Various state legislatures, including in Texas, are considering a wide range of legislation, some of which involve potential infringements on free speech and free press.
Watch this video from Reason.com, a libertarian magazine published in the United States, which examines some of these proposals.
You can also find the news story (which matches the video) at this link: https://reason.com/video/2021/03/22/government-is-still-the-biggest-threat-to-free-speech/
After you watch the video or read the article, return here with your reaction. What do you think about these proposals? Do you think they are a good idea, or not? Why or why not?
Please remember to include your first name, last name initial and class (either MC 4301 or Honors) so I can track your comments for credit.
86 comments:
Riley G MC4301
As much as I want to say that everyone should have the ability to express themselves however they wish, there is an obvious problem that arises when people take this opportunity to express themselves and exploit it. If someone says something that is directly bigoted, or hateful towards a group of people (racist/sexist/xenophobic), or alludes to obviously harmful or illegal activities targeting another person, political or otherwise, then it should be within the rights of whatever platform is utilized to take down the posts. There are plenty of political discussions and opinions that are posted online that I do not agree with, and I am not talking about those posts in this instance. I am talking about posts that target a person or group of people with hateful speech or threats. Of course, there is freedom of expression, but this can be compared to the common idea that you can say what you want, but you cant yell fire in a crowded theatre and not expect repercussions.
I think it is wrong for the government, whether federal or state, to propose laws to prohibit citizens from speaking ill of the police. Police are public officials and this issue has already been taken to the supreme court in the New York Times v Sullivan case. Though that case focused on the idea of libel, the supreme court justices evoked strong emotions for the right of “enlightened citizen” to be able to criticize and comment on the actions of all public officials. I completely agree with that ruling. It is not right for citizens to be fined or punished for criticizing public officials they’ve voted for or whom serve them. So, I definitely think that idea is a bad one. However, when it comes to social media channels and their right to take down posts or account, I think it’s a good idea and it should stay the way it is. Each social media channel is a business, and businesses should have the right to make their own choices of what they want on their site. Just as businesses were allowed to change their mask mandates to their choosing, they should be able to control what is said on their sites. People have other ways of posting or saying their thoughts, if a specific social media channel does block them. Also, saying hateful, discriminatory, racist, etc. things could be against the values of the social media site and they should be able to distance themselves from those ideas.
JohnFrank Alvarado MC4301
After watching the video I truly think that all individuals should be able to be themselves regardless of whatever may be put forth. I personally feel that individuality is should be considered an inalienable right. I think as times go on and events happen I personally feel that it should just become a normal thing. Whenever someone is obviously in the wrong because of an ugly stance or perspective they have on something that is hateful towards a race, sex, or anything else under the umbrella of individuality, I think that they should suffer some sort of punishment. In the past two years, hate and obvious racism, and other issues have been in the media only should result in punishment not sweeping it under the "rug".
Morgan Robillard MC 4301
After this video, it makes sense what my mom had been saying about facebook censoring posts. I had a family friend post something about Trump, and there was a warning on it after it being posted, saying if this post was offensive to anyone they should report it. I have never heard of more liberal leaning posts being censored but insulting a cop doesn't seem like a republican/conservative behavior based off of what has been going on recently. That being said, insulting a cop should not be a crime either. People believe what they believe and sometimes there is no changing their minds. I don't condone insulting anyone, I know what it is like being insulted for a profession. From both sides, people need to respect one another. On the other hand, free speech is free speech. If you take that away from people on the internet, we start to be no better than China and all these authoritarian governments. Posting a political belief should not be censored considering the First Amendment is quite literally free speech.
I do not believe legislation should be able to censor social media outlets based off of certain standards where people may find offensive. I think living in a state that is supposed to be united means we have to learn how to take our perceptions and believes and be able to keep them at a certain degree without people getting hurt. Social media was supposed to be a leverage so that our free-speech could be heard and we can also better understand other people with different opinions. There’s also a lot of blame to place on the private social media companies for not holding their first amendment right for their users instead of falling in line with biased politicians. The more we infringe on this right the more polarized media will become.
Hannah Hunter
MC4103
From the little bit I’ve heard from this video about the law to not insult police officers, I do think it is an attack on the first amendment right to petition. I don’t believe that protesters should assault police officers, but I also don’t believe that most protesters would assault police officers. It looks like this law is just a way to throw a blanket and round up protesters that even look the wrong way at police officers during a protest. “Gestures” and “offensive words” could be anything to police officers that don’t want the protesters there in the first place.
As for the social media laws, it’s hard to say who’s right and who’s wrong. It depends on so many things. Who owns the social media cites and where do their political allegiances lie? Who is a part of the “Digital Communications Commission” in Colorado?
I definitely don’t think that individual users should be censored, nor can they be according to the Constitution. I do think it is important for public figures to use social media as truthfully and responsibly as possible because of their broad reach and platforms, but that will never be the case. The fact that political figures continue to churn out these laws it not surprising and I suppose it is a part of the territory as we continue to grapple with the effects of the digital age.
Tyler B MC 4301
My first thought is that we are still in the early stages of free speech in the digital space. I support the idea of expressing your opinion as long as its not hate speech. I like to see governors taking action and not allowing censorship of those speaking freely. What is the point of social media if you are not able to express yourself. Of course, not everyone is going to agree with what you have to say, but theres nothing wrong with that. From what I've seen, its always political figures getting flagged or censored first. For obvious reasons, they have influence over people, or a following. It will be interesting to see if other states, aside from Texas and Florida, take action on this issue.
Julianne F. MC 4301
Personally, I don't agree with the idea to ban expressing disagreement with police or politicians themselves. Anyone expressing their opinions in those areas should be recognized as practitioners of free speech. And the fact that the Kentucky law stated that people are not allowed to insult cops because it would lead into the cop acting violent, shouldn't cops be trained to not act in a violent manner when someone insults them? And the idea of making it a crime to ban politicians from social media gives some politicians who might be inciting violence themselves more power. So long as statements that someone is making does not explicitly incite violence and is just an opinion, I don't think that people should be censored or pay fines in that regard. The passage of these laws will give police and politicians more power to do whatever they please and almost treat them as if they're above the law; which no one should be.
Carson Ingram - MC 4301
What first stood out to me was the example about the Kentucky law that stated insult towards cops would soon be not allowed. If we're talking free speech, that law would be blatantly taking that away. Just because someone isn't happy with the way cops function doesn't mean they should be banned or punished for speaking out. Obviously, unless they were saying they were going to kill the police or something, but just outright dislike for the police is not a form of speech that should be taken away. Although many might not be a fan of Donald Trump, I'd have to agree in saying that it was interesting for Twitter to ban him towards the end of his presidency. I honestly don't know enough about exactly what he said and did to provoke that action, but it was interesting. Censorship of certain things on media sights is honestly a scary thing to hear for me, just because I feel like that can go too far. If we begin to live in a world where everything is censored because someone said they didn't like it one time, the world would eventually become so censored that it seems like almost nothing would be able to be put out there. Discussions need to be had for progress to be made. No progress will be made if we're always being censored and staying in a comfort zone.
I completely disagree with banning the ability to insult cops. Giving the police the ability to arrest anyone that insults them could have dangerous consequences and gives them too much power as they could claim most anything to be insulting towards themselves. I also don't agree with the government controlling social media platforms. As private companies they are not subject to the First amendment and are free to control a user's content or ban them if they are not abiding to their terms of service. believe it is entirely up to the business itself to determine if certain pieces of content should be removed or not. The only time I think the government should get involved with a user's content is if it is threatens national security or the safety of others.
I today's time with advanced technology, I feel that free speech (the 1st amendment) is becoming more complicated and complex. I wont be the one to argue that hate speech or actions should not happen but what I don't agree with is Kentucky's decision to ban hate speech and/or actions from the cops. I say that because it is known for cops to be vengeful towards certain citizens and for them to have protection and not the other people who get targeted by the cops, I don't think is fair at all. Nothing in the justice system gets fixed if nobody talks about them and I believe nobody is above the law to have advances when it comes to justice.
Payton M.
MC 4301
I don't agree with any of these proposals. Kentucky passed a law that makes it a crime to insult and taunt cops. Users receiving damages because they delete or censor a post about religion or politics, that they probably don't agree with. Florida saying political candidates accounts cannot be suspended. Governor Abbott wanting to sue social media for censorship (over deleted posts again) in SB12. I think that people are angry with police officers and their lack of empathy especially last year when this law came to fruition. People are angry and we use words when we're angry. As for posts being deleted, I believe that social media has a special nook in each corridor for everyone. In a way, a social media profile is someone's home, where they can make their own rules. If those rules include not discussing religion or politics and having posts deleted-- why should they be reprimanded in law? Especially when as a U.S. citizen, we have the right to free speech. Now, I do understand that the internet is still so new, that sometimes there really aren't laws yet. Being able to have a safe space to express yourself and not allow traumas of the outside world (for this arguments sake, politics and religion) is important and not cause for criminal punishment upon the deletion of a post. I am intrigued by the Colorado's Digital Communications Division. Their goal in the proposed law is to investigate platforms to ensure that they do not allow, "hate speech, undermine election integrity, disseminate intentional misinformation, conspiracy theories and fake news." I think these types of censorships are important. In my opinion, the spread of false information is what divided our country these last few years. There is a target mass of people who are getting fed lies through targeted optimization. That's where I am okay censoring posts.
Wow, the issues discussed in this video are multifaceted and incredibly compelling. My first takeaway is that I do not have the same absolutist, libertarian perspective as the speaker in the video. These issues, though they all deal with free speech, all seem very unique to me, so my thoughts on one proposed bill may not be the same as my thoughts on another. The only generalized statement I can make about all of the bills referenced is that they seem poorly constructed. The vague and ambiguous language used in each and every one of them opens to door to further assaults on the right to free speech and allows for political bias to seep in. If any of these bills are to be passed and constitutionally upheld, I think that the language must become far more specific.
Further, I think that the bills that attack the free speech rights of individuals very clearly come into conflict with the First Amendment, particularly the Kentucky bill prohibiting flipping off cops. That reeks of authoritarianism and fascism and is undoubtedly unamerican. However, I think that the bills concerning the rights of big tech are far more complicated. To what extent is a corporation extended the same first Amendment rights as an individual? And at what cost? I don't yet know my answer to these questions.
Grace Jones MC4301
I don’t think that we need to protect the police from freedom of speech through legislation. I believe they went in the wrong direction with this legislation. The law should have been to protect the people from this type of accident that happened to Breonna. The proposal that Greg Abbott had is needed with social media because I don’t think that accounts should be taken down for their opinion like former president Donald Trump getting ban from Twitter. I believe that is a big infringement on our rights. I don’t know how they would fix this issue but a president should not be silenced from the public.
Hailey Ellis Honors
I think instead of creating laws that ban speech that could "provoke a violent response" from police officers, people who react violently when being critiqued should not be in a position of power such as being a police officer. Instead of putting limits on speech, police officers should be held accountable for their actions and the action should be taken to prevent violent reactions from officers when they face negative speech towards them. I understand that the premise of this proposed law is to protect people from violent officer actions, but I don't think that the way to do that is by ignoring the underlying problem, which is having officers who react violently when being criticized, instead of facing that problem head on. A closer look needs to be taken at who can be a police officer. Police officers should be able to keep their cool in a tense situation, no matter what is being said about them in the moment. They should be able to carry out justice without becoming overly violent or even killing people. This proposed law may prevent some people from speaking ill of police, but not all people, and it does not solve the issue of overly reactive police officers.
Regina Macias
Honors
I think some of the proposals featured in the news story in regards to free speech and the press might actually be a good idea. Given that ‘fake news’ has become increasingly popular I think there should at least be a measure of some sort to stop false information from spreading. To a certain extent, however, I don’t think the proposals featured in this news segment should happen through the government or through legislative action. Instead, I think the control of these proposals is within the media. We have already seen the media censoring false information for example President Donald J. Trump being removed from Twitter for an excessive violation of failing to meet the terms of use of the app. Overall, I think leaving control of such proposals to social media platforms is one of the best options.
Marisleyzie Martinez
Online
MC 4301
I do not agree with the proposals because as citizens we have the right to express our opinions under the First Amendment. Taking that away is abusing our basic rights. I think that yes, the media has cancelled and removed people of their platforms for expressing their opinion which is wrong however, when lines have been crossed people do need to be removed. As for a creation of speech violation that are in regards to police officers is outrageous especially if the officer is being cruel or violently their protocols. Police are trained to be calm and collective when they have a violation happen and are away when to use violence and when to not, unfortunately many officers today abuse that power and are the many reasons why they are talked down on. Overall, the video gave great information that I agreed and disagreed with.
I completely and whole-heartedly believe that everyone should be allowed their free speech, even if it's filled with ignorance because our right of expression is so important for societal progression. These proposals are the opposite of progression, they instill fear of paying a fine or serving jail time on citizens which in turn causes for them to stay silent to avoid problems. This is unfair and only allows more leniency with the government when it comes to the basic rights from the first amendment.
Thomas H MC4301
There will anyways be two ends to the spectrum on this topic. One being complete freedom under the first amendment , and the other being certain containment to uphold the safety of a country and its people. I am in full compliance that individuality is what makes us human and it should be an automatic right for a person to freely express themselves verbally. However , in a functioning society, I believe that people have to accept restrictions placed upon them if the bigger picture is ultimately their best interest.
I don't agree with the legislation proposals because it's true, we need more people to participate in what affects them. As long as the Free Speech does not cause violence or threats anyone then we should be allowed to be transparent to our own beliefs and rights. Even if a person a part of a private company or institution of any sort, it should be important to be transparent. The world is not going to stop evolving and if the plan is to prohibit freedom of speech, things will get much worse very rapidly. Communities need the opportunity to speak up for themselves and they finally are. I believe that ever since we have been able to record injustice, political figures have started to try to silence us. Not anymore.
Alexi W. MC4301
This is an interesting video with several issues regarding the First Amendment. Each issue is unique and my opinion of one issue doesn’t completely match the next issue. I agree with the comment made from Taylor, “The vague and ambiguous language used in each and every one of the (bills) opens the door to further assaults on the right to free speech..” While I’m not a libertarian, I do believe in the First Amendment whether I agree with it or not. I also believe that while citizens have a right to express their right to free speech, they should also be accountable for the consequences that follows. Big tech companies should also be held accountable on some level. There has to be a better way to control what is spread on the media. “Control” may not be the best term to use. I also don’t know the answer to these questions. It’s not a black and white situation.
Ansa A. MC4301 online
After watching the video, I think these proposals are interesting and don't necessarily agree with them. I think people should be able to express what they believe is right and as long as it doesn't harm the public but if it does, they should face consequences accordingly. Prohibiting peoples free speech can lead to more violence and it can escalate quickly. It should definitely have its restrictions to keep things fairly clean.
Hailey Eiland MC4301
After watching the video I think it's honestly kind of crazy the kind of things people are putting up laws against. I feel like people are becoming to sensitive. Yes I think some things need to be regulated but the books that are being taken off the shelved like Dr. Sues is just crazy. People should be able to read what they want and buy what they want. things of national TV could I guess be monitored so that if kids are watching then it could still be appropriate for them but they should still allow certain channels to show what they want. I don't know I feel like it could honestly go either way. Some things are a little to harsh and some things need to be put back into line.
Lauren Bezdek MC4301
This video raised multiple ideas from me. I do not believe it's okay to censor people's thoughts, but only within some boundaries. I think that private companies such as Amazon or Twitter can censor people because it's their company. If they choose to do so it's up to what they think is best. With that comes repercussions though. Some people may not like what they are doing and stop using their company or products. I do think that some people are far too sensitive, such as banning Dr. Seuss books. That was unecessary in my opinion. I do not think it is okay for the government to censor people. That is a threat to free speech. The only time I would think it is okay is in the instance of malicious speech or libel. Then the government can step in as needed.
Carl N 4301
I think most of these proposals shouldn't be put into new laws because they would mess with our constitutional rights. The fact that some politicians want to make it a crime to insult and taut cops after all the ways they have abused their power in 2020 baffles me. In regards to social media, they are privatized so they should be able to silence accounts/posts that they think is haring the general public. The first amendment does say that we have freedom of speech but wit all the technology increasing I believe that some of the first amendments can't be protected because of how vast and specific the internet is becoming. people are becoming more divided though because of all the information that is being thrown at our faces on our phone. A lot of this information is not true and just leads us to becoming more polarized from each other. I think there should be laws that limit some speech online because bad things could start to happen if it spreads to certain people.
One should consider that when and how we use our words with whatever platform we use matter, however what I believe is more than likely insignificant to those in power. The reason I believe that is because those who are on social media twitter, Instagram, Facebook etc. that are "normal" day to day people insult each other people and say things that according to them is freedom of speech but yet you don't see them getting banned like trump because he was an "ass whole" when there are billions of people on this planet who are worse. one of the biggest issues I have is that they want to make it a crime to insult officers. I don't agree that people should be ignorant to do things and yes the law has not always been just but I do believe that all of that is taught from the roots of early childhood to be nice respect your elders so on and so forth but as we get older we tend to want to bend thing four our own convenience, politicians and other people in power should know this that yes a lot of these proposals not only go against our constitution but against what we once really wanted to stand for but that is all different to many people I don't believe that media should be used for censorship but I do believe that there are somethings that we see on TV that change us and depending on what the Governments plans is on how this State should be run it will just bee like that, we have to be very careful to conform to the norms of others and what I think is that we shouldn't have to go to the extreme to now saying we should social media for censorship all we are doing is destroying each other and we really have to think about where we are going from here. I don' think we realize that we have to set these limits for our selves and not allow the media to control what we want them to limit. I don't think the government should have a right to censor anything and banning Dr.Seuss was really unnecessary I am not a robot and I will choose what I want to watch and what I don't want to.
Julian O MC4301 said...
These proposals are just sad attempts to quiet the uproar experienced through the past four years. A lot of things came into the limelight regarding the first amendment, the rights given to the American people. The videos give examples of S.B. 12 is trying to censor people from speaking freely about their police force, and just simply control people from opposing the local police force. Florida and Texas are two major states trying to stop any further protesting and discourage anything to mirror the summer protests of 2020 for the George Floyd and Breonna Taylor killings. This bill also has a reverse side in the political world, people on the right saying they want the right to speak their conspiracies should technically oppose this bill as well. And people on the left should support this bill to stop the propaganda media from being spewed out every day. Just depends on who is pitching the bill, what is their true agenda with such a bill.
I have mentioned this multiple times with family and friends, regarding the whole social media and blocking content from users. It's human nature to speak your mind and reach out to others who think the same. Social media is just a tool, but it’s not the only voice the users could implement to be heard. People get confused about what social media really is. It's a business that you agreed to their terms and in return, you are allowed to post and connect with others. It's not a soapbox for you to peddle your nonsense, just think would the local bar down the street let you scream and rant inside about lizard people. Nope, it’s a place of business and you would just scare other people away and tarnish the bar’s reputation in the community. Of course, they will throw you out, and ban you from their establishment, I believe the same goes for social media. Hey if you want your fifteen minutes of fame to scream your nonsense, go stand at the crosslight like every other crazy in town.
Cristela Jones (Honors)
After watching the video I found it very surprising that a lot of states are trying to censor free speech from citizens just because they do not agree with the other side of a person's argument. I especially did not like the proposed Kentucky bill that would make it a crime to insult a police officer. I feel as if a bill like that would just incite more problems since a lot of people, especially people of color are already scared of confrontations with police, and not being able to speak out against them will make them more likely to say whatever they want since they could just threaten people with this new law. Free speech, in my opinion, should not be regulated by the government. However, people in positions of power should be held accountable for their actions like that of Donald Trump being banned from Twitter. His words incited violence at the Capitol and in doing so, he was reaching a large amount of people not just because of his position as president at the time, but also the great deal of followers he had. Therefore, censoring him meant fewer people showing up to riot and go against the presidential election/government.
I believe that these proposed new laws are being used in a rather desperate effort to silence the hundreds of thousands of people speaking out against the crimes and of chaos of events that have been happening in recent years. Teaching younger generations that staying silent and not to disagree with law enforcement of the government in fear of punishment by law feels rather hunger games esque to me. I understand to some degree the proposed laws could be rationalized depending on the situation, but generally speaking, holding people in high positions like law enforcement officers accountable is a crucial part of a functional society. If this disappeared the police officers involved in the recent racially motivated assaults and profiling would have no moral compass and wold continue on what they're doing with no punishment.
In my opinion overall, these proposals would go directly against our Constitutional and Free Speech rights, going against everything the founding fathers stood for. If we are unable to speak up against a police officer or on social media (in compliance with our First Amendment rights) then we are being silenced in ways that violate the point of a democracy all together. I do however believe that due to evolving technology, social media companies should have the right to delete the accounts they believe are harming the public and are being seen by a large audience. That I believe will continue to vary on a case by case basis.
While there is no doubt that censoring social media posts is a violation of the First Amendment, a line has to be drawn when it comes to hate speech, including xenophobic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and sexist content. To be fair, I even found this video bordering on all of the above, especially in terms of being homophobic/transphobic. That being said, I found it hard to really take this video seriously. The mention of "cancel culture" itself is quite silly, as it's been proven time and time again that this supposed "culture" does little in the industry. Celebrities and politicians alike who have been "canceled" in the past are still making millions upon billions of dollars today. Predators and sex offenders are the face of entire social media platforms and brand empires.
In the First Amendment, "freedom of speech" does not mean freedom from consequence. And, in the case of being a jerk on the Internet, your consequence is going to be getting backlash for it. If someone was being a jerk in real life, the same should happen.
Priscilla Gonzalez- Honors
These proposals are obvious attempts by the GOP to silence the BLM movement and those openly speaking out against police brutality. By enforcing these proposals the government is only backtracking on our freedom of speech and freedom to openly criticize the government and its officials without backlack. They're seriously trying to tell me I can't flip off a cop? What a joke.
alexander gonzales
mc 4301
After viewing this video i still don’t think that annoying should be able to censor social media post or anything based off what someone might view as offensive. i think it’s weird how some peoples story on instagram or facebook about trump or biden might say warning this post might be offensive or something like that i don’t think that’s needed at all and very lame how they even want to report more than view it. I also think that insulting a police officer shouldn’t be a crime because of free speech and cops are people just like everyone else they should have extra thick skin to take some heat. I think any post whether it’s a conspiracy theory or a political post shouldn’t be censored because of the first amendment.
Gabriella Y, Honors
I think these proposals are direct attacks on the first amendment and tactics to silence people from groups such as the Black Lives Matter movement. The first proposal from the state of Kentucky was especially appalling to me. Having the freedom to criticize police and call them out for unjust actions is an important component of any successful democracy. I think if this were to be passed, bad cops would use it against people who call them out for unjust acts.
Evan Samon MC 4301
I am completely against censorship of any expression or words or acts that "offend" people. The only censorship I can back up is the removal of speech from a platform that insights large forms of violence. I am against the new phenomenon known as "cancelling" and I am extremely against any sense of censorship. When the government starts restricting what people can and can't say, that will lead to extremely scary things. It should be the societies common sense to take ones words or expressions how they want. Just because someone is saying something, doesn't mean you have to listen or try to stop them. Every person should be open to hearing anything so they can form an opinion. Whether someone is being prejudice or hateful, we should not ban them from speaking, we can simply recognize this person is wrong and not listen. If we give the government the power to censor expression, where does it end?
Although I don't consider myself in any way a libertarian, I agree with the videos argument that speech, especially controversial speech, should be protected. I am against the government forcing tech corporation to censor speech, and I am against tech corporations censoring speech at will when it does not cite violence. I remember watching somewhere Ira Glasser's (a former director of the ACLU) take on the issue of online censorship and found interesting. Glasser proposed that tech companies and social media should be treated as a utility. Just as telephone companies can't restrict what you say over the phone, tech companies shouldn't be able to restrict things you post on social media. I believe any restriction of speech is a slippery slope to tyranny, but given that tech companies are private's companies they legally can do what they wish on their platforms.
Shelby Hameister - 4301
After viewing the video I believe the government should not have the right to create laws that sensor and silence important news and voices in the media. I do agree that when it comes to immediate threats to specific groups regarding race, sexuality, homophobia, or political figures some things should be have a sensor warning. It is hard to set a permanent standard because once you get the government to have the privilege to sensor one thing, they will sensor everything, even important information we the people need to know. It is also crazy to me just the things the government gets involved in and want to make laws against, we honestly have bigger battles to fight right now.
Chelseia Blair: Honors
I personally think all of these proposals that have been brought to light within the recent months are completely unacceptable. These proposals from the right side are set in place to silence left-wing thinking which is something I don't agree with. I don't believe states or the federal government should be in control of what we can and can't post on social media platforms or what we can say to cops. I think this whole situation is very submissive to whatever side of politics someone would agree with. I do deem it necessary for speech to monitored if the speech has a possibility of putting someone at risk or encourage people to do things that can harm other people.
Carin Carlin MC4301
I think censorship in any form is unacceptable. What makes me the most upset is when we can't comment or express our opinions because the police or government can't handle them. Citizens should have every right to express their opinions against the government. It's kinda scary what these censorship laws entail because if they can get away with the small things, who knows what next.
When it comes to social media, they are allowed to ban you if you infringe on the terms of service. these platforms are private companies, so if you break their rules you will get banned. I think the issue with social media is that since it has been so controversial on our freedom of speech on there we forget that it's not a public government forum. You see people get banned every day and it's because you broke a rule and it could be anyone. I got banned from Facebook for a day when I said the word hoe, and I was referring to the gardening tool.
Emily Manning MC 4301
This situation is messy no matter what, everything is not black or right when it comes to freedom of speech. I do think that restraining our expressions toward police, whether is be hateful or cause aggression, in unconstitutional. If it's not physically hurting anyone then it shouldn't be restrained. Just because you make a cop mad with flipping them off or cursing at them, you shouldn't be arrested for it. Now the difficult situation is if social media should be censoring or taking down posts, I do think this is somewhat a violation of the first amendment, but as the guy in the video said, it's their business and they can say what is and isn't allowed. The only things I think should really be censored is hate-speech, fake news, and anything that causes harm to others (but this is so broad). I talked about sexual assault awareness one time on instagram and they took my post down, I was frustrated because it wasn't anything hurtful or deceitful, so sometimes we have to look at what social media companies consider "against their rules" before we allow them to censor everything.
Abigail G. MC 4301
This topic is always difficult to talk about because there are so many factors that go into it. I do believe censoring people's social media posts about political or religious beliefs does infringe on constitutional rights, especially if the post itself doesn't incite harm or violence. It isn't right to control other people's perspectives. Like the journalist in the video, we want to encourage participation and foster conversations. The government censoring and restraining the public's viewpoints takes away one's freedom of speech, freedom to express oneself, and freedom to develop one's own viewpoint, which I believe to be wrong and unproductive in building up a united, respected country.
Lauryn Briggs MC 4301
After watching the video, I believe that the government's proposals for censor and limitations of "offensive" expression is threatening our right to free speech. Monitoring a site's content is one thing, but hate speech and real life threats must certainly have a legal consequence. I think that social media's censorship however, is fair because each social media platform is entitled to their own rules and regulations for users. Overall, I don't think complete censorship is great idea. Our distinct backgrounds, unique views and different ways of expression is what makes America so diverse. Let our freedom of speech and expression carry on.
Sarah Theriot (Honors)
My initial reaction would probably fall under the quote "disappointed, but not surprised". I am not surprised to see this legislation being proposed, especially since it concerns the police, a hot topic. I do not believe anyone should be charged for using their right to freedom of speech against a police officer. This would be a form of censorship, which goes against out 1st amendment rights. Also, if that law were to be passed it makes you wonder where it will stop?
I believe social media companies have every right to remove content they do not want on their platform. My thought process is that these social media companies are private, not government funded, therefore they can do whatever they want. When you sign up for a Twitter/Instagram/Facebook account you have to agree to their terms of service. If you violate them then you are subject to whatever consequences may arise. Users should know this, and to promote legislation to prevent that takes away the rights of private businesses.
C. Rickner
MC 4301
It's issues like these that make each political party's hypocrisy apparent. Conservatives don't like social media companies running their businesses in a way that silences conservatives yet they want Christian bakers do be able to run their business in selectively exclusionary manner.
The Reason.com video also pointed out how certain liberals have been strict on video games and other mediums (and applaud tech for censoring certain conservatives) yet they want to expand what constitutes hate speech while allowing citizens to "taunt" law enforcement personnel.
The way that I've always felt about this is– there is legislative/criminal law and then there is social law. I'm all for legislative/criminal law being as freeing as possible. I'm also for all humans to follow the Golden Rule of "do unto others" or what some people are describing as "do whatever you want to as long as it doesn't encroach or harm others."
In short, don't be an a**hole.
If someone behaves in that very negative way, they may not be breaking criminal/legislative laws (and I don't believe that it's legislators responsibility to attempt to define what that entails), but they may require straightening out by their peers (or a bouncer or other social force).
About taunts to law enforcement officers. This issue blends both legislative and social laws. If I say "fighting words" to a civilian or a cop, I suppose I'm looking for a fight. If I choose to fight or taunt a cop, I am either out of my mind, or that cop is in the act of harming someone I very much care about.
I'm not for legislators adding special words for what a citizen can or cannot say to peers or cops, but I wish more humans understood that words have consequences and that we should be able to live by an understood social contract and that all people should work to reconcile our differences without cops, lawyers, or hospitals.
We should most times be able to reconcile with words; other times with a reasonable bout of gentlemanly fisticuffs (not MMA rules).
All other troubles should be avoided.
Joseph Cortez (MC4301 Online)
After I watched this video, I believe that what the government wants to propose as far as censor perspectives and opinions is wrong. This is basically taking away a First Amendment right, Freedom of Speech. When talking about censoring Social Media posts, I can agree to this as there are a lot of harmful and threatening posts at times that deserve to have some consequences. Social Media has their own terms of service and can ban or take people off their platform because they are a private company. I don't believe that censoring people is a good idea overall though. This will bring limitations to Freedom of Speech which break First Amendment rights. Each person is entitled to their own view, opinion and speech and I don't believe the government should try to censor and take that away unless a person says something harmful/threatening.
I think that these proposals are trying to silence people from speaking out about the BLM and police brutality movements. I believe that this is taking away from our first amendment rights as well because we should be able to speak freely about what we believe in, even if that means that it's about the police. Personally, I do not believe that all police officers are bad, some of my dads best friends are police but there definitely needs to be change in our system. Police officers are quitting left and right and eventually there will be no more. So, I believe that we should be able to speak out about the police brutality because then that may help police officers and their decisions because they could become more educated. Overall, I believe everyone is entitled to their own view no matter what it is, and I believe that people are getting their first right amendment taken away a little bit because of this.
Henna Punjabi - Online
These proposals are not a good idea because they directly violate the first amendment when they involve the government. In particular, the crime to insult cops alarms me because that is a direct violation of the first amendment. Cancel culture today allows us to personally and individually decide who and what we support, but when the government gets involved is when there is true censorship and free speech violations.
Paris M MC4301 (Online)
Hearing other people's perspectives whether or not you agree with them is important. The more points of view a person can hear, the more he or she can form her own well-rounded perspective. This is why I strongly disagree with the proposals in this video. But not only does it prevent people from hearing other's opinions, it directly violates the first amendment. We are allowed freedom of speech and that shouldn't be taken away from people. I understand what it is like to disagree with or even hate what someone else says online, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve to have the right to say it. Those rights and freedoms need to be protected because that is one of the important characteristics of creating our free country.
Hello everyone, I am Johnny V and I am from the MC 4301 course. After viewing the video, I would like to first appreciate how the narrator included both viewpoints from the opposing political parties. It's difficult to be impartial when it comes to topics we are passionate about. I do think hearing different viewpoints is important when it comes to finding solutions to the many social problems in this country. However, I do believe some forms of censorship are crucial when it comes to the well-being of our people. I agree with prohibiting news that is not truthful and updates meant to cause civil disarray. We should be outraged by the events that are actually occurring in this country, not rumors that are speculative. I think some of these legislations should pass, particularly ones that cause damage to America's most marginalized groups. Our society soaks up any piece of information like a sponge and oftentimes picks up the wrong book to justify their actions. Even the bible, which people sometimes use to justify their judgements of others (when the book was meant to promote peace, love, and worship) can cause damaging results. Some forms of censorship, like stopping hate speech, are acceptable. However, we cannot really stop people from being mean. Thus, I would like to take these bills piece by piece. Let's veto the ones that are problematic, and appeal to the ones that actually protect our citizens! P.S. I am not trying to cause waves, I just wanted to point out some observations.
Carson Martinez MC 4301 (ONLINE)
I'm personally not really into politics because I can never fully justify with either side however I thought it was very important how he include both sides of the spectrum.With that being said, I'm really disgusted with how they are trying to limit our free speech especially it being the first amendment we have.I understand limiting someone on their social media uses when they have a history of hate speech or that's all their account consist of but other than that people ultimately have the right to say whatever they want(except libel). The comment about the government trying to limit our freedom of speech when it comes to the place is also very frustrating. If you're a police officer you should be held to a higher standard and the words of others shouldn't provoke certain actions from an officer.Not everyone has the right to police so if the law was passed it would be violating our first amendment.
I live my life. I do what I enjoy. I work hard, and I do what I want with my money. I wouldn’t be near as motivated to do anything if it wasn’t that way. There’s no incentive. Why do you think America was able to develop so quickly? I understand some people aren’t given the same opportunities as other and I don’t mind lending out a helping hand, but competition and capitalism have bred some amazing discoveries and inventions. Violating our first amendment rights is one of the biggest things facing our country today. Things like police brutality need to spoken out on.
I agree with you on social media platforms not being able to censor views of politics that they don’t agree with. But for there to be a different set of rules for police enforcement seems like a stretch. I think everyone should be held by the same standards no matter what.
I completely disagree with people getting arrested and fined for insulting a cop. It's extremely infuriating that was Kentucky's proposal instead of really wondering why people are insulting cops in the first place. It further limits and violates our rights to free speech. And ultimately, all it will do is cause more fear and violence to communities of color. On another note, I believe that as long as social media posts are not any form of hate speech (racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc) then they should not be censored.
Antonia Rainey, MC4301 Online
I think it is a violation of free speech about the proposal fining people for flipping off and/or insulting cops. It seems like a very slippery slope to me honestly because if they can get away with that, so they might start making other proposals on violating free speech/expression like getting fined for no smiling when you get ticketed. (Okay that's an extreme example but the point kind still stands.) Also, I feel like the proposal could be used as an excuse to uphold police brutality. Like if a cop uses excessive force they could potentially argue that the fighting words were used or even claim that they were "scared for their life". In essence, the proposal seems like a loophole the police could use to become even more corrupt with will affect people of color the most honestly instead of the other way around, where it protects citizens.
In regards to platforms banning public officials and people for violating their rules, I never got why people were so angry about that. The platform clearly lists what you can and can not post. So if one says something racist, regardless if they are a citizen or a politician, and the platform says that is against their rules then the person should be expected to be banned. Of course, that doesn't mean their free speech was violated as they could simply go on another platform or texted their friends about whatever. I just think it's weird for politicians and people wanting to sue Twitter for not letting them say... something bigoted? It's weird to me. Then again, I also have the idea that hate speech isn't really free speech and the whole "tolerance is a paradox" idea. If you're being racist, transphobic, sexist, etc. you're most likely going to either support policies that oppress these people or even move to act violence against them.
I was not surprised by what was written in the article. I agree with the conservatives for the most part because I believe that we, as citizens, should be able to speak about whatever we want, as long as it obeys the law and doesn't incite violence. However, I also agree with the liberals that misinformation should not be spread because it can harm the public. "Cancel Culture" or how ruining someone's livelihood because they did something not politically correct; sometimes, "cancel culture" is important like when someone is exposed for being a racist or sexual predator. I do not think that controlling or limiting a person's speech will do the world any favors, but people such as child predators should not be allowed on social media where they can easily access children.
I do not agree with people getting arrested and fined for insulting cop. This law reminded me a lot of my country I researched, Tonga, because they get fined for talking poorly about their king. I think if a cop has a problem with being insulted they should be trained better. I think the person should only be fined or arrested if what they are saying to the cop involves violence. When it comes to censoring social media, I think it should only be censored if what is posting causes violence or will potentially cause violence but I also think this should be completely up to the private company and not the government. I do think it is a smart idea to censor news that is not true. I found it interesting how the narrator talked from both political parties.
(1/2) I don't generally approve of the speaker's approach to this discussion, but I can stand behind most of it. One line in particular, "conservatives who rightly yell bloody murder when Christian bakers were forced to make cakes for same-sex weddings are now trying to stop social media platforms from running their businesses the way they see fit" stands out to me. This line, which is in the video but NOT in the write-up description of the video, is curious to me. I think it reveals a more conservative-leaning viewpoint than the speaker would like to admit, and I think that he wrongly equates the two sides of this argument.
I actually mention the Kentucky bill in my country essay, as a talking point regarding how the U.S. may always be one step closer to suppression of free speech than it would like to admit. Without a doubt, I think that legislation making it illegal to criticize or use "inflammatory" speech against the police is wrong. In much the same attitude of many justices in free speech cases, frankly, if they can't handle inflammatory speech or gestures, then they shouldn't be police. We should not be entrusting the enforcement of law to people who cannot keep their hands to themselves and their judgement of others neutral in high stakes situations. So, naturally, I agree with any criticism of those proposals.
But he goes on to make this point about how people are making a big deal about private businesses censoring people, and how conservatives are more up in arms about that than they are concerned with the actual government making laws against their free speech. And now conservatives are trying to pass bills that protect "equal expression" on private platforms.
(I think some mention of net neutrality is also warranted here, especially considering that this is a point that often comes up when conservatives are in power. You can't on one hand tote that the internet, and the platforms on it, should be places where "equal expression" are allowed and private platforms shouldn't have so much control, but then also promote legislation that would allow for more of the internet to be privatized and monetized-- Which would lead to more ability for private companies to regulate what is and is not allowed.)
(2/2) But also I think that in general the speaker unfairly equates liberal and conservative issues with media. For one, I think that he fails to recognize that there is a difference between expressing an opinion and inciting violence. A major criticism that liberals have against these platforms is allowing them to be breeding grounds for hate groups, which actually do have an active detriment towards marginalized people.
I'm having a hard time articulating my exact point here, but I think it mainly comes around to this: I don't think that a business should be allowed to refuse business to someone on account of their sexuality, just as they shouldn't be allowed to refuse business towards someone on account of their race. "Belief" systems aside, frankly, I don't really give a shit if you think that being gay is wrong. Because it used to be a pretty closely-held belief that black people were inferior. And that was never okay, and neither is discriminating against someone on a basis of sex, gender, sexuality, etc.
On the flip side, liberals addressing the very real issue of blatant misinformation and hate speech on the internet, issues which are admittedly difficult to address without crossing a line into unfair censorship, is not the same. Wanting to be free of discrimination and have a way to combat blatant and harmful lies like QAnon is an understandable struggle. I think that liberals and conservatives are coming from two very different places when it comes to their legislation. It's a VERY hard topic to approach with the ever-looming threat of slippery slope bringing us to some dystopian drama where no one is allowed to say anything disagreeable. But at some point, there has to be a distinction drawn between conservatives bending over backwards to keep their right to be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc; versus a liberal desire for us to move past these things as a society.
Elizabeth Yanas - MC4301
After watching the video, I do think individualism is important, but people take advantage of everything. I do, for the most part, think that we should be able to speak freely (no pun intended). That was the original intention of the inclusion of it in the First Amendment. However, like I previously stated...people can be quick to use this as an excuse to just be ugly and spew hateful threats. I also agree that misinformation can be extremely harmful, but with social media and people not doing research of their own, it spread like wildfire regardless.
Gavin D. (Honors)
I think the U.S. has lost its prior pride that it had held for freedom of speech. I believe that no matter what opinion is being expressed someone should be allowed to speak it. The bills that were discussed in the video are regressive and truly upset me. Also, police officers are just as human as the rest of the population and do not deserve special treatment.
The restriction of what can be posted on social media in Colorado is only going to limit the conversations on important issues that need to be discussed. I hope that sometime soon many will come to see what a powerful right we hold in having freedom of speech and press.
Maritza Z (Honors)
This article just talked about political polarization. It is true that many politicians have felt the need to pass some kind of legislation that has negatively impacted free speech from happening, but this is also a very libertarian perspective, as this article is too. And in no way is that a bad thing, but that explains why the "more participation, not less" claim was made. This has nothing to do with my main point but was something I felt the need to share.
To my main point, I'm all for free speech and constitutionally, it exists. It is also important for many to also know what is true information and how important it is for it to not get misconstrued. I'm not saying fake news cannot exist but if it too, the most convenient thing to work with that is to ensure the people reading that knows it's not the most accurate. It caused January 6th but it also caused a new meaning for "cancel culture", as more recently and popularly used among white conservatives.
Be smart. Read good quality news.
Kimmi Z Honors
I believe these proposals are preposterous. One of the foundational pillars of the United States is the freedom to criticize our authorities. Labor unions, representatives, public debate, protests; these are all examples of this unique value. Why would we undermine this freedom to protect the police, a public servant, from emotional injury? It is elementary to note that respect is earned through honor and not through force, yet it seems conservatives are missing this point. If you want people to stop flipping off cops, address the reason people are flipping them off. Build an honorable police and the problem is solved. Criminalizing disrespect is not the same as respect.
Guy H (Online)
I cannot believe that a bill was proposed making it illegal to insult a cop, but I'm not surprised. This makes me deeply concerned for the future of our country. If the people policing our streets can't take a verbal insult, they don't deserve the badge or the power that comes with it. The same can be said for the censoring on Social Media. Personally, I believe that private businesses have every right to run their service as they see fit. For the government to impose regulation that stops them from moderating their own service goes against every ideal of this country. I do honestly find it a bit funny that many of the people calling for legislation to control social media companies are republicans who, by ideology, should be in support of private businesses. I think it could be really dangerous if these pass. Once the government knows it can get away with putting regulations on private businesses like social media companies, what's to stop them from doing it again to another business, or seize more power within the private sector? Over regulation never ends well. Let private businesses stay private.
Emma Jeffers ( MC 4301 )
Over the past few months my friends and I have discussed a lot of the issues the video mentioned, and I've noticed that most people have very strong views when it comes to censorship and they typically don't align with people's political views. The reason I mention this, is because I believe that sometimes your political agenda can get in the way of seeing these issues clearly (ex. Republican saying it's wrong to ban Trump from Twitter, yet saying the bakery should be allowed to refuse service to the gay couple. Or Liberals saying Twitter should be allowed to ban Trump from Twitter, but the bakery shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to the gay couple.) If Twitter had banned Biden, I don't think I would hear my Republican friends complaining vice versa. I think it's really important to set aside political beliefs when it comes to discussing these issues, and remind yourself to think of the constitution, and how these new laws and precedents align with our rights. I consider myself very moderate, and don't see anything wrong with privately held social media companies flagging something for "false information", especially when it's obviously fake. Things posted on social media can be really dangerous when taken out of context, or when false information is spread. Of course I believe everyone should do their own research and verify their sources, and in my opinion, flagging false information might remind people to do so. In conclusion, I think that private businesses have every right to run their platform however they'd like. I would not want the government telling me how to run my business, nor do I think they have any place doing this for big corporations as long as no harm is being done.
Jeremy Bochniak (MC 4301)
This is a slippery slope.
Mostly everything should be allowed on social media without government censorship. However, when you have people of power, openly lying about topics and lying to please their supporters, there are real issues with that. We saw that with the former president. He was lying all the time, he knew he was lying, and he wasn't being accounted for until the end of his presidency. That goes with anyone who were doing similar things. There needs to be consequences for that. I believe that should be limited to people in government jobs.
Brian C (MC 4301)
I believe that these proposals pretty overbearing. An important aspect of free speech is that we are allowed to criticize the government, and a majority of these bills are stopping us from doing so. I think that people should be civil when making these critiques, but if you are a police office and can't handle people screaming insults at you, then should you be a police officer?
The video briefly states that twitter banned Trump for ,"...essentially being an asshole." Something about that really bothers me. I think the issue is more complex in that the events leading up to that moment dealt with his followers taking over the Capitol, the increase of Asian-American hate crimes, and police brutality. Reducing Trump to just being an "asshole" is an understatement.
Towards the end of the video, he talks about this idea of cancel culture. He makes it seem pretty outrageous, in which is isn't completely wrong about. There is a difference between holding people accountable for their actions and then there are things that are pushing it. People, especially ones that have huge platforms, should be held accountable for some of the things that they say. I think media and pop culture has pushed this a little bit too far on certain things that are not really offensive.
Over the past few years, conversations around politics and free speech have made me aware of particular biases I have. We all have them and I think becoming aware of them is the key to moving forward from them. As for this video, I felt very uncomfortable with the policy around not being able to "offend" the police with criticism or other comments. I felt that the policy made it seem that police brutality was somehow justifiable based on the situation they were in, and in my opinion, it is never okay. However, when the video brought up the Twitter ban of Donald Trump, I didn't believe that it was a bad idea. This reflects my free speech bias based on my political views, which I am glad to work on. This being said, political people in power have to be very cautious of the influence they have on their supporters, hence the situation that resulted in the banning of Trump's account.
Overall, I am absolutely for freedom of speech, but not freedom of consequence.
Cordney Abraham Online
It's crazy to think that students can be expelled for expressing their first amendment right and that the courts would uphold it we have come a long way from those days and now students are more able to express their opinion I would say today society has been more positively responsive when expressing their first amendment rights.
Alyssa C. MC4301
After watching this video, I can't help but think of how baffling it is that our former president was banned from Twitter "just for being an asshole". I mean, he obviously was but the government shouldn't have the right to stop people from freely expressing their opinions. If it's harmful to the public that's one thing, but if it's just a negative/insensitive opinionated comment then that should be seen as free speech. There's no reason for people to be banned from expressing what's on their mind to the public. If the government doesn't agree with it, they don't have to associate or interact with it in anyway.
Chandler Deppisch
MC Online
I think the proposals made by these politicians are a bit outrageous. While I do see the need to restrict violent and racist speech, I do not think that politicians should be the people who decide what is allowed. If a post is harmful, likely to incite violence or outright discriminatory, I think these posts should be removed from public internet sites. Other than that, all opinions should be able to expressed.
Zachary Perkins (MC 4301)
I think proposals centered in censorship are regressive and should be denounced immediately. I think the reason we've been able to effectively change so much in the last year or is because everyone on both sides of the argument has been able to express how they feel which has invoked real conversations that needed to take place. However, there is a difference between stating your opinion and saying something that will inspire others to be harmful or hateful to others.
Sophia H MC 4301
After watching the video, I believe that there are a lot of unconstitutional proposals that legislation is considering. I do not think that it is fair to censor posts that are against the government or political candidate because everyone has a right to their own opinions no matter what others think. The government is supposed to be run by the people for the people and when they start censoring what they do not like, there is an unbalance in power. Cops, politicians and business owners are regular citizens just like everyone else. Unless the speech is harmful or threatening someones life, I think that people should be able to say what they want.
After watching the video I feel like the laws are a bit much and don’t necessarily agree with them. But I do believe that people should be able to embrace what they want and what they feel without getting punished the only way I think people should get punished is if they are doing something that is causing some type of harm to people. But it also is crazy that students can get in trouble for expressing themselves. I get don’t do it in class but anywhere else I find it strange.
It's honestly a tricky thing. I'm personally very hesitant to support any sort of censorship law unless it's for a really good reason. I think there's a real problem especially in America with regulation in regards to speech and content. However when dealing with censorship it's tricky because whenever a law like that goes through it can apply to anyone and be enforced by anyone. I'd hate to end up supporting a law that somehow got enforced into an unjust ruling. Overall, when it comes to laws like this, I try and stay open minded, however I usually end up pretty skeptical about it.
After watching the video, I conclude that legislation is considering a number of unconstitutional proposals. I do not believe it is appropriate to censor posts critical of the government or a political candidate because everyone has the right to their own views, regardless of what others believe. The government is supposed to be run by and for the people, so when they start censoring what people say, it's a problem.
Taylor DeWitt Online class
After watching this video, I am trying to view this from both sides of the spectrum. It is hard in these cases to figure out what the right thing to do is. Either you take his rights away and go against our rights as americans, or yu can allow him to speak freely without fearing a trial or being charged in any way. Personally, I do believe that free speech is very important, and we have every right to do so. As long as the bill of rights stays as it is, everyone has a right to free speech, no matter the curcumstance.
The legislation is hypocritical. They mentioned that bakeries are being "forced," to bake cakes for same-sex newly weds but at the same time want to censor anything political or religious. People can be fined or suffer damages about posts or content. If someone doesn't agree with someone else don't interact with the post. Its the internet, half the people are just talking out of the opposite of their mouths and people ESPECIALLY legislation shouldn't be bothered by it.
I mostly agree with the narrator of the video. I don't think it's right to censor expression, even if others don't agree or like it. Disney has a history of negative depictions and stereotypical content. Older films like Peter Pan and Dumbo. They have even included warning disclaimers for movies with content like these. Not everyone will "cancel" Peter Pan because of the the Native American cultural appropriation. Many will however, watch Peter Pan and acknowledge how it was wrong to include features like that. We are continuing to evolve, learn, and grow form mistakes. If we suppress speech and expression as we continue to evolve as a society, then our progress will surely be slow.
Amber Dotson Online Class
After watching the video the government is the biggest issue when it comes to freedom of speech. When it comes down to media such as social media, television, radio, podcast creators and authors should have the right to say whatever they want to say. As usual the government has a funny way of contradicting that.
The legislation that has been proposal overall has an overarching theme of having specific and targeted agendas. Specifically, the proposal by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott leads me to believe that he thinks that social media companies are specifically targeting accounts posting conservative political speech. The guidelines for these companies are stated when users make an account and the social media companies are just enforcing those standards against those who promote hate, violence, abuse, exploitation, or illegal acts. I do think that the guidelines of the sites themselves could be reworked or better defined, but not government regulated, and I don't believe this legislation will get very far.
Mason Rice (MC 4301)
After finishing the video, I was reminded by the importance of the controversial topics and the means of discussion in a way that does not call for a winner to be right and the loser be cancelled. It is apparent that when words have true weight they will find a way to be shown, and most media services won't be able to stop it, and when hateful racial, sexist, and stereotypical comments are made they will be found by the majority trying to do right. However when you put anyone in charge the "free speech" that comes of it will never be free just whatever the media manager says is allowable, and as the video is titled the government is the biggest threat in its search for more control over everyday people.
Abigail Johnson, MC 4301 - Online
I believe both Republican and Democratic legislation drafts cause more harm than good in this situation. Since the internet has only been around for 20-ish years and social media platforms are even younger than that, I believe the First Amendment is no longer a one size fits all solution. Each issue needs to be carefully reviewed and addressed individually.
After watching the video, I agree with the man's statement on how when government gets involved with legislation and rules it's over for the common people. Both sides of proposed legislation lean toward an authoritarian agenda, which does not align with the American Constitutional rights given to American citizens. The inability to criticize someone just allows the government to come in years later with even tougher legislation the further limits our free speech abilities as citizens. I also believe; however, social media platforms have the right to take down posts and suspend individuals from their platforms if they do not follow the rules slayed out in the terms and conditions. If an individual violates the terms and conditions, the company should not be penalized for taking down the post or suspending the account.
Overall, the situation is dicy on both sides and neither is in the right with how they plan to handle it through legislation. Everyone needs to be able to freely converse and have free range discussions about issues. The American people can not do this with government legislation hindering
Alyssa G MC 4301
I don't understand why the government should be allowed to regulate social media sites for running their businesses in their best interest. I agree with the statement that we want more participation but that we should also allow private businesses to associate with whom they want. If conservatives feel they are being censored on big platforms like Twitter and youtube then what's stopping them from creating their own private business?
Personally, I believe that social platforms should conduct their business how they see fit. The second we sign up to use their service - we agree to their terms. For anyone who doesn't like that, they don't have to use it. In fact, a whole group of people decided to create Parlor in response to not agreeing with Facebook's terms, and look how that turned out. I'm not against freedom of speech, but we 100% should be educating society about doing their own research to double check sources in order to combat misinformation / disinformation.
I have mixed opinions on the legislation. On the bill banning citizens from speaking ill of the police, I was in shock from that even being a question. All citizens have the right to criticize and comment on the actions of others. I believe it's a sign of a healthy democracy. However, if we have people in fear of being fined or punished, that will lead to filtered speech and not diversity of ideas. Simultaneously, giving the government more freedom to punish by using vague language in legislation leads to reliance on the judge's empathy. On the topic of social media channels, the business should have the right to take down posts or accounts. I believe this will help with fake news and spreading false information. Additionally, supporting the right of a business to choose their platform and values they wish to portray.
Overall, these examples shown in the video are highly personal, so I believe it will be a long time for our representatives to address these issues. If there is a situation through the courts, it will bring about change faster when it comes to this topic.
Post a Comment