, Long Beach City College, CA. Lecture notes.
3. Herreria, Carla. “Famous Rappers Say Pittsburgh Artist’s Lyrics Are Protected by First Amendment.” Huffpost, 7 Mar. 2019, www.huffpost.com/entry/rappers-supreme-court-first-amendment. Accessed 2, April, 2019.
4. Liptak, Adam. “Hip-Hop Stars Stand Up for First Amendment Rights of a Student: [National Desk].” ProQuest, 21 December, 2015, www.lib-ezproxy.lbcc.edu:2054/docview/1750365500/fulltext/C3F7CB007DF545BEPQ/2?accountid=39846. Accessed 20, February, 2019.
5. Meeks, Larry, G. “First Amendment rights don’t excuse racist lyrics found in today’s rap music: [Detroit News].” ProQuest, 8, Mar. 2000, /lib-ezproxy.lbcc.edu:2054/results/6A4A196978334148PQ/1?accountid=39846, Accessed 22, May, 2019.
6. Taylor, Stuart, Jr. “It’s Time to Junk the Double Standard on Free Speech.” The Atlantic, 1, Jan. 2002, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2002/01/its-time-to-junk-the-double-standard-on-free-speech/378055/, Accessed 22, May, 2019.
7. The First Amendment to the U.S constitution. “The First Amendment.” Fire,1, Jan. 2000, www.thefire.org/first-amendment-library/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwla7nBRDxARIsADll0kCFB9xSTIvQXapAdqZA3rTt4DWqSPRZQzYRKsYkNS7kR7BvlHxIvhoaAiwREALw_wcB. Accessed 20, May, 2019.

Introduction to Censorship and Book Banning

When material is censored, is knowledge being kept from the public? Throughout history, there have been countless instances in which people argued if certain pieces of literature should be banned. According to the first page of the article, “First Amendment and Censorship”, censorship is “The suppression of ideas and information that certain persons-individuals, groups, or government officials-find objectionable or dangerous”. One kind of censorship is book banning, which as stated by the article, “Banned Books: Why Are Books Banned?”, is “The actual removal of those materials”. The Bluest Eye, by Toni Morrison is a prime example of a novel that faces much criticism and therefore has been banned from several institutions and removed from multiple school curricula. This novel is heavily controversial due to its graphic descriptions of sexual encounters, including rape and incest. Many individuals also disagree with the novel because of the inappropriate language used. Books, such as The Bluest Eye, should not be able to be banned because the First Amendment allows for the freedom of speech and the press. In addition, mature topics in literature help to educate and offer readers an opportunity to feel less emotionally isolated.

The Historical Roots of Book Banning in America

Book banning first started in the United States when it was brought over by Europeans (“Banned Books”). The way the process works is not simple. In order for a work of literature to be banned, it must first be challenged. There are numerous reasons why people challenge books. According to the charts, from 2000 to 2009, the top reasons why books were challenged were mostly because of sexually explicit content (about 1,600), followed by offensive language (approximately 1,800), then finally other kinds of objections (roughly 1,100). Some other reasons why people challenge books are because they feature violence, homosexuality, religious viewpoint, occult/satanism, nudity, racism, drugs, alcohol, smoking, and more (Banned Books: Why Are Books Banned?”). These reasons for challenges indicate that although the United States is full of individuals going through different kinds of hardships, people still do not want to admit to themselves that these problems are so prevalent. They criticize pieces of literature that dwell on issues they feel are inappropriate or unnecessary to the story, because they believe these ideas should not be in books. However, what they do not realize, or rather, what they refuse to accept, is that the United States consists of countless struggling individuals who could use literature for advice and relatability.

Diverse Challenges to Literature: From Sexuality to Racism

Challenges come from many different groups of people. According to the data, from 2000 to 2009, the most challenges by initiators came from parents (approximately 2500), followed by patrons (roughly 510), then finally administrators (about 490). In the same years, the greatest amount of challenges by institutions consisted of schools (about 1,800), followed by school libraries (approximately 1,650), then finally public libraries (roughly 1,200) (Banned Books: Why Are Books Banned?”). These statistics show that the most common reason challenges occur is because parents feel the need to protect their children from themes they view as dark or disturbing. In addition, most challengers aim to remove a book from school curriculum or school libraries. This goes to show the belief of many individuals that literature containing mature topics does not belong in school. Book banning has been a huge controversy ever since it was brought over to the United States, even though reading books with heavy topics can help individuals in many ways.

The Role of Mature Literature in Shaping Perspectives

Books that contain mature subject matters may positively impact readers. Many novels feature characters facing the same issues as the reader. This provides readers with relatable characters and realistic ways to cope with the problems. Furthermore, “Books dealing with difficult issues help prepare readers for life’s challenges” (“Young Adult Literature: Is current young adult literature appropriate for teen readers?”). When children are shielded from novels that contain challenges they may encounter, they will miss out on information regarding how to manage these hardships. In addition, dark novels can be a way for teenagers to temporarily escape. They are not necessarily any darker or more disturbing than what teenagers witness in the real world (“Young Adult Literature: Is current young adult literature appropriate for teen readers?”). Despite all the positive effects of reading literature containing arguable text, book banning is still a widely debated topic. One reason why it is such a disputable topic is because of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment: A Pillar of Free Expression

The First Amendment in the Constitution protects people of the United States from government suppression of ideas. It allows freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and petition. According to the First Amendment, authors can share their ideas. In addition, everyone can read as they please (“First Amendment and Censorship” 1). Therefore, according to the First Amendment, books should not be able to be banned. The First Amendment is crucial and needs to be better enforced because it provides extremely important kinds of freedoms for the people. Despite the First Amendment, book challenges and bans occur often.

“The Bluest Eye”: A Deep Dive into Morrison’s Controversial Novel

One book that is challenged and banned frequently is The Bluest Eye, by Toni Morrison. A multitude of people disagree with the book. However, these people should be informed of Morrison’s numerous accomplishments. First, she graduated high school with honors. She then went on to obtain a bachelor’s degree in English from Howard University, and a master’s degree in English from Cornell University. Morrison taught at Texas Southern University, Howard University, State University College in New York, and the State University at Albany. She also spent some time as an editor at Random House in New York. In addition to these achievements, Morrison also earned many recognitions, nominations, and awards. One of her novels, Sula, was nominated for a National Book Award. Another one of her works, Song of Solomon, won the National Book Critics Circle Award. In addition, her book, Beloved, won her the Pulitzer Prize. Morrison was even named the Robert F. Goheen Professor in the Humanities at Princeton University. In addition, Morrison was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in Literature. In fact, she was the first African American woman to receive this honor. Finally, former president, Barack Obama, awarded Morrison the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2012. This award is the highest civilian award in the United States (“Toni Morrison Biography”). Morrison won a great number of awards and accomplished many different things. People need to stop criticizing her works for being controversial, and instead listen to what she has to say.

Morrison’s novel, The Bluest Eye, is highly contentious. The main reasons why so many people disagree with the book are because it includes vivid portrayals of sexual intercourse, including rape and incest, and because of the vulgar and obscene terms utilized to enhance these scenes (Sova). However, the novel should not be banned. Although it contains topics some may find disturbing, it is a very valuable piece of literature that addresses important issues. For example, the novel addresses racism, incest, and rape, which unfortunately are extremely common issues today that are not spoken about enough. In addition, the novel illustrates a vital theme, how one’s perception of beauty is based on society. Therefore, the story is very educational for readers as it illustrates important themes and teaches valuable lessons.

The novel contains many scenes that would cause it to be challenged or banned. For instance, in one part, the narrator describes a woman’s experience having sexual intercourse with a man in detail. The narrator states, “While he moves inside her, she will wonder why they didn’t put the necessary but private parts of the body in some more convenient place-like the armpit, for example, or the palm of the hand” (Morrison 84). Many individuals disagree with sexual content in books because they feel it is not suitable for all readers (Maryland State Board of Education 1). However, the usage of graphic sexual descriptions is critical in the novel because they help to emphasize one of the main lessons conveyed, that women’s bodies are too often abused. This problem needs to be addressed. This scene of the novel is arguable. However, this is not the only scene that countless individuals disagree with.

Another disputable scene is when a character, Pauline Breedlove, describes the sexual activity she participates in with her husband, using a vulgar and obscene term. The narrator states, “Then he will lean his head down and bite my tit” (Morrison 130). Many individuals are against the usage of this kind of language in literature (Sova). Yet, it is inevitable that people will encounter language like this in the real world (Ferguson 2). This part of the book is highly contentious. However, there is still another essential scene that numerous individuals are against.

Perhaps the most widely debated scene of all, is when the character, Pecola, is raped by her own father. The narrator states, “Removing himself from her was so painful to him he cut it short and snatched his genitals out of the dry harbor of her vagina. She appeared to have fainted” (Morrison 163). This scene contains rape and incest, which some may perceive as dark or disturbing (Maryland State Board of Education 1). However, although these topics are undoubtedly heavy, they occur frequently. Yet, very little people speak out about them. Through the scenes of the novel that many deem inappropriate, Morrison sheds light on topics that are simply not discussed enough.

Conclusion: The Balance Between Freedom and Responsibility

Controversial works of literature have countless benefits for readers. However, they also do have negative drawbacks. Many pieces of young adult literature seem to have become “dark, graphic and gruesome to an unprecedented degree”. They contain serious and contentious topics including suicide, addiction, self-mutilation, and more. Topics like these potentially could depress or dangerously influence teenagers. Furthermore, they could send the message to teenagers that these kinds of behavior are normal. What makes this an even bigger problem is that teenagers are especially impressionable, and therefore, should not be exposed to such negative themes. In addition, in many novels, gruesome and dark pathologies are graphically described, and profanity is extremely common. Some books dwell on and exaggerate life’s challenges to an extent so great it could traumatize someone. Finally, dark content burdens young people and should not be praised for benefitting young minds (“Young Adult Literature: Is current young adult literature appropriate for teen readers?”). Books with heavy subject matters may have negative effects on people.

The novel, The Bluest Eye, by Toni Morrison does not deserve to be challenged or banned. Although it explores heavy topics such as rape and incest, it is academically and emotionally educational. It conveys serious themes and is well-written by a highly credible author. For these reasons, the novel should be required reading in high school. High school students are mature enough to handle the heavy subject matters it addresses. In addition, the themes and lessons in the book are too valuable for students to miss out on. No book should be able to be banned because of the First Amendment, which allows for freedom of speech and the press. If continued, the banning of books will pose a threat to democracy, as it takes away the power of the First Amendment.

Works Cited

1. “Banned Books.” Gale Student Resources in Context, Gale, 2018. Research in Context, http://link.gale.xana.orc.scoolaid.net/apps/doc/ACETGP296253233/MSIC?u=nysl_li_bocesnas&sid=MSIC&xid=c126f756. Accessed 30 December 2018.
2. “Banned Books: Why Are Books Banned?” LibGuides, Arizona Board of Regents, libguides.asu.edu/c.php?g=718504&p=5216447. Accessed 16 December 2018
3. Ferguson, Christopher J. “Is Reading ‘Banned’ Books Associated with Behavior Problems in Young Readers? The Influence of Controversial Young Adult Books on the Psychological Well-Being of Adolescents.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, vol. 8, no. 3, 2014, pp. 354–362., doi:10.1037/a0035601. Accessed 16 December 2018.
4. “First Amendment and Censorship.” United for Libraries, 2 July 2018, www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship. Accessed 17 December 2018.
5. Maryland State Board of Education. Christine T. Schwalm v. Montgomery County Board of Education. archives.marylandpublicschools.org/stateboard/legal_briefs/1999/SCHWALM 99-34.pdf. Accessed 19 December 2018.
6. Morrison, Toni. The Bluest Eye. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970. Accessed 10 December 2018.
7. Sova, Dawn B. “Censorship History of The Bluest Eye.” Infobase, 2011, The Bluest Eye. Accessed 30 December 2018.
8. “Toni Morrison Biography.” Chicago Public Library, Chicago Public Library, www.chipublib.org/toni-morrison-biography/. Accessed 30 December 2018.
9. “Young Adult Literature: Is current young adult literature appropriate for teen readers?” Issues & Controversies, Infobase Learning, 17 Oct. 2011, http://icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?ID=2144. Accessed 30 December 2018.

Abstract

The First Amendment is one of the most significant and widely used amendments today. In this paper I will be discussing the different parts of the First Amendment, as well as cases that coincide with each aspect. Most of the cases that are discussed will be landmark cases that made it to the Supreme Court. These cases had a huge contribution in regard to explaining aspects of the First Amendment that are not directly established. This paper will also highlight how the First Amendment allows racism and hate to be protected.

The First Amendment

The First Amendment is one of the most significant and widely used amendments today. It is what gives us our freedom as American citizens. Under the First Amendment you have the right to freedom of speech, press, religion, the right to assemble peacefully, and lastly the ability to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (FindLaw, 2019). The First Amendment falls under the Bill of Rights, which was established by the Founding Fathers. There are countries that live under a monarchy or dictatorship and if citizens decide to try to exercise these rights, they could be subject to death. As Americans we truly do take our freedom for granted. However, not everyone has the same level of freedom. We can see that illustrated back in the day, as well as today. The totalities of the First Amendment will be described such as freedom of religion, speech and press and will be accompanied by cases to support the amendments.

Totalities of the First Amendment

Freedom of Speech

The Freedom of Speech is the right to say as you please without consent, restraint, or legal punishment (Lexico, 2019). The freedom of speech aspect of the first amendment is very vague. This has created problems due to the fact that it does not specify which speech to protect and not protect. However, there are some established speeches that are not protected, such as defamation, plagiarized material, threats, and obscene material (History, 2018). There truly would be no point to protect your speech, if speech had no effect on other people. There have been many landmark cases in regard to freedom of speech. For instance, Cohen v California in 1971.

In this specific case Paul Robert Cohen was expressing his freedom of expression, which falls under the umbrella of freedom of speech. He wore a jacket that displayed the words “ Fuck the Draft,” during a time period where individuals were protesting against the Vietnam War. He was arrested with “breach of peace” due to the fact that he disturbed the peace by “offensive conduct” (The First Amendment Encyclopedia, 2016). The judge declared that his words were not directed at anyone specifically and also were not of “erotic” nature. This was not an obscene gesture and Cohen was indeed not guilty.

Freedom of Press

The freedom of press allows you to circulate news and or opinions without having to verify censorship from the government (History, 2018). Prior to the colonies obtaining independence, there were restrictions via the British government on publishing adverse opinions. Press can be a powerful tool and this is obvious through all history, not just modern day. For example, in 1971 an analyst who was part of the military by the name of Daniel Ellsberg provided documents that were classified to The New York Times.

These documents are what we know as the Pentagon Papers, which addressed involvement in Vietnam from a political and military point of view. These papers obtained knowledge that was a magnitude of what the government had been previously telling the citizens referring to the number of casualties. In New York Times Co v. United States, the newspaper was guaranteed that they could post without government interference. Regarding reporters and journalist in the press, they have the same First Amendment rights as all citizens. The catch is however, if someone illegally obtains information and provides a reporter or journalist with it, they can’t be liable since they did not directly obtain the material.

Freedom of Religion

Freedom of religion under the First Amendment protects you from a national religion, which allows you to practice whatever religion you please. There are a plethora of religions, imagine having everyone subject to one religion. The diversity of religions brings more religious perspectives, which also creates different ideas and rituals. The fact that the U.S. is so diverse is why it truly strives compared to other countries. If you are only around people just like you, you can’t mentally enhance yourself. As we all know our country was rooted with Christian practices. These practices and ideas shaped the way our laws were made.

A landmark case for freedom of religion is Reynolds vs U.S. This case took place in1879, when George Reynolds took it upon himself to have multiple wives. He was charged with “bigamy under the federal Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Oyez, 2019). Congress stated that you can not infringe on Reynold’s religious beliefs, the only way you could do so is if polygamy itself was outlawed. The counterargument to this is that you may not choose to disobey a law due to your religious beliefs, laws take precedent.

The Right to Assemble Peacefully

The right to assemble allows you to freely express and petition the government, as well as obtain help from the government, relieving fear of punishment (U.S. Legal, 2016). However, law enforcement can limit these powers. For example, if there is a riot that gets out of hand it is the police’s obligation to secure the safety of individuals. The main time that the First Amendment was an aid for African Americans was during the Civil Rights Movements. In today’s society It is harder for minorities, mainly African Americans, to assemble without creating a threat. African Americans experience some of the most, if not the most, injustice in America. They truly will take away our freedom without hesitation.

A case regarding the right to assemble is Bates vs Little Rock. This case took place in 1960 during a time where Little Rock schools were pursuing integration. The city of Little Rock was forcing NCAAP to reveal names of members of the organization (The First Amendment Encyclopedia, 2016). The NCAAP was aboard on integration and because of this the city council wanted to know who all was involved. Bates would not release the names because he did not want to risk the safety of the members of the organization. The justice ruled that obtaining the information regarding the members was set in place to infringe upon the rights of the NCAAP. They also could not constitutionally require the association to provide members names. The authorities will try to take advantage of you, make sure you know your rights. It can only help you.

Freedom of Speech Protection in Regard to Racism and Hate

In our courts today, we allow racial and hate speech. This is allowing another race that feel as if it they are superior, to belittle another race. The First Amendment is a legal safe haven for racists. In the United States, we know that actions such as lynching, murder, assault, etc are illegal. However, the word “nigger” and confederate flags are protected by the First Amendment. Much of the laws today have this central “aim” to provide equality and everyone a fair trial. However, it is far from the case, the law only bends a certain way for certain races. Our Supreme Court is dominated by Republicans.

Beauharnais v Illinois in 1952 was a pertinent case. A group called the White Circle League provided written documentation stating that African Americans would torment white communities with “rapes, robberies, knives, guns, and marijuana” (Racism and First Amendment, 2011). This was deemed a libelous statement; however, this did not accomplish much due to the facts that racial activities were not banned. The United States does not want to give up its racial roots.

There is an International Convention on the Elimination on Racial Discrimination (CERD) that was adopted in 1994 (Racism and First Amendment, 2011). Article two states that the government make a conscious effort to bring racism to an end. Article four stated that the government would make efforts to abolish tolerance for hate speech and propaganda against one race. The U.S. government actually changed what they previously agreed on, stating that hate or racist speech is “inconsistent with existing First Amendment policies” ( Racism and the First Amendment, 2011). This treaty is the only article addressing racism directly on all government levels.

African Americans bravery during the Civil Rights Movement aided in the growth of the First Amendment. Scholar Harry Kalven Jr wrote, “We may come to see the Negro as winning back for us the freedoms the Communists seemed to have lost for us (The First Amendment Encyclopedia, 2016).

Conclusion

In conclusion the First Amendment overall is an aid for our freedom. However, behind the amendment actions that should not take place are still protected. The First Amendment was created in 1791, which creates problems in today’s society. Times are different now and people truly have evil intentions. A revision of the First Amendment in means of specifying certain aspects is necessary. It leaves too much of a gray area in certain topics for individuals to interpret it in ways which benefit them. Nevertheless, it is something we should be grateful for. Without the First Amendment times would be hard and you would essentially not have your own voice.

References

1. Jr, D. L. H. (2016). Cohen v. California. Retrieved from https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/295/cohen-v-california.
2. First Amendment – U.S. Constitution. (2019). Retrieved from https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html.
3. History.com Editors. (2018, December 7). Freedom of the Press. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/freedom-of-the-press.
4. Oyez.org (2019) Reynolds v U.S. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases
5. Definitions.uslegal (2016)Freedom of assembly. Retrieved fromhttps://definitions.uslegal.com/f/freedom-of-assembly/
6. Mtsu.edu. (2016). Bates v. Little Rock. Retrieved from https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/52/bates-v-little-rock [Accessed 10 Oct. 2019].

#1 Body Intro Paragraph (for part 1 of my research paper)

In order to better understand the possible impact of internet censorship on our society, it is necessary to begin by looking at the 1st Amendment (see figure 1). Among other things, the 1st Amendment protects our freedom of speech. It is one of the building blocks of the democratic society we’ve all grown so used to. It allows citizens of the United States to use any kind of speech they see fit, as long as it is protected speech (unprotected speech: hate speech, inciting violence, supporting terrorism, public employer speech, defamation, intellectual property, and true threats). The 1st Amendment protects not only speech, but also religion, the press, and the right of people to peacefully assemble. The 1st Amendment truly lays the foundation for our uniquely American way of life.

Figure 1. Bill of Rights: 1st Amendment. Adapted from “1st Amendment Definition Sticker,” 2019, U.S. Custom Stickers. Retrieved October 13, 2019, from https://www.uscustomstickers.com/product/1st-amendment-definition-sticker

Body (after Intro #1)

It is important to note that the 1st Amendment was a loosely written text (many of the other amendments were created in the same fashion) and that this was done for good reason. The framers of the Bill of Rights did this so that these extremely important laws would have room to grow and change with the times. This has led to a broadening of the protections that the 1st Amendment grants U.S. citizens and ultimately safeguards us from government censorship. Interpretation of this fundamental freedom has varied since its inception, but the concept of freedom of speech has stayed very much the same. The 1st Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to freely express ideas and information without government restraint. The mechanism created from free speech provides Americans with the truth and allows us to make informed decisions based upon that truth.

Social media sites are not bound by the caveat of the 1st Amendment which protects against censorship because they are private companies. This means internet companies such as Google, YouTube, Facebook, Amazon, and Twitter can control the flow of information as they see fit, withholding one piece of information, while mass-presenting another. These companies also have the ability to choose who they allow to join and remain on their sites. As Ken White, host of “Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast” pointedly explains, “these companies are not breaking the law when they ban, block, or demonetize an individual…” (White, 2019) An example of this kind of treatment happened in early 2019 when “Mohammed’s Koran: Why Muslims Kill for Islam,” co-authored by British activist Tommy Robinson and Peter McLoughlin, was banned by Amazon citing inappropriate content. The book used teachings from the Koran and recent events coupled with facts to help expose the practice of “grooming” young Muslims to commit terrible atrocities. Robinson replied to the banning of his book stating, “This is the twenty-first century equivalent of the Nazis taking out the books from university libraries and burning them.” (Brown, 2019) Similar to Amazon, Facebook has come under scrutiny for its ramping up of bannings and extreme moderation. In February of 2019, they banned political figures, Alex Jones and Louis Farrakhan, labeling their accounts as “dangerous.” Facebook believes that the words of these two men incite hate speech. In Eric Johnson’s Vox article, “Should the First Amendment apply to Facebook? It’s complicated,” executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, Jameel Jaffer explains, “That’s when I think free speech advocates start to get nervous about Facebook excluding people from the platform, especially when there’s an argument that they’re excluding people on the basis of viewpoint.” (Johnson, 2018)

To begin making an informed decision on how censorship might be regulated within the confines of the internet, it is essential to look at U.S. law regarding “publishers” and “distributors” of media. Under standard common-law principles, a person who publishes a defamatory statement by another bears the same liability for the statement as if he or she had initially created it. (Digital Media Law Project, 2019) This means that newspapers and publishers of books and magazines are liable for the information presented on their pages. Since publishers can be held liable for the information on their pages, they are allowed editorial control which gives them the power to censor defamatory material. Distributors (newsstands, bookstores, libraries) on the other hand are not liable for the content contained on the pages of the material they sell. This is understandable as it would be very difficult for distributors to properly check each word of the extensive amount of print they sell, day after day.

What does this have to do with censorship and the internet? In 1991, the case of Cubby v. CompuServe, Inc. came before U.S. courts. CompuServe was an early provider of internet chat rooms and was being sued for allegedly defamatory statements that were made between online users of their service. They “argued that it [CompuServe] should be treated like a distributor because it did not review the contents of the bulletin board before it appeared on CompuServe’s site. The court found in CompuServe’s favor citing that they were not liable for the information in their chat rooms. In 1995 another case, Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy was filed and involved another internet website, Prodigy, similarly being sued for defamation due to derogatory online statements. Unfortunately for Prodigy, they had in several cases been censoring parts of the content that appeared on their site’s bulletin boards. Since Prodigy had censored content in a number of cases, the court found that Prodigy had acted as a publisher and was, in fact, liable for all of the communication on its site. (Digital Media Law Project, 2019)

Acknowledging that it would be too difficult for internet companies to edit all of the user comments constantly flowing onto their sites, the U.S. government passed the Communications Decency Act. The law reads that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” (Digital Media Law Project, 2019) This means that these companies are fully protected from lawsuits that might pop up due to hate speech, defamation, or incendiary remarks that appear on their site as long as it is from a third-party. This seems like a fair and decent law due to the inability of pretty much anyone to control what appears on the internet. The question which arises is whether or not these companies who are protected by the Communications Decency Act should have the right to censor. The ability to censor was given to publishers to protect against libel. So now, not only do these social media giants have immunity from tort liability, they have the publisher-granted ability to censor.

There is another important part of the censorship equation that must be looked at having to do with the definition of a public forum. A public forum is a community meeting place where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. Public forums are protected by the U.S. government and subject to its rules and regulations. More importantly in Rosenberger v University of Virginia, it was decided by the Supreme Court that a public forum need not be a physical space. (Exploring Constitutional Conflicts, n.d.) This has made people wonder if social media websites, in fact, are public forums and should be regulated as such. They are most certainly the meeting place of the masses and many an idea has been exchanged there. Should social media websites have to abide by the rules of free speech and discriminatory practices laid out by the government? The Supreme Court has said no deciding to protect internet companies’ rights. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that a private entity only engages in State Action and therefore is only subject to the First Amendment when it performs a traditional exclusive public function.” (White, 2019)

The internet has become a centerpiece in our busy lives and certainly has the ability to influence the masses. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy pretty much hits the nail on the head when in 2017 he states, “we cannot appreciate yet its [the internet’s] full dimensions and vast potential to alter how we think, express ourselves, and define who we want to be.” (Hudson Jr., 2019) With the great power that these internet giants wield, should the 1st Amendment control their ability to censor information? In the following, we will examine these titans of social media and whether the right of theirs to censor is lawful.

#2 Body Intro Paragraph (for part 2 of my paper)

As we move further into the 21st-century, advertising is increasingly shifting from more traditional methods such as radio and television to the world of digital advertisements (see Figure 2). In an excerpt from Greg Sterling’s 2019 article, “Almost 70% of digital ad spending going to Google, Facebook, Amazon…” he explains that “Google, Facebook, and Amazon are the top three digital ad platforms in the U.S. Together they capture just under 70% of all digital ad dollars spent according to eMarketer.” (Sterling, 2019) The article points out that the kind of power some of these social media giants wield in terms of digital ad dollars needs to, at the very least, be monitored very carefully. Sterling raises the question of whether or not there should be any government regulation laid down to facilitate fair and just business practices by the very few internet companies that control digital advertising.

According to a survey conducted by eMarketer.com, “In 2019, worldwide digital ad spending will rise by 17.6% to $333.25 billion (see Figure 2). That means that, for the first time, digital will account for roughly half of the global ad market.” (Enberg, 2019) As Sterling’s article above points out, controlling half of the global ad market translates into some very real power for these companies. These companies have the ability to control a wide array of matters. They have the final say in terms of what advertising content makes it onto their websites. Imagine if the big 3 (Google, Facebook, and Amazon) decided to freeze out a particular company. Now, where will this company advertise? These companies have the power to control which ads are played during which times. They even have the capacity to control which person sees which ad. “According to Pew Research, these companies can make a little change to an algorithm and it will affect what everyone sees.” (Sydell, 2017) Ultimately, these companies have substantial power over the speech of anyone who uses their sites. With only a handful of major players controlling the vast majority of digital advertising, the question must be raised of whether there should be government regulation to facilitate fair and just business practices by these companies. For example, would it be just if the big 3 cut off a particular company who held different views from them regarding a controversial subject? When, where, or if at all should the government step in?

Figure 2. Digital ad spending worldwide, 2018-2023. Adapted from “Digital Ad Spending 2019,” by J. Enberg, 2019, Report Collection. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https://www.emarketer.com/content/global-digital-ad-spending-2019. Copyright 2019 by eMarketer inc.

Body (after intro #2)

In an attempt to better define the kind of power these social media enterprises wield, this paper will look at specific events that happened to Neo-Nazi Richard Spencer. In a 2017 interview titled, “Unlikely Allies Join Fight To Protect Free Speech On The Internet,” Laura Sydell talks to Richard Spenser, a prolific white supremacist, and Robert McChesney, a communications professor at the University of Illinois. In early 2017, Richard Spencer found that his online Neo-Nazi publication, “The Daily Stormer,” had been blocked by a number of extremely formidable internet corporations. The “Unlikely Allies” interview looks at the effective crippling of “The Daily Stormer” and points out what can happen when a hostile alliance of websites goes after a business, publication, or website.

REVIEWED TO HERE: The attack on the Daily Stormer began with GoDaddy, an internet domain registrar taking away The Stormer’s domain name. This means that The Daily Stormer will have to register a new domain name somewhere else. In the meantime, there will be no way to visit their website (they don’t have one) and no easy way to direct fans to any new websites they might create. Google went about shutting down the ability of users to link to any of The Daily Stormer’s material. Facebook banned The Daily Stormer and took down links to any article it published. Finally, PayPal ended its business relationship with Spencer and The Stormer. These attacks have resulted in unrepairable damage to The Daily Stormer. Yes, all of these companies’ actions to shut down The Daily Stormer were perfectly legal. Yes, The Daily Stormer deserved to be silenced for its hateful propaganda and a number of other reasons. It’s just a little scary that these internet and social media companies can so thoroughly shut someone up. What if they begin using this power to control the narrative that everyone hears.

China Paragraph?

In no way is the previous writing meant to defend Neo-Nazis or any of their hateful rhetoric. It is not meant to advocate hate speech or is it suggesting that any changes be made to the 1st Amendment. Looking at what happened to The Daily Stormer is meant to demonstrate what these internet giants can do when provoked. When defending his cause, Spencer makes good sense stating, “ Getting kicked off Facebook or YouTube or PayPal, whatever, this is effectively losing the ability to speak. It is actually a more powerful form of censorship than were a government to censor it.” (Sydell, 2019) Spencer goes on to say that “these are the free speech platforms in the 21st century.” (Sydell, 2017) When there is a monopolistic hold over the online marketplace which de facto controls the free speech platforms, is it necessary for the government to step in and protect our rights?

In what some view as an attempt to further grasp control of the American narrative, Facebook has announced that it will now be exempting political figures from “posted advertising guidelines.” In an excerpt from “The Interface,” “The Verge’s” daily column about the intersection of social media and democracy, senior editor Casey Newton explains that this change by Facebook will effectively allow politicians to lie on the internet. (Newton, 2019) Is this a principled stand by Facebook to

The “posted advertising guidelines” require that claims in advertisements must be truthful, cannot be deceptive or unfair, and must be evidence-based. (ftc.gov, 2019) These FTC guidelines prohibit “misinformation,” defined as “ads that include claims debunked by third-party fact-checkers or, in certain circumstances, claims debunked by organizations with particular expertise.” (Newton, 2019) By exempting politicians from this FTC regulation, Facebook has not only opened the door to lies and deceit but to an ill-informed public. Deceptive candidates will now be able to improve their chances of winning an election by stretching the truth or straight out lying. It is important to note that this is well within the scope of Facebook’s power. They can allow any content they please onto their site. But why this?

“If you see an ad on Facebook, should the contents of that ad be true? Historically, the answer has been yes.” (Newton, 2019) People want to hear the truth and don’t like having the wool pulled over their ears. Democrats have pointed out that President Trump has already made use of Facebook’s political ad exemption stating that he was going to close the southern U.S. border to Mexico. (Newton, 2019) It’s sad when U.S. citizens can only wonder if what is being said by these powerful figures is true. People also need to recognize that Facebook still decides what content makes it onto its site. So Facebook is not only allowing lies to flow forth freely from politicians, it gets to control which lies make it onto its site. That is power. That is controlling the U.S. narrative. Disapproving of Facebook’s new power, Newton, the author of the article stated that, “Facebook is big, and its CEO is unaccountable to any electorate, and so I would rather the company not referee political speech.” (Newton, 2019)

One of the more prominent issues that the “Unlikely Allies” article looked at was the case of Senator Elizabeth Warren, who announced her candidacy for President on February 19, 2019. (ballotpedia.org, 2019).

Facebook’s vast size and influence SENATOR WARREN EXCERPT FOR A SMALL PARAGRAPH: Looking at the election of Senator Warren (USE POLITICAL LYING NOTES – the last page)

The internet is the preeminent free speech forum of the day, second to none. “Research shows that if Facebook or Google changes an algorithm just slightly and puts a different type of story [out to the masses], it affects the way people think about the world.” (Sydell, 2019) That kind of power is unnerving to some. Both Richard Spencer and Robert McChesney believe it’s time for the U.S. government to step in and redefine free speech on the internet. As private companies though, these internet giants have no obligation to make any changes to their business practices.

What does being American mean? Is it okay to kneel during the National Anthem? Is kneeling during the National Anthem really a disrespectful gesture? Can you be forced to display signs of patriotism? These questions among others have come up a lot in the wake of Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling protest. Kaepernick is an ex-NFL quarterback, who began kneeling during the National Anthem in September of 2016. It became a trend throughout the NFL with many teams protesting in their own way. Everybody has their own opinion, and we don’t necessarily know which view is correct. Many people say that by kneeling during The Star Spangled Banner you are disrespecting the men and women in the military, but was that really the intention? Colin Kaepernick’s decision to kneel during the National Anthem was an ethical, lawful, and respectful form of protest.First of all, many people think that kneeling is a disrespectful gesture; however, throughout history kneeling has always been seen as a respectful gesture. For example, in Medieval times a peasant would kneel before the king and queen to show respect. If kneeling is a respectful gesture then, how is it unethical to kneel during the National Anthem? Eric Reid, a safety for the San Francisco 49ers, who knelt with Colin Kaepernick wrote, “We chose to kneel because it’s a respectful gesture. I remember thinking our posture was like a flag flown at half-mast to mark a tragedy.” Reid explains that he was not trying to be disrespectful to the flag or to the soldiers, he was just trying to draw attention to racial and social injustice. He also says how kneeling is a respectful protest. Kneeling has historically been a sign of reverence; the players are still paying respect to the armed forces of America.

Additionally, forced signs of patriotism are unconstitutional. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or

What does being American mean? Is it okay to kneel during the National Anthem? Is kneeling during the National Anthem really a disrespectful gesture? Can you be forced to display signs of patriotism? These questions among others have come up a lot in the wake of Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling protest. Kaepernick is an ex-NFL quarterback, who began kneeling during the National Anthem in September of 2016. It became a trend throughout the NFL with many teams protesting in their own way. Everybody has their own opinion, and we don’t necessarily know which view is correct. Many people say that by kneeling during The Star Spangled Banner you are disrespecting the men and women in the military, but was that really the intention? Colin Kaepernick’s decision to kneel during the National Anthem was an ethical, lawful, and respectful form of protest.

First of all, many people think that kneeling is a disrespectful gesture; however, throughout history kneeling has always been seen as a respectful gesture. For example, in Medieval times a peasant would kneel before the king and queen to show respect. If kneeling is a respectful gesture then, how is it unethical to kneel during the National Anthem? Eric Reid, a safety for the San Francisco 49ers, who knelt with Colin Kaepernick wrote, “We chose to kneel because it’s a respectful gesture. I remember thinking our posture was like a flag flown at half-mast to mark a tragedy.” Reid explains that he was not trying to be disrespectful to the flag or to the soldiers, he was just trying to draw attention to racial and social injustice. He also says how kneeling is a respectful protest. Kneeling has historically been a sign of reverence; the players are still paying respect to the armed forces of America.

Additionally, forced signs of patriotism are unconstitutional. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This says that no law can be passed that prohibits free speech. Former Constitutional Law Professor and president, Barack Obama said of Kaepernick’s actions, “But my understanding, at least, is that is he’s exercising his constitutional right to make a statement.” Obama is saying that Kaepernick is entitled to his First Amendment rights. These quotes prove Colin Kaepernick and the other kneeling NFL players are not breaking the law. The First Amendment protects citizens’ right to freedom of speech. There is a reason why freedom of speech is the First Amendment of the Constitution and not the tenth. It is important to remember that peaceful protest is completely legal.

Many people believe that kneeling is disrespectful to the Armed Forces and to the American flag. Florida Congressman, veteran and double amputee, Brian Mast, said of Colin Kaepernick, “He’s divided us, he’s disrespected our flag,” The Congressman argues that Colin Kaepernick is disrespecting the flag and is dividing the country. In a survey conducted by CNN, 49% of Americans think that athletes are doing the wrong thing by kneeling during the National Anthem, and 49% of Americans think that the NFL should put rules in place to require players to stand during the Anthem. One can see that there are many people against the NFL kneeling during the National Anthem. However, a poll conducted by the Washington Examiner shows

62% of service members and veterans think NFL players have the right to protest during a game. This displays that most service members believe that players have the right to protest and are not being disrespectful to them. Even though many people are upset by the kneeling, the Armed Forces heavily favor the rights of the players to protest in their own ways.

Kneeling for The Star Spangled Banner is not disrespectful to the American flag or to the military. The First Amendment protects Americans’ right to peacefully protest. Kneeling is an honorable action of respect. Americans need to take advantage of our right to free speech when we feel there is injustice. If we stay silent, our voices will never be heard. Use whatever platform you have for good. Like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said,”There comes a time when silence is betrayal.” Choose America.

Freedom of expression is important to highlight when considering use language, its defined as ‘the power or right to express one’s opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty’ (Freedom Of Speech | Meaning of Freedom Of Speech by Lexico, 2020)

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech (What Does Free Speech Mean?, 2020)

– this is used similarly in effect across the world. Freedom of speech is idealistic and optimistic as when put in to practice isn’t an absolute good and becomes more relative to the utterance made. For instance, in a plane shouting “bomb” or in a crowded theatre shouting “Fire” some may think is their freedom of speech however an utterance like this is not included as it incites actions that would harm others and could easily result in fines and jail time if the utterance isn’t the truth i.e. if there really was a fire in the crowded theatre this would be acceptable without consequences in use of the utterance ‘fire’ (ISY3009, 2020). This therefore contradicts the ability to speak freely as there are circumstances that speech or oral communication may result in consequences when exhibiting an opinion. The broad term ‘speech’ can include verbal, nonverbal, visual, and symbolic expressions. For example, in 1969, the Supreme Court found that high school students could wear symbolic black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War as part of their freedom of speech rights (Michelle Kaminsky, 2020). Most theorists believe that it is freedom of opinion that is free (essay). However, in modern society we often see cases of people being penalised for expressing their opinions. From personal experience, in secondary school witnessing 31 teachers signed a letter of which was critical of inspectors and the acting principal and vice-principal, which backlashed and had resulted in governors ‘to investigate matters relating to potential serious or gross misconduct’ from the teachers and many teachers resigned as a result (Doyle, 2017)

This example reconfirms the idea that freedom of expression if not always ‘free’ and can come with severe consequences for actions even if it isn’t speech directly as in this case it was written language in expression. It’s also made clear that although the political community may endorse freedom of expression however minor establishments or discourse communities, in this case the board of governors, can restrict what you say as well as discipline you based on that expression.

In oral and written communication it is therefore easier to identify the time, place and intention of a particular utterance from a producer, however, in electronic communication it is extensively more difficult to identify these details especially when they are trying to remain anonymous, which coincides with the symbolism of the ‘no one knows you’re a dog’ image. Cyber bullying is a prime example of how electronic communication can be used wrongfully, as physical fighting cannot occur, verbal abuse often takes its place which can sometimes be much more painful when people are emitting expressions. An example of how someone’s freedom of speech was used wrongfully was as an American man who died by suicide at the age of 18 with encouragement from his girlfriend, then 17 year-old Michelle Carter, via text messages, colloquially known as the ‘texting suicide case’ (Death of Conrad Roy, 2020). This shows that it was easy for the girl to use her freedom of expression upon the mans will to live at the time because it is nearly impossible to detect, however electronic communication still has a degree of evidential as the time, place and sometimes, alike to this case, the producer may have a profile so it can result in consequences such as the utterances of the girl resulting on charges of manslaughter. Back in 2012, Twitter defined itself as the “free speech wing of the free speech party” and for years, these social media platforms allowed posts that could arguably inspire real-life violence, but now things are changing. It is only recently, after a series of scandals, that these sites are expanding their protecting over offensive speech so that freedom of speech so their users abide by the first amendment (spectator.co.uk, 2019). This is an example of where the political community would not accept forms of utterances as freedom of speech but was accepted across discourse communities across electronic communication, although this is widely being challenged in the modern social networking sites currently.

“There is a huge need and a huge opportunity to get everyone in the world connected, to give everyone a voice and to help transform society for the future. The scale of the technology and infrastructure that must be built is unprecedented, and we believe this is the most important problem we can focus on” (Zuckerberg’s letter to investors, 2012). It is clear from this quote, coming from the CEO and founder of possibly the largest and most influential social networking site ‘Facebook’, that even though social networking has had major advancements and became more both globally accessible and used in recent years, has major potential for expansion in this technological era beyond our expectations. It’s evident that this quote from Mark Zuckerberg identifies the ability of the Internet and these communicative sites to provide a platform for people to utilise their freedom of expression on a more global scale whilst using less labor in production of their utterances. However electronic communication possesses some barriers, as using so little labor to exert freedom of expression through discourse, this can be dangerous as the sphere of the utterance is unpredictable and impose issues such as cyberbullying due to the ease of anonymity over electronic communication. It is clear also that there is different levels of formality used within electronic communication for example email being used for regularly formal communication such as within professions and educational platforms, where as social networking on applications such as Facebook are less formal although used more extensively, inclusive of communication regularly with family and friends.

In oral communication there is no doubt that production of an utterance is quicker, exempt from long distance communication, and can be received more fully through direct semantic ratification, however in recent years electronic communication has introduced more ways to introduce and improve direct semantic ratification such as through emoticons previously mentioned, this is specific to social media sites in comparison to Email, which is why it can be conclusive to think they will remain in their boundaries of use for the foreseeable future within society. Historically, oral and written communication were previously considered the most valuable, although electronic communication has extensively improved and became more useful in discourse within our different discourse or political communities as it has became more dynamic across the world and can only be suggested to become more valuable as direct semantic ratification is improved and freedom of expression is made available on a global scale but kept respectfully within the laws of society. During this global pandemic of covid-19 it’s clear that communication is vital for human survival and that electronic communication in comparison to oral and written, although not solely, proved more efficient in communicating important information between discourse and political communities. The framework in this module has enabled evaluation of advancements in communication, in concluding this global ease of communication between political and discourse communities, improvement in direct semantic ratification and freedom of expression in long distance communication, has assisted humans to become more connected and similarly cultured, therefore humans should both cherish and empower this new era of technological communication as much as possible to become a more vocal and understanding world.

From the beginning of time, many have craved the ability to freely express themselves. Although freedom of speech is a complicated concept, we should not identify it as a challenge. Nonetheless, we should seek to understand it. Freedom of speech is essential for society. A society without freedom of speech, is a society without progression. When citizens are able to speak freely they are then able to move freely, often resulting in a successful culture. When we think about it, most of our rights today would not have been attained without freedom of speech.

Think about Rosa Parks. She was arrested for not giving up her bus seat to a white male passenger. The following day Martin Luther King Jr. organized the Montgomery Bus Boycott. He proposed that African Americans should refrain from using public transportation. This boycott went on for 381 days and was very powerful. So powerful that a federal court ruled that is was unconstitutional to keep buses segregated. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed. Through freedom of speech, Martin Luther King Jr. was able to influence many and bring about social change.

Then we have James Baldwin who understood that he had to reveal the truths about his race and country. He had to enlighten The United States about racism and inequality. He approached racism as well as homosexuality fearlessly through his literature. As a gay, black man, you would think he would feel defeated. As a matter of fact, he was once asked if he thought he was of bad fortune. He replied saying “No, I believe I have hit the jackpot.” He believed his identity established his story, then his story formed his influence and his influence further assisted his speech. Ultimately, his speech impacted lives across America causing awareness ultimately leading to change.

Of course I have to mention Malcolm X. His philosophies from Muhammad Speaks on black beauty, pride, and power blanketed the country. In fact, it was the most read black newspaper in the 60’s. In the same time period, X became the most in demand speaker in The United States. At that time, his Unity Rally was one of the most attended civil rights gatherings.Through Malcolm’s free speech, he was able to educate many on their beauty. In the end, this brought them together to fight for equality.

Lastly, yet certainly not least, it is a must that I speak on Barack Obama. What better example of social change is there than our first African American President of the United States of America? However, it was not always that way. Actually, in the beginning of his campaign he had very little support. But in time his campaign became a movement. His First Amendment protected speeches promised change. With these speeches, he inspired many. This led to his Presidential Election in 2008. Throughout Obama’s presidency, he influenced many to become more thoughtful of others. He, along with his wife, spoke on kindness frequently. He often said “I’m not the president of black America. I’m the president of The United States of America.” With emphasis on united. Obama was able to bring many ethnicities as well as genders together for the greater good, just through his powerful free speech.

Indeed, many of our Ancestors fought with free speech so that we could be where we are today. Although Freedom of Speech may be hard to define, if you strive to understand it you could become a powerful individual. When you possess the ability to speech freely, you possess the ability to change lives. Freedom of speech is essential for a progressing society. It is your right, granted by the First of The First Amendment of The Constitution of the United States and is is very necessary.

The debate between our country trying to protect our freedom of speech and when it goes too far and crosses the line into hate speech, is not a new debate. However, it seems more recently that the debate has been more heated as we have seen a more divisive and polarized nation. It has even gone as far as some states wanting to enact legislation to criminalize speech that is considered hateful, which is a move comparable to what other countries have implemented. For example, just a few years ago, the United Kingdom made it a criminal offense to incite racial or religious hatred. Similar legislation has developed in other democracies such as Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Sweden, and New Zealand. In our country it has long been known that we have freedom of speech, for it is stated in the very First Amendment in our Constitution. We see it as one of the most important and democratic forms of expressions we possess. Although, albeit an important value, we must know that it is not the only one. In our country, we have a duty to uphold other commitments such as the social equality, dignity, and security of historically marginalized citizens. So that begs the question, should we really see our right to free speech in such high regard that it cannot be regulated, even when it hurts the right of our fellow citizens to live peacefully?

When it comes to the moral right of freedom of speech, in which hate speech is not protected, there are four main arguments that arise to defend that right. The first is titled, ‘The Argument from Listener Autonomy’. This idea stems from the notion that we as individuals have the right to hear speech that we can consider hateful. And some even consider it an insult for the government to step in and declare that we cannot be trusted to hear opinions that might persuade some to dangerous and offensive beliefs. However, on that very point, it ignores the idea that such hateful rhetoric could not only persuade beliefs, but that hatefulness could be acted out in the sense of bullying and harassment. Then the counter argument can shift to, where is the protection for the listener who is subjected to such abuse.

The second defense to free speech is titled, ‘The Argument from Speaker Autonomy’. It seems self-explanatory in the sense that a person should have the right to speak their mind, but this idea encompasses more than that. It goes as far to suggest that when someone takes on the role of a speaker, it is an expression of one’s own life and of their moral power. To limit that right, even when the rhetoric can take on a distasteful tone, would be to limit how that person can present their true self of how they view the world. And while I must admit this argument seems like a solid one, it can be considered that even though there is value in free, unrestricted expression, it does not outweigh the harms that can come from it.

The third defense is titled, ‘The Argument from Democracy’. This is probably the most influential defense when it comes to free speech. It plays into our status as citizens living in a democracy. That right to free speech is enshrined in our constitution and is protected in our very first amendment. If we are to limit that right, even for hate speech, are we then allowing a limitation on our democracy? I would argue that is not the case. Our constitution not only gives us the right to speak our mind, but offers many other rights that constitute our democracy. Therefore, putting limitations on one small portion, will not significantly reduce our value of a democratic government as a whole. We as a people still have a right to have these hateful thoughts, but a ban on hate speech would simply prevent people from harming others by expressing such thoughts out loud.

The fourth and final defense of free speech is, ‘The Thinker-Based Argument’. What is unique about the most recent argument brought forth, is that it does not focus on the interest of a listener or speaker, but relies on the interest that we have as thinkers. The idea is that speech is seen as the only precise way that we can convey our thoughts to others. And if the government tries to limit the ways we communicate, we will not be able to gauge the opinions and beliefs of others. It could very well stifle our understanding of the world, our relationships we pursue, and the ability to cooperate on moral issues. However, this defense of free speech seems to imply that any ban on hate speech means that you are stopping the right of people to think, but that simply is not true. A person will still have the ability to think whatever they please, but it would just limit the hateful ones which might be communicated to others.

Now to transition from the idea that speech should be free from almost all regulation, to the idea that speech can be harmful, seen as hateful, and in some instances, should be banned and criminalized. One way this can be argued, is not by talking about the rights we possess, but the moral duties we need to adhere to as citizens. When it comes to duties, there are five worth mentioning that can help understand why many can see a need to ban hate speech.

The first two duties are fairly quick and simple to understand. They are the ‘Duty Not to Threaten’, and, ‘Duty Not to Harass’. It is not a controversial idea to suppose that free speech should not protect expressions that deem to threaten and harass people. It is a principle that is a part of our laws. and has actually been upheld by the US Supreme Court. Therefore, action that is already deemed to be illegal, can be seen as a link to a ban of hate speech.

The third duty in regards to hate speech is, ‘The Duty Not to Offend’. With this being an argument of us having the duty to not say speech that will hurt the moral of our fellow citizens, the idea sounds captivating, however it is one of the most controversial arguments. The biggest critique is that it opens up the big question of, who decides what is and is not offensive. What one person can find offensive, another person can find amusing or a non-issue. It can open up a huge can of worms, so to speak, which is why I would personally not like to use this argument in favor of a ban on hate speech.

The fourth duty is, ‘The Duty Not to Defame’. When someone defames another person by use of speech that is hateful, the intention behind it is to degrade and hurt the person, or group of persons, the defamatory language is aimed towards. And like the first two duties mentioned earlier, defamation is already something that is illegal in our country. So, it is not a huge stretch to say that defamatory language is a form a hate speech that should be banned.

The fifth and final duty to justify banning hate speech is, ‘The Duty Not to Incite Violence’. This unique argument is a bit more expansive than just banning hate speech, because it adds the banning of speech even when it is not directed towards hated groups. This idea appears more restrictive, however it is a very convincing argument in the sense that this is not about citizens getting offended towards negative speech, but trying to stop people from inciting others to enact in violence towards those hated groups. Recent history can also support this claim in that people who are extremist in views and carry out mass shootings or other crimes, have been radicalized by hateful rhetoric that was seen in online groups or organizations.

In finalizing this analysis, no matter how much evidence is given on either side of the debate, this topic has been recently regarded as one of the most controversial. For myself, I tend to lean on the side that tries to protect the citizens from being verbally attacked with rhetoric that is meant to harm and demean the person. And anybody else who has similar sentiments, I hope, would agree that this is not done as a mean to stifle democracy or a speaker’s right to express their concerns. In addition to that, I would also hope that people want unrestricted speech, would understand why some people do not agree with that idea. Both sides, in my opinion, raise valid concerns of what limiting free speech, or allowing hate speech, can do if implemented in this country. And throughout my time going through and analyzing the selected reading, my personal opinion was challenged quite a lot. However, in the end, I feel that allowing unrestricted free speech can do more harm than if left alone. With possibilities of harassment, bullying, and the potential to incite others to act out with heinous and fatal crimes, there is a need to try and regulate what can and cannot be said. Any time our rights laid out in our Constitution are challenged, it can bring an alarming feeling, but in order to progress our country, there is a need to periodically gauge where we are as society, enact change, and strive to be better.