Sunday, March 31, 2019

Role of the First Amendment in Freedom of Speech and Social Media

Role of the kickoff Am checkment in Freedom of containion and complaisant MediaFreedom Speech in The Age of sociable Media synopsis This paper discusses the offset printing Amendmentand its role and relevance in the profits and complaisant Media. It touches base onviolation of first of each(prenominal) Amendment Rights through censorship, and libel cases thatwere non nurtureed by the primary Amendment on Social Media. The First Amendment of the char pretender thunder mug be found in the First section, which is called the Bill of Rights, which argon k pay off awayn to be the to the highest degree signifi asst partitioning of the US Constitution. The First Amendment entitles US citizens the alert impec toleratetdoms of speech communication, religion and transportion. Not all countries wear these rights to their citizens and this is why US citizens ar so fortunate beca utilisation they cod the freedom to announce themselves and to stand up for what they beli eve in or what they dont. The introduction Fathers Framers of the US Constitution had a vision for the United States and for its citizens to excite these vital freedoms, the problem is that these amendments were written centuries ago, and with time and mod technologies come many other(prenominal) changes and the reading corporal of these rights has changes because of these technologies, especially now in the age of Social Media. Mostof current interaction and conversation is now d angiotensin converting enzyme on Social Media platformswith the financial aid of the mesh and a problem with this is that in that respect atomic number 18 very some laws that regulate what happens online. Thanks to the net and the newtechnologies, ab discover masses have admission price to loving media platforms, therefore mint have approach to training and opinions in the palm of their hands. The internet has proven that speech is easy on these Social Media Platforms,because most tidy sum can access the internet and essentially write or cover theirminds through characters or blogs. An amazing manikin of this can be sites dealYelp, where nation argon able to give restaurants and hotels ratings and they cansay whatever they want and it is non considered libel. many wad take itonline to rant close to involvements that happen to them, different like to speak theirmind, but recently many Social Media platforms have been banning definite wordsthat might be offensive to another(prenominal)s and deleting this that might affect others,this is a violation of freedom a speech. Pages such as Facebook result not letyou emblem in certain words that others might find offensive, or they will groomly delete a comment or photograph that is inappropriate or that might weakened somebody else. Although these censorships help save populations lives fromcyberbullying or close out people from using strong words, it is censorshipnonetheless.Social Media and the networ k has alter the way that people go on and as new technologies emerge people have to learn to adapt to them. Thanks to the usage of chat forms, wink messaging, picture & video sharing, societal networking, blogs, image collecting boards among many other things, people atomic number 18 adapting more than ever. Throughout out the last 20 years, the Internet has readily expanded and matured as new technologies atomic number 18 being developed. With the invention of social media platforms, the way that people network and communicate has completely changed, even out the way that they read and consumer the news. Social media platforms have tending(p) psyches a freedom that they never thought was possible, they observe free to access whatever they want and to express however they want to express themselves, they even have the defendion of speaking and posting anomalously, and many people suppress behind their computers. Themajority of US citizens take the privilege of living in the United States, andwhat that the country allows them for granted. They have the privilege to goonline and rant about their jobs and horrible bosses, give opinions aboutpolitical candidates, and read what other people have to say about things. Thereality is that the Internet allows people to express themselves, whether it ison a blog, social media platforms, or even their work electronic mail and people areconstantly expressing themselves freely. This is a privilege that people inother countries do not necessarily have, countries like China, where it isprohibited to access any type of social media platform (Ferguson), or wherespeaking their minds could vote out them in jail. Although the Internet is moderately new, it haslong become a part of peoples daily lives, especially those people living inthe United States. The Internet has alleviated all the parley tensionspeople had, since it allows people to communication easily with one another andalso mass communication like arti cles, videos, and blogs. wholeness of the reason whythe internet has become such a powerful communication tools is because itintegrates several types of communication like Articles, podcasts, broadcasts,videos, garner communication among many other things (Ferguson). Now aday most places have Wi-Fi and internet has become such an inexpensive thing toaccess, people can even connect to the internet in airplanes and during busrides, generally because the Internet has the potentialto be a tremendous force for growth by providing quick and inexpensiveinformation (Sorensen). One problem with the Internet is that it has nocountry boundaries so measuring and enforcing US laws is very unmanageable to do, sincethe US cannot control what other countries do or say, whence the Internetcannot be virtually controlled by one country. What many countries do to havecontrol over the internet is implementing thing such as filters on a server,which in the end limit peoples freedom of expression an d is nonethelesscensorship. Because the Internet is really a mass medium, because it can ease upvirtually anybody, it possesses a big threat to many governments, becauseanybody with internet can communicate to the mass audience.censorship of information is in direct violation of the first amendment because it takes away peoples right to express themselves freely. There are many types of censorship over the internet, sometimes people do not even realize that content is being outlaw when infact it is. somegovernments believe that censorship helps avoid unsafe or loweringinformation from spreading and that it keeps children safe from retrievinginappropriate content. both(prenominal) of these materials can be for precedentweb-sites that promote eating disorders such as anorexia, or websites that ensurepeople how to commit suicides or how to build home-made bombs andsuch things. Although many of these things are extremely controversial and maybe offensive to some, in the end they are violating First Amendment, and thesesites should be shielded by the freedom of speech. Some of the reasons whyfilter on servers are imposed make a lot a sense when it is for protection of boors, since most children agnize how to use a computer more than most adults,but when adults information is being filtered this is denying people a rightthey are authorise to. The United States has unsuccessfully made efforts at censoring offensive and/or inappropriate information and content on the internet. Firstly, was the Communication Decency move (CDA), this act forbid people from using material online that was offensive to minors (Sorensen). The CDA nowadays violated the First Amendment and this why the Supreme Court overruled the act. Their second look for was the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) which declared the pornography, whether a video or an image on the internet of a child/minor acting in an explicit or sexual behavior. Again, the CPPA was also without delay viola ting the First Amendment, and it was overruled by the Supreme Court. Then came the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which is theoretically obligates Web-Site owners and publishers to guarantee that minors will not access material and content that is harmful to them on their designated websites (Sorensen). Copa was also in violation of First Amendment rights, therefore overruled. As of today, there are no Internet Censorship Laws in the US in action, but nevertheless censorships still happen. provided as there are people who think censoring the internet is the correct thing to do, many people oppose it because they are regular believers of the vitality of First Amendment rights of free speech and expression. It is the first amendment that permits people to openly and freely discuss ideas and thoughts to other people and to society itself. It is unethical and unconstitutional for the government to take this vital right away from people, as they should feel free to express themsel ves in any way that they please. Along with the Internet come new ways of communication such a Social Media Platforms, which have rapidly landed in the hands of trillions world-wide, these new evolutions in technology drastically change the definition of free speech, for example originally nobody would knock on anybodys door to tell them their opinions, now it is on all of peoples devices from their smart phones to their computers. People are being constantly hit by others opinions and beliefs, for example that person who perpetually share their political affiliation and beliefs on their Facebook berth, it is starting to become unavoidable. One of the first cases regarding freedom of speech was in July of 1995, Stratton Oakmont vs. Prodigy. Prodigy was a type of social media platform that had a board with a chat forum, one of the users left field a chat/comment saying that the CEO of Stratton Oakmont committed fraudulent acts. As a result, Stratton Oakmont sued Prodigy for onli ne libel, the case was ruled in favor of Prodigy since it was protected by the First Amendment and the comment was left by an anonymous internet user not Prodigy itself. These things are very hard to control, because for example that anonymous person who commented might be in another country and therefore they do not blow over under US jurisdiction, this is why it is so hard to control the internet as a whole.After some of these chat forums began to pop up across the web, this was the birth of social media platforms. Rapidly many websites started to launch and their rivet was the creation, they wanted individuals to have their profiles and for them to express themselves and engage in communication with other members. Facebook and Twitter have been the long lasting two as they both have been advantageously-nigh for over a decade (Somerson), and they revolve around people who express themselves freely. Four months after the launch of Facebook, the company compound a new feature i n their social media platform and this was called a status. Facebook was asking its users what was on their mind and allowed people to speak their minds in a maximum of 356 characters, which is now unlimited on Facebook. Twitter quickly incorporated the same feature and allowed its users to speak their minds in 140 characters, which will probably soon increase. Many people engage in rabbit on on social media, and once something goes up on the internet it is there forever, even if deleted, with talk many people can take it as defamation or libel, but in the end, it is people exercising their free speech.In 2009, there was a town re-election for Sheriff BJ Roberts in Hampton, Virginia and six deputies were not reinstated after it. These deputies stated that they were wrongfully terminated because they sustentationed Jim Adams that was Sheriffs Roberts rival. They had stated that they had shown support for Jim Adams by liking his Facebook campaign and sharing his page on their profi les. As a result, Sheriff Roberts threatened the deputies and consequently did not reinstate them. Consequently, the deputies filed a shell against Roberts, claiming that they were wrongfully terminated because of their behavior on social media. In an appeals court, it was hold that the deputies should have been terminated because they should not partake on law-enforcement politics and getup with candidates and this is violation of First Amendment rights. When this case was taken to the Fourth Circuit, it was recognized that Sheriff Roberts was authorize immunity and that he had the right to not reinstate them (Vogel). The First Amendment does not protect all speech and expression and this was a perfect example were people were not protected by their First Amendment Rights. Another celebrated case that was not protected under the first amendment is Elonis vs. Unites States. In 2010 Anthony Elonis was decrepit by his wife and he quickly took the matter to Facebook and started r anting through rap lyrics, most of these sounded like threats, with everything he posted he gave a disclaimer saying that they were secure lyrics and nothing real (Liptak). Elonis rapped about things like having his exs head paraded like Marie Antoinette, among other horrible things. Ms. Elonis was panic-struck of all of his commentaries and lyrics and quickly took information to authorities. This was an extremely difficult case because Elonis argued that they were just lyrics and nothing more, that it was just a form of art and expression and that he did not intent to do anything that he rapped about. The Supreme Court stated that the First Amendment did not protect all speech and did not protect threats whether real or not, they were still treats (Liptak). Elonis was found guilty of violating the Anti-Threat stature and was convicted for 44 months in prison and three years of supervised release (Liptak). Many of these chat forums online like Twitter and Facebook are allowing peo ple virtually over to speak their minds and for them to express themselves in ways that they see fit. The problem is that many people are not aware of all of the consequences that their online ranting can have on their lives. Most people follow their favorite celebrities and athletes on Social Media, since this is how the engage with their fans, even President Trump engages in Social Media by his infamous tweets on Twitter. Many brands and companies take advantage of the charge that celebrities have on social media platforms and they begin to endorse them so that the public sees them wearing their products or talking about their brands on the tweets or status. In 2010 Rashard Mendenhall an NFL player of the Pittsburgh Steelers who was endorsed by brands like submarine made a series of tweets after Osama Bin Ladins death that tarnished his online armorial bearing and reputation. Mendenhall tweeted that what good-natured of person celebrates death? Its amazing how people can HAT E a man they have never even hear speak. Weve only heard one side(Mendenhall). He then continued by saying well never know what really happened. I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style. Mendenhall was consequently dropped as a Champion Celebrity and he lost his endorsement deal, Mendenhall quickly deleted his tweets and said that he was just expressing his thoughts and that they were just mere opinions. Although he was protected by First Amendment and he was in all of his right to share his opinions and many conspiracy theorist do, he lost many fans in the process.Lawsuits that come from social media are most commonly those of claims of libel or defamation. Libel is a written or published untruthful statement that directly hurts the individuals reputation (MacHenry). Because many people have dedicated themselves to ranting on social media, there are typically libel. In 2015, came another quite interesting libel case in social media, cognise as Desert Palm working(a) Group v. Petta. Sherry Petta underwent cosmetic surgery, a rhinoplasty to be exact at the Desert Palm Surgical Group. To give Petta a little background she was a big fan of cosmetic procedures and surgeries and had underwent several in the past. After her rhinoplasty Petta claimed that she was not mend properly and that the intrude did not look as the doctors told her it would, she then took all of this ranting online on Myspace and created a website just to rant about her experience. On her site and her social media page Petta ranted that the surgeons intentionally shortened and curved her nose upward against her wishes (MacHenry) and she uploaded images of her rhinoplasty. Consequently, Desert Palm Surgical Group started to lose a lot of business and sued Petta for libel and defamation along with 11 meg dollars in damages caused by her pages. Petta pleaded that she was protected by the First Amendment right and that she was only speaking the tr uth about her experience with her surgery. The only thing that could have saved her from this defamation case was if what she said had been true, and it wasnt most of the complications she had was because she did not take care of herself after her surgery and most things she had underwent in the past cosmetic surgeries and procedures. Petta was not protected under the First Amendment and consequently had to take down all of her post and her website and had to pay 12 million to the Desert Palm Surgical Group for all of the damages (MacHenry). Many of these libel cases that involve the use of social media as the source are repeatedly occurring and becoming extremely common and popular. The problem is that freedom of speech is not protected if there is a false statement involved, and it is no longer an opinion or a type of expression, it is a lie. touch in the end is not fully protected by First Amendment rights if there is a false or an untruthful statement involved, because it can h ave adverse effects on an individuals image and reputation and it can even cost somebody money. Social media is a type of mass communications and people can easily reach mases of people, therefore when they decide to rant or to post their opinions there may be consequences since they have such a big audience. Many companies know that it is very hard to regulate was is being posted online, many companies are even going as far as creating departments to monitor their online presence (Liptak), the intent of this is for these departments to take care of things like that before they get out of hand. Many of these cases should be more known to the public, this way they can forbid something like this happening to them, being media literate and educated about how social media works and the laws of the country can prevent them from falling into trouble. In conclusion, new technologies such as the Internet and Social Media has integrated into individuals daily lives. People cannot live a day without checking their social media platforms or reading the news online, people are communicating now more than ever, and many people have become reliant on it because it is so accessible. The problem is that Social Media and the Internet are still undiscovered dominion when it comes to developing laws to regulate content, and a new definition for the First Amendment in regards to these new technologies should be made. The First Amendment is a grey area, because there is no right answer when it comes to how to define it, but it is very important to protect speech. SourcesChander, A., & L,U.,P. (2015). Free speech.Iowa Law Review,100(2), 501-549.Hardenbrook, J. A.(2013). First amendment rights Anencyclopedia V.1 Traditional issues on the first amendment v.2 Contemporarychallenges to the first amendment.Choice,50(9), 1606-1606,1608.Holden, J. (2017).Steelers react to Mendenhalls bin Ladentweets.ESPN.com.Liptak, A. (2017).On the Next Docket How the First AmendmentApplies to Social M edia.Nytimes.com.MacHenry, K. (2015).The Top 10 genus Arizonaverdicts.Docplayer.net.McChesney, R. W. (1998).The new theology of the first amendmentClass privilege over democracy. periodic Review,49(10), 17-34.Sorensen, K. (1996), Human Rights Watch, Silencing the Net TheThreat to Freedom of Expression On-Line,. Electronic secrecy instructionCenter Vogel, P. (2017).Using Facebook like is FreeSpeech Internet, Information Technology & e-Discovery Blog.Internet,Information Technology & e-Discovery Blog.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.