It cannot be denied that the internet brought a revolution in certain aspects of human social lives. It is no doubt that the internet has provided a certain degree of freedom, which if combined with sufficient anonymity, and lack of control, can turn the granted freedom into chaos. In that regard, the same can be applied to the freedom of speech in the internet. This paper provides an overview regarding freedom of speech, and freedom of expression, on the internet, stating that, the absence of censorship as well its dominance might lead to a misuse that compromises the idea of the freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech or freedom of expression, in the internet, refers to the right to express an opinion or an idea, through any electronic means. The issues that might arise through practicing that right are twofold. On the one hand, the freedom of expression on the internet allowed the general public to be informed about the true nature of the certain events, regardless of geographical locations and restrictions. The successful examples can be seen through the coverage of the events in Tianmen in Chine, the Kuwait Invasion, Iran election and etc. ( Internet Freedom of Speech, 2009) The ability to express ones opinion freely creates a dialogue, and in the case of the internet, it is a global dialogue.
On the other hand, the freedom of speech allows the widespread of pornography, personal attacks, falsified information, plagiarism and etc. One might argue that several of the aforementioned points might be regulated by the law. However, the nature of the internet makes it accessible for the general auditory, hard to control, and without boundaries.
It can be concluded that control and censorship are issues that should be considered in parallel to freedom of speech and expression. Even with the laws incapable of controlling the flow of information in the internet, it is an ethical responsibility for every user to refer to common sense when expressing his/her freedom of speech on the internet.
Before the Internet
The public access to such documents might have been possible through a library archive. In case of bills that were debated at the time, this might have been another issue where copies might be published before their hearing for public use. Other legislature documents also had the same fate, where for example accessing court records, required physically going into the courthouse. The disadvantages might be obvious, such as time consumption, search possibilities, and overall involvement. People tend to ignore political participation, if it does not concern them, or if it requires additional efforts.
In this case, the most obvious way is subscribing to medical journals, or using the library. The disadvantages include the limited search abilities, if any, where in order to find specific article on a particular topic, it would require examining hundreds and thousands of paper editions. Accordingly, the subscription to a specific journal would cost money, where internet resources also might not be free of charges, but the search options allows the user to be 100% sure that they are getting the information they need. In terms of libraries, their geographical dispersion would put require enormous efforts on finding the needed information and requiring a copy, specifically if the topic is not so popular.
Such procedure might have been done through posting an advertisement through the media. This might be a newspaper, a radio, or a rubric in a magazine. The disadvantages include paying for the advertisement, the time needed for the newspaper to be published, and the limited geographical coverage. The limitedness of choice would have not enabled the seller to address all the potential offers, and accordingly, the potential sellers would not have been informed about all the information regarding the poster.
The Internet allows everyone the freedom to connect with other people and suppliers worldwide but an economical means for individuals to restrict their art or thoughts to the eyes of children is yet to be developed. Because of a lack of security technology, across the board prohibition is justified under the law, a concept that is in itself considered unlawful by a strict definition of the First Amendment of the Constitution which unambiguously guarantees the right to free speech. Supreme Court decisions have consistently found that the First Amendment does not apply to obscene communications and have allowed communities to establish their restrictions regarding what is obscene. Ethics is in the eye and ear of the beholder. Access to the internet allows people to make their own decision about what is offensive.
Legal Interpretations
The Average Person
The court in Miller v. California explained that if the average person would describe the work as obscene or if it showed or expressed patently offensive sexual conduct without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, the material is correctly defined as obscene (Mason, 2000). The community of the World Wide Web has combined to establish what is and what is not acceptable. Neither a single government alone nor the coalition of all can hope to effectively restrict such a universally encompassing phenomenon as the Internet. In addition, the associations and comparisons made of the Internet to the broadcast media when formulating laws are flawed as is the perceived right to restrict its content. Before cable and satellite television brought effective child protection techniques within a click or two for parents, children could access the network television stations at will, and censorship was widely accepted as a necessary governmental responsibility. However, Internet access is not as universally accessible in the same way radio airwaves are. A person does not accidentally look up a Web site the way they might accidentally hear something on network television or radio. (Pilon, 1994).
Federal Interventions
No law regarding internet indecency passes constitutional inspection no matter how vigilantly crafted or well-intended. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis ( Olmstead , 1928). The term indecent is vague, confusing, and destined for continual debate and evolution. Local judiciaries that try to define it and build moral parameters excluding what is currently perceived indecent from a source based on a worldwide scale is impossible and unwarranted. The biggest casualty to free speech is the individual citizens right to make moral decisions and be able to speak freely to others in all regions of the globe. The CDA cannot legitimately allege any jurisdiction over the Internet as it might the broadcast media because the software has enabled controlled access to minors. Most Internet service providers offer inexpensive or free access to child protection filters. Just as the government was publicizing the possibilities of the information superhighway, it was also moving to censor it. The Internet, at least for a short time, had provided many peoples of the world, including the U.S., genuine freedom of speech. About the time the internet became widely popular, the U.S. Senate voted for an amendment to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Weingarten, 1996) which would have made it unlawful to produce indecent material on any computer network (Corn-Revere, 1997). The House offered its amendment encouraging private solutions to the problem of indecency to counteract the censorship attempts approved by the Senate. A compromise that restricted speech considered harmful to minors was worked out between the houses of congress. Under the bill, sexual imagery on private computer networks would be governed by a standard like that usually used for public display of print media. House conferees, however, again with little discussion, substituted broader language regulating indecent material (Weingarten, 1996, p. 68). This language was enacted into law along with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and became integrated into the CDA.
Communicating via the computer allows everyone to create any type of subject matter and to distribute it instantly on a global scale. This remarkable progression in the marketplace of ideas is a result of the ease of access to the author. Laws that increase regulations and their associated costs to the common webmaster jeopardize this developing modernization and globalization of public dialogue. The CDA will add to the cost of internet speech which, in effect, prohibits the freedom of speech. Government cannot legitimize exercising control over internet content that its users can control.
FCC and Ethics
The FCC has yet to shape a rational and consistent standard defining broadcast indecency. According to the FCCs broad definition, indecency in the broadcast media is ascertained according to the discernment of the average broadcast viewer but this is a meaningless concept. The tastes of the average viewer in Nebraska hardly correlate to the tastes of the average viewer in Las Vegas. In other words, the FCC determines what is indecent. The crafters of the CDA were influenced by legal precedence regarding FCC broadcast interpretations to craft its indecency standard. It is possible for any court to string together words in an important-sounding way, crafting phrases such as prurient interest, or a mythical national consensus, and claim to have created a uniform definition of indecency. What it will have done, in effect, is to impose its tastes on the rest of the nation. (Huber et al, 1996, p. 385). The CDAs version is no clearer than the FCCs definition of indecency and applies similar reasoning to a different set of circumstances.
Conclusion
The Internet, as discussed, is not the same form of communication as the broadcast media. No court whether federal, state, or local can clarify or fully rationalize this Act that suppresses the freedom of speech on the internet by referring to a theoretical average computer user. If the First Amendment protected only speech that was acceptable to the average person, it would be rendered useless as it would not protect unpopular minority opinion which is not as the founders of the country intended. The Internet is a much different form of communication than broadcast media outlets as it enables an exceptional range of people from varied communities to voice their opinions and share their knowledge. The indecency judgments of the average user are not simply difficult to distinguish but should be of no significance. If FCC regulations are meant to address the definition of indecency regarding the broadcast media to determine the future of internet communications, the damage to the truly free speech it has fostered will be severe. Works of considerable literary, scientific, and artistic merit might be patently offensive. In some contexts, ordinary cuss words might be considered indecent (Huber et al, 1996, p. 385). To censure or prohibit free speech on the Internet is a violation of law, the highest law, the Constitution of the United States. That is the true ethical concern of the World Wide Web.
Works Cited
Corn-Revere, Robert. New Age Comstockery: Exon vs. the Internet. Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 232. (1995).
Huber, Peter W.; Kellogg, Michael K.; & Thorne, John. Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference. Special Report: The Telecommunications Act of 1996. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., (1996), p. 385.
Pilon, Roger. A Modest Proposal on Must-Carry, the 1992 Cable Act, and Regulation Generally: Go Back to Basics. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law. (1994). Journal 41.
Mason, Jeffrey D. Mason Miller v. California (1973): The Court Confronts Obscenity. The Millennium Fool. (2000).
Olmstead v. the United States. Decided 1928. Supreme Court Collection. Legal Information Institute, Cornell University. Web.
Weingarten, Fred W. Debate over Indecency on the Net Reveals Deep Divisions. Computer Magazine. (1996), pp. 68, 73.
This study evaluates an article by Chris Berg, which was published in a website titled, the Age. The article was titled, the Weight of the World. The article speaks against negative criticisms leveled against Wiki leaks and its founder Julian Assange (Berg 2010).
The publication therefore advanced the fact that, wiki leaks was only upholding the freedom of the press in its publication of diplomatic cables about the US, and subjecting its founder to negative criticism, or trying to muzzle its activities, was nothing but an effort to muzzle the press. The core issue tackled in the publication therefore revolved around press freedom and the efforts, particularly advanced by the US congress, to muzzle it.
The article further went ahead to stipulate the role of the press in the society, and in doing so, it categorically stated that, the press does not hold any responsibility to any government, to smoothen their diplomatic activities, or soften their relations with the worlds foreign leaders.
Comparison was made of past efforts to muzzle the press and what is currently happening with wiki leaks. In this analysis, there was a clear effort made to associate the freezing of wiki leaks activities with past efforts of governments trying to muzzle the media (Berg 2010). Moreover, the power of the US congress is identified to have the leading responsibility in trying to gag the media because of its immense legislative power.
Generally, I concur with the main theme of the article, which is to show that, freedom of the press ought to be upheld at all times, and the freezing of wiki leaks is nothing short of gagging the media. In this regard, this studys evaluation of the publication is positive and in subsequent subsections of this article, I will clearly demonstrate why.
Analysis
Julian Assange and his wiki leaks website represent the freedom to communicate and express oneself through media publications. His actions therefore truly define the freedom of the press because there is no clause in the freedom of press law that limits the publication of information such as diplomatic cables.
Furthermore, wiki leaks activities are firmly entrenched in the bill of rights that touches on its activities because it states that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers (Cornwell 2004, p. 21).
The activities of wiki leaks therefore perfectly fit the privileges and rights of the press that are defined by the freedom of press clause and the universal bill of rights. Moreover, in order for the press to be truly perceived as free, it ought to be free from the interference of the state (Cornwell 2004, p. 21).
Contrary to this view, the US congress seems to be interfering with the activities of wiki leaks by leveling charges against the organization and its founder. Moreover, its actions against wiki leaks sponsors such as Amazon, MasterCard, PayPal and such like organizations, clearly amount to a breach of the freedom of the press because this is some form of state interference in the activities of the press.
Furthermore, the motivation of the US government in interfering with the activities of wiki leaks stems from the international embarrassment it got as a result of the diplomatic leaks (Berg 2010, p, 16). Particularly, the US government felt more embarrassed that, it is diplomatic communication was not secure and that, third parties could access its internal communication systems.
The potential threat of the diplomatic leaks soiling the relationship it had with its foreign partners was also a primary motivator for the US government to muzzle the activities of wiki leaks by exercising its political muscle over companies which support the organization. From this analysis, we therefore see that, the muzzling of wiki leaks activities was motivated by selfish reasons, on the part of the US government.
Though some people may argue that, governments normally have a right to determine what kind of information is to be leaked to the public, under the rights and privileges of state security, defined under the freedom of press clauses, there is enough evidence to suggest that wiki leaks made an effort to engage the US state department to edit the kind of information that was going to be leaked to the public.
However, when the US government failed to oblige, it had to edit the information by itself and release it to the media. In support of this fact, Berg (2010) states that, Wiki Leaks even asked the US State Department to help editing unnecessarily risky documents, a practice common when the press deals with classified material. The State Department refused (p. 9). From this analysis therefore, there is no reason to subject wiki leaks to a complete shutdown because of its professional conduct.
Evaluation
From the above subsection of this study, we see that, the attack on wiki leaks activities amounts to a breach of the freedom of the press because the actions of the US congress amounts to state intervention, which is clearly stated as a breach of the freedom of press (Berg 2010, p. 2).
Moreover, wiki leaks demonstrated a lot of professionalism when dealing with state, or classified information, by seeking the input of the US government before it published the diplomatic information. Only when the US government refused to collaborate, did wiki leaks publish the information.
Criticisms leveled against the wiki leaks founder are also to be regarded as a contravention of human rights, which guarantee the right of speech, opinion and expression, since the actions of congress were aimed at muzzling the organizations freedom to express itself, but most importantly, curtailing the access of information to the public.
Moreover, the motivations of the US government in interfering with wiki leaks activities are questionable because they seem rather, selfish and motivated by pride. This can be seen from the fact that the US government only got embarrassed from wiki leaks diplomatic leaks and never did the damage seem to threaten the security of the US government in protecting its citizens (Berg 2010).
Its reasons for criticizing wiki leaks are therefore motivated by its efforts to save its image on the international platform, but most importantly, its actions are fueled by its political muscle in curtailing the activities of wiki leaks by threatening its sponsors through legislative might.
From this analysis, we therefore see that, the US state intervention is a clear breach of the freedom of the press and a breach against human rights, which guarantee the freedom of opinion and expression. However, the only argument against an exercise of this freedom is the release of classified information that wiki leaks specialized in.
Nevertheless, we can see that, wiki leaks demonstrated utmost professionalism when dealing with the classified information by seeking the input of the US government before realizing the diplomatic cables. From this analysis therefore, it is safe to suggest that, wiki leaks acted in the most professional way possible and the criticism of the US government on the organizations activities are unfounded and irrational, but most importantly, they have no legal backing.
Conclusion
From the prevailing factors affecting the USs actions against wiki leaks, we can see that, the USs actions against wiki leaks were motivated by pride and might. In other words, there is no concrete legal backing for the actions of the US government in trying to freeze the activities of wiki leaks and its founder.
Legally, it is clear that, wiki leaks followed all laid down provisions governing its professional conduct. Obviously, its professionalism stems from its efforts to seek the input of the US government before the publication of the diplomatic cables.
The fact that, wiki leaks was leaking classified information to the general public would have been the greatest weakness of this argument because the media is required to seek the intervention of state authorities before leaking classified information to the public, because of the security interests associated with such information.
Since wiki leaks observed this provision, this weakness fails to dilute the argument that, the action to curtail the activities of wiki leaks amounts to curtailing the freedom of the press. From this analysis therefore, we see that, state interference in the wiki leaks saga was unwarranted, and it amounted to a breach of the freedom of the press. This argument is therefore a positive evaluation of Bergs publication that reiterates the same argument.
Nations have developed from primitive dictatorship to democratic institutions that respect human rights by ensuring justice and equality are guaranteed to all citizens. This has enabled people to express their dissatisfactions through public forums like debates, referendums and protests. These are modern ways of communicating to the government that people are dissatisfied with a policy, institution or individual. However, sometimes these rights may be restricted due to reasons that justify their classification as threats to national security (Anderson 2010). This discussion addresses and accounts for various issues involved in protesting as a way of exercising freedoms of speech and expression.
The case study describes a situation where a militia group has been granted a protest permit. In addition, other opposing groups have notified the City Hall and Police Department that they will participate. This will result in a crisis and thus must be managed before it escalates into conflicts between these two groups. The Mayor has asked for a comprehensive plan of action that will ensure the Police Department and City Hall are not affected by the protests.
Main Body
This situation is not easy to manage due to the complexity of the issues and parties involved. These parties must be treated ethically to ensure they are allowed to exercise their freedoms and rights of expression and speech. The Chief of Police must ensure that his troop handles all demonstrators as citizens who are exercising their constitutional rights. They must not interfere with any of their activities if they obey and maintain law and order (Drury 2013). Therefore, they should act only when the protesters break the laws or if there are fears that their actions may disrupt other activities in the city. The police will ensure all parties are allowed to hold separate demonstrations provided they maintain peace and respect the law.
Secondly, the criminal and civil law and statues will apply equally to all protestors, and nobody will be allowed to break any of the provisions above. The protestors were given permits to hold demonstrations, and this means that they signed and agreed to hold peaceful, orderly and lawful protests as stipulated by the law. First, the militia group must ensure their demonstration does not involve more than 350 members as agreed earlier. In addition, they should hold their demonstrations in public places and avoid intruding into private property (Drury 2013).
Thirdly, it is important for them to ensure they refrain from using abusive or discriminatory language that may infringe on the rights of the public or any institution. Moreover, protestors must exercise their freedom and right of assembling and protesting within the time allocated to them. Any party that will violate any of the legal requirements above will be punished according to the stipulations of the criminal and civil law and statutes.
The Rational Choice Theory developed by William Glasser explains that a criminal will commit a crime to satisfy his greed, anger, revenge, or jealousy (Bursik 2012). Protestors may be motivated by these personal interests to commit crimes; however, legal sanctions against criminal activities will ensure these protestors behave in a peaceful way.
The Psychodynamic Trait Theory advanced by Sigmund Feud explains that people have three regulators that control their behavior, and they include, emotions, self and reason (Anderson 2010). A crowd is usually controlled by emotions, and Feud explains that the average thinking capacity of a crowd is equal to that of the stupidest person in that crowd; therefore, this makes demonstrators to be prone to criminal activities.
The Police Department has been criticized for mishandling protesters by using excess force to disperse them. However, it is necessary to ensure that the public and property are kept safe from demonstrators by using the necessary force required to control the behavior of a crowd (Akers 2009). Therefore, the actions of the Police Department will be determined by how the crowd behaves. However, this department will be very careful in monitoring the behavior of the protestors and engaging in dialogue to solve issues that may lead to conflicts.
The police supervisory and command staff will work together with the Chief of Police to ensure that the Police Department keeps the crowd under control by meeting with their organizers and demanding that they advise their followers to follow all the rules that have been highlighted in the protest permit (Drury 2013). In addition, there will be adequate consultations before issuing orders in case the crowd starts to behave badly.
The Police Department is equipped with modern technology equipment to combat crowd behavior if it turns unruly. First, this department will use barricades to ensure protestors do not trespass into private property and unauthorized areas. Secondly, there will be pepper sprays, teargas and rubber bullets to control those who engage in criminal activities (Bursik 2012). Lastly, there are security cameras installed in various places within the city to record all events and people involved in them. These cameras have identification features that will identify people who will commit crimes.
Conclusion
The police department plays vital roles in controlling protests and ensuring they abide by the laws and regulations established in different regions. Protestors must hold peaceful demonstrations when expressing their views since other people also have rights that must be respected.
References
Akers, R. (2009). Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Anderson, E. (2010). Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Bursik, R. (2012). Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control. Maryland: Lexington Books.
Drury, J. (2013). Crowds in the 21st Century: Perspectives from Contemporary Social Science. London: Routledge.
The groundbreaking changes in the use of technologies, in general, and IT innovations, in particular, have redesigned the very fabric of the communication process. However, with new opportunities that modern media has provided, new risks gave also emerged. The transfer of the traditional principles of the freedom of speech and unbiased communication into the virtual reality realm has proven to be quite intricate. Which is even more troubling, many people use the convoluted logic of the social network environment to provoke others by uploading controversial material that is likely to spark confrontations or even incite hatred and violence.
At this point, the issue of responsibility and the necessity to edit the material uploaded online needs to be brought up. Although subjecting all items to consistent censorship and whitewashing every statement made by users is barely possible, it is still crucial to create the environment, in which the representatives of every culture can coexist. Similarly, to engage in a successful conversation online, one must have an intrinsic understanding of what can be viewed as a harsh material.
The Freedom of Information Act based on the First Amendment is currently viewed as the principal regulation controlling the data exchange in the online environment (First Amendment, 2016). The Act permits expressing virtually any ideas on the premises of freedom of speech. At the same time, the bigoted approach to the principles of freedom of speech in the context of the real world, such as killing or silencing journalists, makes the process of promoting the same values in the internet environment barely possible.
The lack of freedom of speech remains a problem for the east, Eastern Europe, and some African countries, such as Kenya. The political involvement of modern media has also become a significant problem, with a range of media applauding to the ideas that are not necessarily supported by the editors but have been sponsored by the media patrons. Therefore, in the contemporary environment, oligarchy, as well as power abuse, remains a topical factor restricting the freedom of speech.
The differences in information management, as well as the way, in which it is represented in online media, could be attributed to the specifics of the corresponding cultures. However, a brief overview of the cultural specifics of the states that have the highest rates of media controversy and the related issues will show that the principles of social justice are quite similar worldwide. Therefore, there is a strong need to reconsider the way, in which the struggle for media freedom has been unwrapping in the identified environments (Robertson, 2015).
Analysis
The issue of media freedom is, indeed, among the most convoluted topics to address. It borders the areas of the freedom of speech and the threats of inciting to cross-cultural conflict, thus, inviting a profound discussion. At this point, political commitment as a problem of the modern media needs to be brought up (Hung, 2012).
As Robertson stresses quite righteously, modern media is prone to support a particular side of the conflict, just as much as the traditional one. This begs the question, however, whether media can provide an unbiased and objective point of view when it comes to addressing a political issue. For instance, Robertson points to the fact that media can be used both to unify and to divide the nation:
Freedom of expression thus has a dark side, as argued by Hutton but also, in a different way, as illustrated by the portkey that opened the chapter. In many countries throughout the world, this freedom involves the liberty to polarize and to demonize opponents. Radio, a medium that for decades had the power to unify the nation, and in many places still has, has been used as a deadly instrument, spreading hate of rival ethnic groups in Rwanda in 1994, for example, and of homosexuals in Uganda. (Robertson, 2015, p. 154)
Therefore, when conveying a particular idea, the media has to pick a side that it will be arguing; otherwise, the entire idea thereof will become pointless. Media is supposed to represent the arguments of different people and organizations so that everyone involved could be open to a discussion and that a constructive analysis of the items on the agenda could begin.
When viewed through the prism of the pluralism of opinions, the idea of shedding light on some of the less popular or even downright harmful ideas seems a lesser evil. As long as the people that view the information have a strong moral and ethical stance, the potential harm that controversial messages can bring is reduced to a zero. Still, the authors of the information posted via online media tools need to be very cautious when considering the implications that their posts will have on the population that they are targeted at (Fernandez-Delgado & Balanza, 2012).
As far as the issue of supporting certain political groups and parties is concerned, one must give the readers credit for being able to identify the intentions of the authors and make the corresponding conclusions on their own. While the fact that every media piece is based on specific political ideas can hardly be doubted, the tools that the authors use to manipulate their readers are, as a rule, rather easy to detect, and the authors of the biased representation are quite ridiculous in their naive endeavor at twisting the reality and misrepresenting a particular tier of society.
It could be argued, though, that the methods of manipulating the social opinions and the stance that people take when addressing a particular issue are only going to get more intricate and, therefore, harder to recognize. As a result, modern media will manipulate peoples opinions in a much more efficient manner. Nevertheless, one must admit that the contemporary environment of the modern media lacks cultural sensitivity since all parties involved, including the ones that promote the absence of tolerance, socially and politically dangerous ideas, etc., have the chance to expose their materials to everyone. Although offering a chance in expressing ones opinion is important, it is still crucial to make sure that the information provided neither flame the existing intercultural conflicts nor sparks new ones.
Robertson (2015) does a very good job of locating the nature of the contemporary issues that modern media has. Because of the lack of control over the environment of social networks and the related issues, there is a consistent threat of a malicious idea being blown out of its proportions and affecting a vulnerable population. As a result, the success of communication between the representatives of different cultures may be jeopardized. However, as soon as the principles of responsibility and ethics guide the choices made by the participants of social networks and the authors of the media content, the threats can be avoided successfully.
Reference List
Fernandez-Delgado, F. C., & Balanza, M. T. V. (2012). Beyond WikiLeaks: The Icelandic modern media initiative and the creation of free speech havens. International Journal of Communication, 1(6), 2706-2729.
The sort of organization that examines restrictions and the opportunities and challenges it encounters in doing so is the center of a widely acknowledged way of thinking about whether it is acceptable to restrict speech. Governmental limitations have a limited scope since the free expression is protected by law and the Constitution. On the other hand, corporations and other private actors have more leeway to act when they contemplate imposing limits. In this sense, a libertarian, pro-property ethos is the opposite of a libertarian, content-neutral ethos (Rauf, 2021). Perhaps it can arbitrarily apply content limits using this strategy.
Therefore, while considering limits, both proponents and opponents should focus more on what private companies may or may not have reasons to ban rather than what they are permitted to do so. If there is anything to be concerned about when social media consider speech and censorship, it is that they have enormous potential to shape conversation but no duty to do so in an official manner (Fuchs, 2018). However, for other people, the fundamental problem is not the rank or identity of the censor, which in certain situations may be more significant, but rather the suppression of the thought itself. The social media corporation, its ethics, and standards have occasionally been violated on a large scale.
Former President Donald Trumps internet presence was prohibited in the days following the January 6 Capitol revolt. Trumps social media accounts have been deactivated on other sites. Many of Trumps most ardent supporters felt the same way. Thousands of Twitter accounts have been suspended for disseminating bogus right-wing material (Chowdhury et al., 2021). Many on the right have been pushed to the Internets periphery as a result of these movements. Denying consumers access to social media platforms and other websites on a permanent basis is not a novel notion (Roberts, 2019). For years, conservatives have spoken out against this and other types of social media shaming. However, Trumps high-profile exit from office has sparked further confusion, discussion, and controversy.
On May 26, 2020, Twitter decided to add a warning symbol and a link to verified information to two of Trumps tweets for the first time. Three days later, Twitter blocked access to another message from the President, this time threatening fatal violence against demonstrators, in an unprecedented step (Chowdhury et al., 2021). The tweet was hidden behind a warning that it was allegedly glorifying violence, which technically violated Twitter rules. Since then, Twitter has stepped in to cover up or report the ex-Presidents tweets on multiple occasions. On June 23, Twitter chose to put a warning label on another Trump post for breaking our rules against abusive behavior, especially for conveying a threat of damage to a specific group (Chowdhury et al., 2021). The decision by Twitter was a watershed moment, escalating into a campaign to restrict Trump supporters and other Republican public figures.
This is one of the most widely discussed issues in the United States and throughout the world since it threatens to undermine the basic cornerstone on which the United States was founded freedom of expression. As one of the worlds largest social networks, Twitter, which is owned by Facebook, has demonstrated that it is prepared for such actions. This, it is believed, was done to prevent the spread of QAnon theories and fake news, as well as theoretical discrimination and hate crimes (Rauf, 2021). While Republicans are banned on Twitter and Facebook, there are many live profiles supporting major terrorist organizations such as Islamic State or al-Qaida. These accounts are only being filtered after catastrophic events such as terrorist acts in Boston, Paris, and other places. Twitter does not appear to bother identifying or banning accounts in the interim. As part of Facebooks increasingly global approach and criticism, this case is an interesting example of Twitters corporate ethics.
First of all, it is necessary to deconstruct the issue historically, aiming to uncover how Twitter came to this policy. Twitter has never censored politicians tweets, claiming that the messages are of public interest (Fuchs, 2018). As a result, prominent celebrities were usually exempt from the regulations and restrictions that apply to regular users. Even when a user uses vulgarity, the site does not take the normal steps to punish them, like as removing a tweet or banning or suspending their account. However, in response to the multiple issues that the online behavior of some leaders, beginning with Trump, would certainly generate, the social network has had to adjust its attitude since 2019. Twitter announced in June 2019 that it had established new restrictions for politicians (Chowdhury et al., 2021). Individuals must be or be eligible for election or appointment to public office and have a verified account to be eligible for this scheme (Rauf, 2021). Even if such officials tweets violate the platforms regulations, such as inciting violence, harassment, or other activities, they are not erased if they have a demonstrable public value. They can, however, be obscured by a warning notice that serves as context and prevents other users from liking or retweeting the item.
This announcement, on the other hand, went almost without any notice, at least initially. Trump, for example, wrote incendiary remarks regarding Democratic Party women in early July, with no pushback from Twitter (Chowdhury et al., 2021). In response to the criticism, the company stated that the tweets do not essentially breach Twitter policy, despite the fact that the networks rules forbid such tweets. In the terms, the company stated that tweets that insult individuals or contain anything that offends or perpetuates unfavorable stereotypes about this group of people are thus forbidden (Roberts, 2019). After receiving backlash for failing to respond to contentious Trump tweets, Twitter strengthened its system by introducing a modification to its leader policy in the autumn of 2019. The social media platform reaffirmed a concept it introduced in June that there will be no filtering of tweets that violate Twitter rules if they are of public importance, although they will be able to be hidden behind a warning (Chowdhury et al., 2021). This did not essentially change anything in the global social media policy, still being linked to the concept of public good and value.
Later on, Twitter officials cautioned that if there were anything connected to significant infractions, such as terrorist propaganda, explicit and direct threats of violence against individuals, or the disclosure of private information, it would interfere regardless of the tweets intended audience. In this instance politicians and celebrities public-interest tweets will be handled the same as other tweets, and they may be hidden or erased if required, with fines ranging to account temporary suspension (Chowdhury et al., 2021). Twitter also began to ban or hide sponsored tweets having a campaign or political objective.
The coronavirus outbreak has caused Twitter to reconsider its policy once more. The platform has issued new standards and stated that it would remove information that makes a clear call for users to engage in activities that might endanger their health or well-being. Challenges to local government quarantine measures, promotion of useless Covid-19 therapies, rejecting accepted scientific facts regarding viral transmission, and instigating conduct that might cause fear or disturbance are among the new kinds of disinformation addressed by Twitter (Rauf, 2021). In the case of politicians, the platform emphasizes that tweets that violate these guidelines will not be removed in principle but will instead be reported when they are of public importance, according to previously established norms.
Trumps tweets touting the benefits of hydroxychloroquine, on the other hand, received no response from Twitter. Meanwhile, in late March, the platform did not hesitate to restrict Trumps lawyer Rudy Giuliani (Chowdhury et al., 2021). Despite the fury expressed in multiple Democratic news releases, Twitter has consistently refused to delete a series of Trump tweets that made references to several Democratic leaders. The companys action was solely in response to Trumps stance on absentee voting. Trump is accused of violating Twitters guidelines by using the expression rigged election (Rauf, 2021). So, while these tweets were unrelated to the health issue, they were connected to a page produced by a platform that compiled evidence from other media sites and fact-checkers to demonstrate how unjustified were Trumps comments.
Lastly, Twitter asserted that Donald Trumps statements breached their policy against endorsing violence, which resulted in a total ban on his account. This rule appears to be designed to stop users from exalting violence when doing so could encourage other users to engage in violent behavior. The company discovered that it is likely that these tweets may incite violence in the future after examining them in the larger context of high election-related tensions and the storming of the Capitol Building (Chowdhury et al., 2021). Twitter has permanently barred President Trump from the service. This looks to be a glaring departure from Twitters earlier Trump-related behavior. It might be claimed that his tweets were plainly intended to incite violent protests relating to the capital building storming. While Trumps earlier tweets were clearly more provocative and subject to the presumption of glorifying violence and possible incitement to hate crimes, the companys position was quite different in this case.
It is visible that the majority of social media entrepreneurs hold liberal political views. This results in the case when political prejudices influence how the corporations function, notwithstanding what the firms assert. While it is impossible for computer programmers to design algorithms that are fundamentally discriminatory, even algorithms that account for social prejudices may gradually change when preferences are processed (Fuchs, 2018). If asserting that developers implicit biases can unintentionally make their algorithms discriminatory, then it stands to reason that these programmers political biases will also produce discriminatory algorithms that explicitly support their values and political views.
As more users resort to social media platforms for news, thereby transforming them into news organizations, the political slant of these corporations is becoming increasingly concerning. One of the most obvious instances is the Arab Spring uprisings and the extensive usage of Twitter. A wide-ranging agenda is also being advanced by the Saudi bots now working to protect Mohammed bin Salman (Rauf, 2021). One possibility to think about is accepting prejudice as reality and strictly regulating social media sites. Turning to the most important question, the suppression of freedom of speech and expression, this point of view is, however, losing its relevance.
The key strategic issue in assessing Twitter and its business ethics in relation to its users is assessing the American legislation, namely the First Amendment. A free flow of ideas on all public topics is guaranteed under the First Amendment (Fuchs, 2018). In essence, it states that citizens are sovereign in matters of opinion, political discussion, political propaganda, and political planning and that Congress is only their subordinate agent (Roberts, 2019). This point of view contends that any legislative regulation cannot adequately include the social obligations of a citizen in a free society. Freedom of expression, therefore, holds a particularly protected normative place in the American tradition (Fuchs, 2018). Expression is typically seen as less harmful to other societal aims than action is. Theoretically, freedom of expression can only be curtailed when the utterance may instantly cause detrimental behaviors and when it can demonstrate a direct relationship (Roberts, 2019). This high threshold is challenging to cross, yet it is really feasible to do so with a hazy awareness of the direct link between speech and destructive behavior.
Other Western democracies are more inclined to impose restrictions on hate speech. The atrocities of World War II are still fresh in the minds of most European nations, especially those that were occupied by Nazi Germany or engaged in combat there, and the effectiveness of hate speech is well understood. The encouragement of hatred has resulted in the mass murders of all unwanted groups and lower races, in addition to the elimination of the Jews (Fuchs, 2018). As a result, hate speech is illegal in many European nations. For instance, in order to reduce risks to its national defense and public order, Spain approved legislation authorizing courts to shut down Spanish websites and prevent access to US online pages (Wirawanda & Wibowo, 2018). To openly express opinions that insult a group of individuals on account of their race or religion is a crime in the Netherlands, according to the Dutch Penal Code (Fuchs, 2018). The Freedom of the Press Act in Sweden also makes it illegal to disparage any group of people by making any reference to their race, skin color, nationality, or ethnic origin (Fuchs, 2018). Unlike the US, European laws are designed strictly, and there is a small room for maneuver.
Some have claimed that the ban imposed by Donald Trump, the case that has garnered the greatest attention, violates the First Amendment (Roberts, 2019). Republicans and Democrats engaged in a heated discussion about this. According to one viewpoint, Twitter has not suppressed free expression but rather restored it by halting the spread of false news. The view, on the other side, is that the restriction is merely biased and that free speech has been abolished since it targets Trump supporters and, in particular, Donald Trump.
One of the most essential liberties guaranteed by the Constitution is the First Amendment. However, other individuals contend that only Congress, the states, and institutions connected to Congress or the governments, including state universities, are in charge of upholding the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (Roberts, 2019). Someones constitutional right to free speech cannot be violated by private groups (Fuchs, 2018). They contend that social networks, which are owned by private firms, cannot be held liable for infringing a persons right to free expression. Instead, only the states and Congress have the authority to transgress it (Roberts, 2019). Therefore, Twitter is not violating any of President Trumps rights by removing him from the site; rather, it is merely exercising its own rights.
From this vantage point, there is no need for the elimination of free expression because this is not a question of constitutional rights but rather a matter of Twitters real policy. To stop the issues outlined in its policy, Twitter merely went against its own regulations and business ethics by violating its own rights. The desire to stop violence, false information, and extremism was taken into consideration when doing this. Furthermore, given the disparity in power among those users, it could be justified to place harsher speech limitations on certain users than on others (Fuchs, 2018). A threat from the President of the United States, for instance, may be interpreted quite differently by her victim than a threat from a less influential fellow Twitter user.
This point of view is ambiguous from different perspectives. First of all, demanding that Twitter exercises its own rights reflects that Twitters business ethics are inconsistent are enforced only with the growth of public debate. Despite its regulations and regular updates on policies, the company hesitated to take action against Trumps rhetoric despite the continuous appeals by the Democrat partys representatives. Only with the rising BLM movement and Democrats electoral win looming on the horizon the company enforces its regulations. It became an inconsistent move and revealed how big companies could simply follow the public demand. It is hard to deny that Trumps Twitter account was one of the most popular in social medias history, and this was perhaps one of the reasons why the company hesitated to act against it. This once again highlights the weak business ethics of Twitter.
Information freedom and moral and social responsibility might at times be at odds with one another, which can have important commercial ramifications for not only this firm but also for other information and communication enterprises in the future. The obligations made by employers to their employees and by suppliers to customers and consumers are how responsibility is defined in the business world (Conrad, 2018). While many obligations have a legal foundation, others are customary, subject to negotiation depending on the interests and power dynamics of the persons concerned, and driven by business imperatives (Rauf, 2021). Business entities decisions to accept and carry out obligations are largely influenced by their long-term self-interest and the maintenance of positive customer relations, while moral values may also be taken into account. In addition to typical economic gains, the company must also take into account how its actions would affect society (Conrad, 2018). Just following the bare minimum of the law, as any decent citizen would, does not make a company socially accountable.
The fundamental rules of business ethics require integrated, sustainable decision-making that considers both potential good and negative outcomes. Corporations must not only consider a variety of stakeholders and interests but also take those interests into account when making choices. Also important is openness, which makes it possible to hold decision-makers accountable for their actions and to take corrective measures to make apologies (Conrad, 2018). A companys social duty involves ethical requirements in addition to its apparent economic and legal responsibilities (Rauf, 2021). By its very nature, a business must generate a profit, yet society also wants it to follow the law. Adherence to ethical norms is another aspect of ethical duty. From this perspective, a corporation with strong business ethics ought to work to turn a profit while abiding by the law and acting morally as a decent corporate citizen.
The distinctive function of the Internet in contemporary society, as well as the broad appeal and potentially profound impact of a significant amount of Internet content, raise issues regarding the duties of private individuals, governmental entities, and businesses. Any social media platforms long-term objective is to create a set of operating rules that will balance the opposing objectives of fostering political expression, safeguarding user safety, and maintaining the viability of the platform itself (Fuchs, 2018). Benchmarking could be the best strategy for attaining this objective. The legal ramifications distinguishing the promotion of one or more of these conflicting interests from others in this situation can be taken into account in reference to both comparable and dissimilar settings (Wirawanda & Wibowo, 2018). Platform ethics should be founded on an analysis of the legal and cultural landscape and the interests that are most at stake. Striking a balance between limiting harmful information and adopting other political philosophies is crucial. There would be no idea of balance if videos encouraging terrorism were available online, but posts from right-wing political parties are deleted.
The ethical discussion surrounding the encouragement of freedom of expression is complicated by the fact that social media platforms operate on a global scale. This does not imply, however, that these intermediaries should shirk their moral obligation to advance and uphold the principles of free expression among their users. Of course, one could contend that upholding freedom of speech is less a moral duty than it is a hedonistic pursuit (Chowdhury et al., 2021). Digital intermediaries, however, might function as a role model for society in tolerating and approaching radical and difficult views critically by promoting and upholding the ideals of freedom of expression.
The conventional wisdom is that because provocative viewpoints advance individual and societal development, we should accommodate them. Suppressing an idea that is objectionable but correct in some circumstances can prevent people from learning the truth, even if it is unpopular with most persons (Rauf, 2021). In other instances, the offensive view could be partially accurate and, when paired with the partially accurate public opinion, help to realize the complete truth. Unlimited speech offers the chance to learn from mistakes and make improvements. Twitter, on the other hand, appears to have changed course and suspended any adverse views. The companys economic principles have caused it to become the most politicized social network to date despite its attempts to be apolitical. What will happen to the organizations ethics and ban policy in light of the Elon Musk deal is yet unknown. To offer a greater degree of awareness and flexibility in terms of self-expression, they must, however, be completely revamped.
This essay includes a discussion of the analysis of freedom of speech and community safety. Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right so is community safety. It is believed by many that freedom of speech is the freedom everyone should have. However, freedom of speech should be limited because some speeches cause harm and discomfort to individuals and communities for the sake of community safety.
Freedom of speech is one of human’s fundamental rights hence, everyone should have the right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the right to express opinions without being afraid of police arrest. Although there are a few countries that do not allow citizens to have freedom of speech, many countries have applied freedom of speech. Countries like North Korea, and Syria which is under authoritarianism do not have freedom of speech. Even the word “freedom of speech” might not exist in their “brain dictionary”. 2. Accordingly, countries that have known freedom of speech and are more open-minded (democratic) tend to support freedom of speech as they are democratic countries. Data based collected by The Justitia Free Speech Index indicated that among the 33 countries surveyed, Scandinavians and Americans are most supportive of free speech, while, Russians, Muslim-majority nations, and the least socio-economically developed nations show low levels of support. Subsequently on December 10th, 1984, UNHCR declared that in article 19 “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Therefore, everyone should have the right to freedom of speech.
Community safety is important for humans to feel safe at home, workplace, and neighborhood. Community safety is not just injury or crime prevention physically. It is also about communities having a healthy life emotionally. There is very little research or studies done on community safety. Studies on how community safety should be a priority for humans should be done. This is supported by a website of Northampton posted that “Community safety relates to the quality of life and being able to pursue and obtain the fullest benefits from your domestic, social and economic lives without fear or hindrance from crime and disorder.” Hence, community safety should be prioritized for humans to live in safe and comfortably.
Many accept that emotional pain is as painful as or even worse than physical pain. Thus, freedom of speech that may cause emotional pain, as well as physical pain, should be limited. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right for humans however if there are no limitations to it, it will cause harm to other individuals. Fortunately, the first amendment of the U.S. constitution does not protect “fighting words, threats, and inciting violence”. Cyberbullies are very popular nowadays as it is a digital world. It is confirmed by VJR consulting that tweens (preteens) have been experiencing bullies. There were 1,034 tweens who responded. Among them, 816, which is about 80% of the students had been exposed to bullying. About 15% of them were cyberbullied as 90% of the tweens have their own devices which allow them to use social media and play games. These kinds of cyberbullies are usually written or spoken by predators. Social media allow everyone to post what the users want to, which allows predators to do what they please (freedom of speech). There is a report button, yet although it is reported it does not completely stop the predator. This leads to harm an individual by being cyberbullied. There is no clear research or study done on this so, more studies should be done on how community safe and freedom of speech relate to each other and which one people prioritize more. Consequently, hates speeches and false speeches should be limited. A young man “called 911 and falsely reported a hostage situation,” and then, “the SWAT team dispatched and unintentionally, killed an innocent man who had no idea what was going on” just because of the false speech that a young man spoke. To avoid, situations where false speeches, hate speeches, or speeches that would harm other individuals, freedom of speech should be limited.
In conclusion, freedom of speech that causes harm and discomfort to society should be restricted. In summary, freedom of speech is a fundamental right of humans and so is community safety as it is part of living in safe. Hence, speeches that harm individuals should be restricted to protect the community. There might be no solution for this as humans are unpredictable and so is what is going to happen. Therefore, a solution to solve freedom of speech’s harm to community safety should be studied on.
In the late 20th century, many public colleges and high schools in America designated areas on their campus as “safe spaces”: areas where students were encouraged to speak any thought free of retribution. Other students could provide feedback, and debate was encouraged. Today, many universities still retain these spaces, and many have labeled their entire campus a safe space; however, their definition has shifted drastically.
A safe space is no longer an area where speakers and their speech acts are protected – the term now refers to safety for the listener. In an attempt to create a “safer” educational environment, many universities have placed bans on comments deemed vulgar, bigoted, or otherwise offensive by administrators. Debates can be shut down in the name of safety rather than encouraged. Colleges that once saw argument as healthy now view it as threatening.
The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that modern public education in America coddles students; through restricting offensive speech and limiting the types of books and media, students can consume while in school, the American education system breeds a population that is unhealthily averse to a disagreement while actually endangering the minority groups it seeks to protect.
Background
First, it’s notable that defending constitutionally protected free speech doesn’t imply the defense of all speech unconditionally. For example, the constitution already makes reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of protests and doesn’t protect against threats or calls to violence: i.e., students are allowed to hold protests, but not in the middle of biology class. Court rulings are currently up in the air, however, on whether or not public schools ought to have a unique ability to restrict speech beyond what is constitutionally protected, i.e., restricting jokes that are deemed racist or comments that could provoke anxiety in a sexual assault victim.
Some court cases have answered yes. For example, the court case of Hazelwood v. Kuhmelier has set a precedent that high school administrators are able to restrict student speech that they find offensive. As a result, public high schools and colleges across America have been notably averse to free but offensive expression in the last decade. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found that in 2016, 49.3% of colleges maintained “highly restrictive” speech codes.
Education
Proponents of in-school censorship and modern, safe spaces argue that schools are designed to be places of learning and that education is stifled if students are offended by things that they see, hear, or read. This argument, however, fails to see the issue from a wider perspective. Students actually learn less if they’re only exposed to a fraction of the entire marketplace of ideas. This is not only because speech restrictions make it harder to uncover the truth but because sensitivity to novel opinions harms the development of ideas.
Books
Speech restrictions intended to serve as a buttress to education frequently work against it. For example, of books banned across American high schools in the last decade, the second most frequent reason cited for their restriction was “offensive language” – primarily the word “nigger” (NCAC, 2016, fig. 1). Frequently restricted classics include Adventures of Huckleberry Finn & To Kill a Mockingbird. The absence of historically relevant books in the classroom can leave students without valuable educational resources.
Internet
Moreover, the even-more-rampant internet restrictions and filters prove equally harmful to the educational environment because they almost always censor information that could be valuable to students. M. Fulgei explains:
Many students already have unfiltered access to the internet at home or on smartphones. The best way to protect students is to expand their media literacy skills and educate them about the potential for harm online . . . Districts and schools with overly vigorous internet filters deprive students of opportunities to build academic skills they’ll need in the future . . . Socioeconomic divides also widen when some populations have unfiltered access to the internet while others, who may not have smartphones or internet access at home, do not.
Trigger Warnings
Professors in a host of American universities are additionally required to provide “trigger warnings” for students prior to discussing any sensitive topics like rape or domestic abuse. This common example of speech compulsion is likewise counterproductive; recent research indicates that “trigger warnings increase peoples’ perceived emotional vulnerability to trauma, increase peoples’ belief that trauma survivors are vulnerable, and increase anxiety to written material perceived as harmful” (Bellet et al., 2018). It appears that speech restrictions and compulsions almost necessarily make the fundamental mistake of believing that a lack of engagement solves problems; the truth is that most issues are best solved through discourse and exposure.
Critical Thought
Speech restrictions tend to be especially dangerous at middle and high school levels because developing children ought to be exposed to a variety of ideas in order to learn to think critically. Information retention is greater when students engage in more critical discourse.
Authoritarianism
Lastly, censorship of speech is always dangerous. Restriction or compulsion of speech is the first step that authoritarian regimes take in order to gain or consolidate power because the language that we use shapes our perception of the state and of morality as a whole. J. Rodzvilla explains:
The art of censorship has always been an act of reduction. It is an art practiced by bureaucrats and authoritarian regimes on work by others to create a pastiche of the larger culture that reflects how those in power want it to be perceived rather than how it is. In America, we have a history of people banning books to deny ideas that are already part of the culture. School boards ban books that involve teen sexuality and drug use in an attempt to deny issues that already exist.
Speech restrictions, in fact, aim to restrict certain ideologies rather than allow engagement with an issue; they’re band-aid solutions to issues that reach far wider than communication. Academic liberty must be valued over sheltering sensitivity.
Discrimination
Proponents of in-school censorship also tend to be especially restrictive of what they call “hate speech.” For example, a handful of colleges will expel you for saying something racist, sexist, or anti-gay – in 2016, Harvard even rescinded offers of admission from 10 students for “sharing joke images in a private group chat on Facebook” (FIRE). The danger of restricting even wildly offensive speech outweighs the increased sense of security; hate speech restrictions are actually used disproportionately against the very minorities they seek to protect and do virtually nothing to stop racism.
Protection
Speech codes are always ideologically motivated, and as such, they tend to be especially harmful to members of perceived tribes who don’t align with their proscribed position. D. Jacobson (2016) explains:
The immunity to racism and hate speech ordinarily given to members of protected groups does not extend to those who fail to espouse progressive positions. On the contrary, they are attacked even more vehemently as traitors, often in overtly racist or sexist terms. Women, minorities, or gays and lesbians who dare to stray from the opinions they are supposed to have—that is, those considered representative of their assigned identity—not only are subject to abuse by the supposedly oppressed campus activists but also forfeit the special protections they would otherwise be granted . . . But whites . . . who “check their privilege” are allowed to speak.
Solvency
Moreover, forcibly shutting up bigots does very little to stop them from actually thinking in racist ways – and this can backfire once students leave campus. N. Strossen (2018) found that racist ideologies are solved almost exclusively through counterspeech and dialogue (p. 24). Furthermore, speech codes fail to actually stop hate speech, both on campus and off campus; some studies have even found that speech codes on campus increase instances of hateful speech off campus (Jacobson, 2016). Solutions to discrimination necessitate the identification of racist beliefs – a task made far more difficult by speech restrictions.
Conclusion
The premise of the safe space mentality is correct: public schools should be places of education and safety. There is scant evidence that safe spaces do anything more than increase student sensitivity, jeopardize the security of free speech, and damage discourse. Speech must be protected unconditionally, foremost in educational environments.
References
Bellet, B. W., Jones, P. J., & McNally, R. M. (2018). Trigger warning: Empirical evidence ahead. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psichiatry. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791618301137
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). (2019). Spotlight on Speech Codes 2019. FIRE Quarterly. Retrieved from https://www.thefire.org/spotlight/reports/spotlight-on-speech-codes-2019/
Fulgei, M. (2017). How Internet Filtering Can Affect Education. Room 241: A Blog by Concordia University – Portland. Retrieved from https://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/classroom-resources/how-internet-filtering-affects-education/
Jacobson, D. (2016). Freedom of Speech Under Assault on Campus. CATO Policy Analysis. Retrieved from https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/freedom-speech-under-assault-campus
Lenatsch, Z. (2018). 30 Years of Hazelwood: Revisiting the First Amendment Rights of Minors in the Education System During the Social Media Age. Texas State University Digital Collections. Retrieved from https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/7815
Mercer, N., & Hodgkinson, S. (2008). Exploring talk in school: Inspired by the work of Douglas Barnes. SAGE.
National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC). (2016). Book Censorship in Schools: A Toolkit. OCLC. Retrieved from https://www.webjunction.org/documents/webjunction/Book_Censorship_in_Schools_A_Toolkit.html
Rodzvilla, J. (2019). Margaret E. Roberts: Censored: Distraction and Diversion Inside China’s Great Firewall. Princeton Univeristy Press. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12109-019-09635-x
Strossen, N. (2018). Hate: Why we should resist it with free speech, not censorship. Oxford Univeristy Press.
Chicago is a city that made an order prohibition of picketing within one hundred and fifty feet of a school “City ordinance prohibiting all picketing within 150 feet of a school, except peaceful picketing of any school involved in a labor dispute.” Earl Mosley, a plaintiff, often picketed Jones Commercial High School in Chicago. He protested against discrimination against African-Americans at the high school. The defendant, the Police Department of Chicago, notified Mosley that if he remained to picket, he would be under arrest.
Violation of the First Amendment: Mosley’s Fight for Justice
Mosley litigated in federal district court, calling for the law as a violation of the First Amendment. The district court discharged the complaint. However, the court of appeals went backward and held the law unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court accepted certiorari. The case was argued on January 19, 1972. The constitutional question is, “Does the Chicago ordinance violate the freedom of speech Clause of the First Amendment?” Mosley stated that this violated his First Amendment, so he filed a suit in federal district court.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
“This ordinance was a violation of the First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech because it is overly broad.” As said, the district court discharged the complaint; however, the court of appeals went backward and held the law unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court accepted certiorari. “On appeal, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the ordinance on its face violated Mr. Mosley’s rights to Freedom of Speech because the ordinance was overly broad.”
The members of the Burger Court had to make the decision, “I understand that the order of appearance is now by requested counsel will be Mr. Barnett first, Miss. Hal second, and Mr. Curry and then Mr. Quinlan, is that correct?”“Chicago argued below that the labor exemption in the ordinance was necessitated by federal preemption of the regulation of labor relations.” The verdict is that the discharge of labor picketing violated the equal protection clause. “….the Court of Appeals to be unconstitutional because overbroad, held violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since it makes an impermissible distinction between peaceful labor picketing and another peaceful picketing.”
Impact and Importance of Freedom of Speech
Mosley obtains a decisive standard from the values of freedom and equality: freedom of speech. He believes that anyone should be able to talk about something they think is wrong and try to fix that by showing their anger. But the Chicago Police are trying to say what he is doing is going to get him to jail; Mosley knows right and wrong and will not let anyone disrupt his protest about black discrimination right outside of school and will also do anything to make it legal.
Mosley’s protest and file suit had an impact; it affected education because he was on school grounds in Chicago at Jones Commercial High School. “The suit was brought by Earl Mosley, a federal postal employee, who for seven months prior to the enactment of the ordinance had frequently picketed Jones Commercial High School in Chicago”.
The picketing has been going on for seven months, which was the most talked about at the high school. “…the Chicago ordinance in protecting that substantial governmental interest from disturbance and distraction, I would hope that this Court would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit…”. The verdict affects education today. There is no picketing with a hundred and fifty feet of a school. Picketing also has to be peaceful and not harm anyone. Picketing is an equal freedom of speech, even on school grounds. In conclusion, the decision was that the discharge of labor picketing violated the equal protection clause.
Freedom of speech is very much needed to make a change. Suppose something is not going as it is supposed to; speak up. No matter how bad the distraction is, power is key in order to make a difference. Many citizens faced a lot of discrimination, such as race, gender, religion, etc. That is not how anybody should be treated, and Mosley did a good job at making a good argument to make this legal. He stood up for blacks and even made a lawsuit saying that the Police Department of Chicago was trying to arrest him for letting his voice out. Helping someone out should not be a crime but a blessing.
References:
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. (70-87).
The Bill of Rights is what has given us the right to call our country the land of the free. It ensures we, the people of this country, have freedoms and rights. However, our society is constantly changing, and maybe it is time to rewrite some amendments to ensure that we are adapting to the changes occurring in our country now.
Freedom of religion
Freedom of religion is why some people have come to make our country the place of their new home. The Freedom of religion states that the government cannot force a religion on you; you can be of any religion you desire and practice that religion freely. This amendment is one of the reasons we get to call the United States a country of freedom.
The history of religious freedom more or less began around 1635, with Rodger Williams, who granted anyone that came to Rhode Island religious freedom. In 1779, Thomas Jefferson tried to write a bill to grant religious freedom to all the people who lived in Virginia, but the bill was not passed. On December 15, 1791, the first amendment, which included freedom of religion, was adopted and established.
Freedom of religion has its advantages and disadvantages. An advantage to freedom of religion is that people are able to practice and share their beliefs with people of their religion. Having a group with similarities can provide individuals with a purpose and benefit their mental health. Another advantage to freedom of religion is that they help the less fortunate. Religious charities tend to cater to those in need, and that benefits the population who is less fortunate.
Having the freedom of religion also presents some disadvantages. A disadvantage to freedom of religion is that it is another way for people to separate themselves and create a divide. There have been multiple incidents where people of different religions will create an “us against them” divide due to not having the same religious beliefs. Another disadvantage to religious freedom includes people using their religion as a scapegoat for their misconduct. There are people who commit crimes or misbehave in society and use their religion to justify and save themselves from punishment. Having religious freedom also means people can share their beliefs and opinions with others, and that can cause conflict. For instance, some religions despise the LGBTQ community because it is against their beliefs, and people often get into conflicts because of it.
In the social climate of today, there is a lot of tension between people of different religions. There are people who want to convert others to their religion or shame people who are different due to their religious beliefs, which is why the amendment of freedom of religion should be revised. A possible revision is ‘citizens of the United States may be a part of any religion they desire and practice their religious beliefs, but may not discriminate against anyone of another religion, cause stress, harm, or treat anyone poorly who does not follow their religious beliefs, and may not course others to change their religion.’ This change is necessary so it can give people of the LGBTQ community and other minority groups a chance to express themselves with more freedom without having others harass them because of it.
Freedom of Speech
Some consider freedom of speech an obvious right that should be universal. Freedom of speech is given to citizens to make sure their voices are heard. It allows people to express how they feel verbally. People can agree or disagree with the way our government runs, how they feel about certain issues, and for the most part, anything they want to say. In 1791, freedom of speech was established, but it did not specify what could and could not be considered free speech until later on when child pornography, defamation, plagiarism, and threats, were not considered free speech.
Freedom of speech has its advantages. An advantage of freedom of speech is that people can use their voices to express their feelings and form relationships. Another advantage of freedom of speech is that it lowers the rate of violent conflict; it allows people to express how they feel verbally versus getting physical.
Freedom of speech also has disadvantages. A disadvantage to freedom of speech is that people can receive punishment from society for what they say. For instance, if a person works at a certain store and they go out and talk about how they hate that store, their boss can fire them. Another disadvantage to freedom of speech is that people who disagree with a person and the way they live their life and they can be vocal about it, which may cause people’s feelings to get hurt.
In today’s society, there are a number of different outlets for people to express themselves and voice their opinions. Sometimes freedom of speech can be a positive thing, but sometimes it can be a disadvantage, so in order to fit the changes of the country, a possible change is ‘Citizens of the United States have freedom of speech, but are not able to say anything racist or degrade anyone by saying things that affect them emotionally.’ This change is necessary so it can protect people from being belittled by others.
Right to bear arms.
The right to bear arms is given to citizens of the United States so that they have the opportunity to protect themselves. The right to bear arms was argued over in the cases that went to the Supreme Court for years. It began around the year 1876 when members of the Ku Klux Klan thought African Americans did not have the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court ruled that not every individual had the right to bear arms under the Constitution. There have been many cases since then, and the most recent one was in 2016. The case was a woman against the state of Massachusetts; the state convicted her for having a stun gun to use against her partner, who was violent, saying that arm was not legal to use. However, the Supreme Court ruled that every bearable arm was legal under the Constitution.
The right to bear arms has advantages. An advantage to the right to bear arms is that people can use their arms to protect themselves from anyone or anything that could cause them any harm. Another advantage to the right to bear arms is that it has educated and put awareness of firearms and the safety of their use out to the public.
The right to bear arms also has its disadvantages. A disadvantage to the right to bear arms is that guns can fall into the wrong hands. For example, children and teens can get a hold of guns and use them irresponsibly, such as causing a school shooting, and some can even harm themselves accidentally. Another disadvantage to the right to bear arms is that it can increase the danger; for instance, people can use their weapons to kill others.
There has been extensive research done on gun violence in the United States. Approximately 100 people are killed every day in the United States due to guns, and 66,673 people have been assaulted and killed by guns. In the year 2018 alone, there were 1,594 unintentional shootings. Gun violence in the United States is reaching an all-time high, with school shootings becoming more common, and so are deaths by guns. There are other studies on age and gun violence that have proven that people under the age of 25 cause a lot of violence due to guns. Around the age of 25, the brain becomes fully developed, allowing people to make better choices concerning guns.
Due to the prevalence of gun violence in the United States, there should be a revised right to bear arms that states, “Citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms at the age of 25 but must be licensed, take a test proving they know when it is legal to use their gun, must be screened properly for any mental health issues, and if they live with anyone under the age of 25 or someone without a gun license must have a proper storage area for their arms where the other individuals could not get a hold of their gun.” This change is necessary to ensure that guns are only accessible to people who are responsible and have taken the proper measures to have and use a gun.
References:
“6 Pros and Cons of Freedom of Religion.” Bible Study, 8 Jan. 2016, biblestudyfoundation.org/6-pros-and-cons-of-freedom-of-religion.
Brooks, Chad. “The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms.” LiveScience, Purch, 28 June 2017, www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html.
“Pros & Cons.” Freedom of Speech, freedomofspeech10.weebly.com/pros–cons.html.
“Pros and Cons of Free Speech.” Forum23.At www.forum23.at/pros-and-cons-of-free-speech/.
Whitley, Rob. “Religion and Mental Health: What Is the Link?” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 8 Dec. 2017, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-men/201712/religion-and-mental-health-what-is-the-link.
Winkler, Adam, and Cara Natterson. “There’s a Simple Way to Reduce Gun Violence: Raise the Gun Age.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 6 Jan. 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/01/06/there-a-simple-way-to-fight-mass-shootings-raise-the-gun-age/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.08d027050ceb.