In recent years, various state legislatures, including in Texas, have considered 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 and last name initial so I can track your comments for credit (11 a.m. class, 3:30 p.m. class, or Online class).
118 comments:
Levi Long
Online
I think the recent proposals from Texas and Florida are outrageous. The fact that these government officials are allowed to propose laws that are backed by no evidence is disappointing. At what point is it only political speech? There has to always be a line if crossed you are removed from the platform. Which is why I personally always lean toward a more regulated social media platform than the opposite. The ending remarks made by the video above seems like the reactionary response to do nothing at all and let the users regulate themselves. It will never end right even it if "makes sense."
Sara R
Online Class
I think the proposals from Texas and Florida are a little extreme. I can not understand why these are being allowed, but it also makes sense. The government is going to try and control us as much as they want. It is a shame that they are striving to minimize our free speech rights. That is something Americans hold on to, so we can speak on the unjust actions going on within the government. I also think that everyone is their own hypocrite. Political figures often say one thing and then do the other and it is becoming ridiculous. I don't think social media needs more regulations on political speech...why aren't there more regulations on people talking about using guns? Many school shooters research ways to do it online and even have discussion forums about them. Why isn't someone regulating that?! There are more important reasons to regulate social media and I think everyone is focused on the wrong thing.
Grace Mellette - 3:30pm
The first proposal alone - making it a crime to insult and taunt cops - sits very wrong with me. It feels as if governmental bodies are resorting to victim blaming to deal with police brutality: if you got hit (with a fine, at least), you probably deserved it. Probably won't do it again, huh?
I understand that the police has a high stakes job, but giving them legal right to punish people for an offending opinion feels ridiculous. If I can't demand $250 and three months of someone's life for flipping me off, why can you?
While I support the notion of cracking down on political misinformation and hate speech, it's hard to say it could be legally backed given that these terms aren't actually defined in legislation (although we covered hate speech, did we not? Isn't this included somewhere in legislation, at the least under a precedent?)
Our country was founded on freedom. The right to say (or not say) whatever you want. It's so tough to see one of our core values so degraded from both sides. While I carry the notion "the constitution is a 200-plus-year-old piece of paper, written and signed when things were so different, lets rewrite it," it's hard to commit to that sentiment fully. Given the state of our politics, whos in charge, and what we've seen from nations other than ours, maybe that's not what we need.
Amaya P
11:00am
I think these proposals are a bad idea. Me being a black woman I have witnessed many times where police officers have not been telling the truth in situations yet nothing happens to them. Having it be illegal to taunt an officer could be another way for an officer to lie on a black person, because they have done it before. This will also make it difficult for people to record when police are being brutal. It is important that we are able to police the police because they feel they can get away with everything. If it wasn't for the bystanders that watched what happened to George Floyd, those officers would still be working today.
Sophie P 11 a.m.
I do not think any of these proposals are a good idea. I found them to be unfair, it’s clear that these officials do not have the public’s best interest at heart. The narrator even said how these proposals are for the government officials' own agenda. All these ideas of regulation on social media directly affect people’s free speech. Our country was founded on free speech and it should not be challenged by these elected officials.
The proposals that were mentioned in the video would immediately impact Americans in a negative way and would potentially change the way we voice our opinions forever. Most of the proposed laws were extremely harsh in terms of limiting our religious and political viewpoints on social media platforms and across other spectrums. Although politicians are attempting to gradually control speech in a way that favors their agenda, they have not been successful in their most recent attempts. The proposed law which would make it a crime to insult/taunt a cop baffles me because it’s almost as if our law enforcement can never be wrong. They would rather implement laws that protect their crimes, controlling citizens even more, rather than fixing their own methods which have been causing issues for people for hundreds of years. There is no accountability from our police force when involved in meaningless killings and other wrongdoings. Without the presence of social media, who knows if we would even hear about these horrendous scenarios. Our government usually sweeps situations like these under the rug in an attempt to make them look better from a public standpoint. The killing of Breonna Taylor by the hands of our law enforcement proves that there are faults in our system. As a nation, we must learn both sides of the situation and actively correct our mistakes, in order to ultimately provide a better and safer environment for both parties moving forward.
The proposals would have a negative effect on our Democracy. Most people would be outraged if any of these laws were passed because they immediately limit the voices of Americans in numerous ways. The only benefit would be that the average viewer could now sue social platforms if deemed necessary. Nonetheless, the negative effects prove to be far more detrimental. Politicians like Donald Trump would be able to actively engage with his followers and could never be sued for voicing his outrageous opinions that could potentially influence the actions of others. This proposal alone could be extremely dangerous for our society as we have seen before. In 2021, Trump ignited his followers to ambush the white house (capitol attack) when expressing displeasure of Biden and his new policies. Although he expressed most of his negative beliefs at a rally nearby before this event, Trump was already infamous for talking harshly on social media and even got banned for inciting violence! These negative ideas, regardless if on social media or in person, can influence others to act violently through their political beliefs. Scenarios like these reveal that politicians may be too powerful for social media when used in a destructive manner, especially when in position of higher power. A person with this much influence can be good or bad for our society, depending on their intentions. These proposals would impose bigger consequences for the average person and would change the ways we express irritation with our government. The laws proposed could also be classified as unconstitutional as they violate our freedom of speech right as Americans. Our democracy was founded on the practices of freedom, yet politicians continue to counter this notion, further limiting our participation. If our government wants more involvement from our people, they should provide more beneficial options for us in our economy. But by limiting our voice in any aspect, we will continue to disagree with the practices of our government and law enforcement until they establish a more fair operation.
The first proposal about making it a crime to insult cops doesn't make sense to me, I feel as though they are moving backward from the Breonna Taylor situation. Instead of attempting to implement something that silences free speech they should've passed something that would ban no-knock raids to prevent the exact same situation from happening again.
Regarding online censorship I do think that there should be less censorship on social media platforms/online in general because high censorship leads to less participation from the public which is not something we want. I understand however that as a private business social media platforms do have the right to ban what they would like, however I think that they have an obligation as being such a big form of global communication to respect the right to free speech instead of censoring people.
Maya L. 3:30pm
I disagree with these proposals, I do not think that they would be a good idea at all. They seem to be just another way for police to assault people who are mostly innocent and clearly do not deserve to be assaulted. It seems like they are trying to make things more strict so that way the police can get away with more for example if someone were to say or do the wrong thing, the cop could get away with assaulting the person.
Hannah B 11:00 a.m.
I disagree with these proposals free speech is free speech. If they were to add these little details here and there they would have to create a whole new constitution that does not label it at "Free Speech" because at that point it isn't free speech. Controlling what people say online is going to cause more of a uproar and people will not be happy about that. Facebook has actually started to do this when people express how they feel about politics and I don't believe that is right. Everyone should be able to express how they feel about certain situations and if we as the people of United States are silenced it could bring drastic changes on how things are handled further on.
The law proposals mentioned in this video are straying from what the First Amendment is meant to do: protect speech. I'm glad the narrator mentioned the chilling effect because that's exactly what these laws are meant for. It seems as though our lawmakers are spending more time trying to punish people and letting their emotions get in the way of their job. We need to strive to elect more people who can be objective and not pick and choose whose speech should be protected.
After watching the video from Reason, I believe the government's proposal towards free speech infringes on the 1st amendment right of all Americans. Social media has opened up grounds for specific stipulations against free speech. When the amendments for free speech were written, technology was nowhere what it is today. The government has wholly capitalized on that and is now trying to recreate laws in favor of the government. Government-controlled media will allow censorship and disinformation, while the link between the press and citizens will become the press and government, allowing the government to control what the public consumes. These proposals are a terrible idea because regardless of the platform speech is used on, we should be able to speak freely as a fundamental right in this country. For example, the journalist in the Reason video mentioned that specific language-provoking police officers might result in jail time in some places. Although they may be words of protest, proposals like this will take away the freedom of expression, which is a fundamental human right. Proposals like this will have the entire world walking on eggshells allowing the government to impose consequences on those voicing their opinions.
I don't agree with any of the proposals. The proposal about insulting and taunting cops and getting fined plus three months jail time is completely wrong. How do we know what they classify as insults? I understand if somebody is threatening them, but citizens shouldn't have to live in fear of not criticizing or voicing their opinion. To me it seems like another attack on our freedom of speech and gives police more control and power than they already have.
And although I agree that there should be less censorship when it comes to social media because there is plenty of injustices going on in the world that people are only aware of thanks to social media and our right to post about these issues, I don't know how I feel about these proposals. It doesn't seem like they are doing it to benefit the public but as a way to enable hate speech. Most of the people trying to propose these new laws are people that have been banned or had posts deleted that were hurtful to different groups of people. I believe we should not be censored and should have the right to exercise freedom of speech, but it's clear these officials are proposing these laws for their own gain, and it may bring consequences.
Gustavo Flores MW 11:00 a.m.
I feel everything is contradicting to each other. The government makes regulations for people to follow but when it comes to them, they create loopholes for their benefits. The video explained the Kentucky law where you can't insult cops or you would get six months in jail and a fine. Then later it explained how social media platforms are not allowed to censor or ban politicians. Which makes no sense. You can punish regular people for cussing out a police officer who may or may not have done something but politicians have special rights to say whatever they want. Everything is very contradicting. That's why I stray away from politics.
The new regulations and laws that were put in place seem out of hand and far. I don’t agree with how Florida is going about the situation
In today’s world it seems we are struggling to hold on some of the basic freedoms, liberties and principles that have defined this country for nearly 250 years. If proposed laws like S.B. 11 are enacted, I think we can officially say we are under tyrannical rule. It is clear that the government is attempting to achieve total control over the people in direct opposition of what was intended by our founders. These types of proposed laws leave so many gray areas that typically never favor the people. For example, if S.B. 11 were to pass, who or what determines whether a cop was insulted and taunted? These interpretations are subjective and prone to a wide variety of interpretations. There are many instances in this country’s modern history where cops have lied or over reacted to so called “threats”. I have no confidence that there will be a sudden change of heart if S.B. 11 were to pass. As far as S.B 12 is concerned, the First Amendment already protects free speech and it seems that S.B. 12 is attempting to make sure speech remains free on social media platforms. Although the proposer’s are unbalanced in favoring conservative views, I would argue that the major social media platforms are already in direct violation of the First Amendment because they do not appear to be truly private companies. They seem to have some sort of governmental relationship or at least act as some sort of extension. The big box SM platforms seem to censor users in accordance within highly promoted political biases, ideas and agendas. It seems that they deliberately attempt to promote certain aspects of government while significantly limiting discussion or debate. The biggest question I have in all of these observations is, why? I think a deeper investigation into whether ties with the US government and these social media platforms exist will help to determine whether a proposed law like S.B. 12 is even necessary.
I do think it is important that there is not a push from the government to compel or ban free speech. Because of the nature of broad, undefined laws that have the potential to be proposed or made law, this can clearly be dangerous. As for S.B 12, I feel like I would need more information on what that means, or an example of what the bill proposes is discriminate against expression. It still seems a little vague to me. The proposed law in Colorado at first glance, actually does not seem like a bad idea to me, not allowing “hate speech” or words that “undermine election integrity” or “disseminate intentional disinformation, conspiracy theories or fake news” all sound good to me. I think that type of speech causes a lot of harm that, when spread so far, causes you to wonder how the information has not been removed. I do understand how the speaker argues that this is vague because the terms aren’t defined. Lastly, this could be because I’m biased and don’t particularly respect Fox News as a company at all, but the letters from congressional democrats regarding Fox, Newsmax, and other “purveyors of misinformation” seems like a valid action to take. Yes, it is up to the people consuming information to decide what they believe and make informed opinions based on information relayed to them. However, many speakers with Fox news such as Tucker Carlson aren’t even considered newscasters, but commentators. Fox itself has defended claims against Carlson by saying people should not take him seriously. But, people do, and at times, this can lead to a large majority of people holding troublesome,and false beliefs because a guy on TV said it. I guess, if the question is asked regarding ethics, I don’t think asking the question as to why Fox in particular is carried is an unfair thing to ask about. I’m not as familiar with Newsmax.
Jessica Youssefi - Media Law and Ethics online
It so hard to navigate free speech in the political and social climate we live in at this time. How are citizens to really know what is in their best interest as opposed to new laws for personal gain of the politicians thinking them up? From what I have learned so far in this class, the rules of free speech, and the laws that govern them are complicated and not easy to navigate. It would also be wise to take into consideration the definition of what each citizen considers free speech, what they consider hate speech, and what they consider offensive. These are all important factors to keep in mind when talking about new laws that regulate free speech. The ones presented in the article are pretty ridiculous by my standers, but honestly, not at all surprising.
The most recent proposal following the Breonna Taylor case makes absolutely no sense at all. The new law is most likely going to cause an increase in police brutality, as the law would only be negatively adding to an already uneven balance in police authority. The proposal is very broad, and there is no telling what action any individual cop would find offensive enough to react to. I do not think that any of the proposals mentioned in the article are a good idea, and I highly doubt any of them will become law. It would be difficult to try to prevent and limit negative speech, and at what point would it turn into just limiting speech overall?
Christian Martinez 11:00 a.m MW
I feel that the new proposals are definitely extreme. Free speech means free speech, I can understand hate crimes and racism speech not being acceptable, but to taunt cops as a crime has to be a joke. People taunt other people all the time especially in sports, should spectators at sports events be fined for taunting the players too? Cops are not above the law, I know they enforce it, but they are human beings just like everyone else. Unfortunately, police have a lot of hate towards them because they are untrustworthy, like many police have lied, have police brutality charges against them, and have been found guilty of lying to citizens multiple times.
I feel that the proposals are not a good idea. They are unconstitutional and extreme. If those proposals are passed, it will open the door for the government to continue taking away our constitutional rights. We shouldn't be censoring simple opinions just because one party doesn't agree with or like what was said. Unless It falls under emotional distress, I don't think the government should take part in deciding what social media platforms allow users to post.
Lillie Ray- Online Class
I believe these proposals are crazy! I get that some things said should not be acceptable under Free Speech but censoring someone's speech because it's taunting is not okay. We shouldn't have to live in fear because we want to voice our opinions. It's outrageous that you will be thrown and Jail and have to pay a fine for saying something that you believe in.
The bill passed by the Kentucky senate does not sit well with me, it feels draconian in the way that the individual can face jail time for simply expressing their distaste for police. I do not agree with this, and believe this is a very slippery slope to more extreme fascist policies. My feelings are a bit more mixed when it comes to the proposed law in Colorado, I acknowledge the danger poised by misinformation and hate speech but the "fake news" aspect is what concerns me. Fake news has became an umbrella term for both sides to easily dismiss potentially valid criticisms towards their party, I don't think its safe to allow politicians the power to change how these private companies operate their platforms.
Taryn Beeman
I believe these proposals are very extreme and definitely violate the First Amendment. The one that caught my attention the most was flipping off police officers. It is outrageous that we get jail time because they got their feelings hurt. The other day when I was out there were a group if drunk college students messing around and flipping the cops off and it's crazy to think that that group could have gotten jail time for that.
Ella Santos
Online
I think the proposals from Texas and Florida are a bit extreme if you ask me. They seem unfair and not to mention, violate our First Amendment rights. Living in fear by voicing our opinions is something that should not be tolerated. We should be able to voice our thoughts freely without being afraid of the backlash that could come along with it. The thought of being thrown in jail over stating your beliefs honestly baffles me. This should not be allowed.
I believe that every proposal like the one in the video is trying to limit our freedom of speech. It is not right to have consequences for us speaking our minds when we are not inciting violence. We have become so split as a country that we want to remove anything that we do not agree with instead of trying to educate people about why they are wrong. It is not right for social media companies to remove people for having opinions, no matter how wrong we think they are. Unless these opinions are a call to action, like the January 6th capital attack, I see no reason to ban people from stating what they believe. We are removing learning from the equation when you ban people. They will become more radicalized as they stay in their echo chambers, like on social media sites such as Truth Social. Now we are seeing our freedom of speech be banned in real life from both sides of the political spectrum because they want their opinion to be the only one.
I think any proposed legislation trying to regulate what you can and cannot say threatens Americans' rights and needs to be taken seriously as such by courts and legislators. What I find particularly interesting is the proposed Texas law seeking to regulate how social media platforms moderate their content. From a communications standpoint, this is frankly stupid and hypocritical. For one, the party backing this bill typically has strong feelings about keeping the government out of how businesses operate.... until the businesses disagree with them it seems. I believe that platforms have the right to moderate content how they see fit. A commonly overlooked clause in discussions like this is that the way platforms moderate content is to please advertisers. Selling ads is an overwhelmingly large proportion of revenue generated by social media sites. If Ford or State Farm don't want their ads next to hate speech, Twitter is going to take action against hate speech. It really comes down to the capitalistic gain of the corporation, not their desire to be judge, jury, and executioner of censorship.
I believe that the proposals mentioned are edging too close to government overstep. I understand the need to limit harmful slander or hate speech, but it seems as though what's being proposed has to do with bias. I don't think there should be such rash consequences for speaking your mind, opinion, or stance on certain concepts, especially controversial ones. I think these proposals are a bad idea and that people should only face repercussions for free speech if it incites violence.
Jared Payne
3:30 p.m.
I think that the principle of free speech is becoming an increasingly grey area. Based off of the video, politicians on both sides are encouraging free speech that aligns with their views, but shun free speech that conflicts with their agenda. While I do think that free speech encouraging violence should be punished and hate speech is dangerous, punishing ordinary citizens for saying something or banning books because of their message is very revealing in terms of the direction that our country is going. I think over time, the limitations on free speech will snowball and explode in the face of every politician or big tech leader and they will have to face the people of the country in a way that we have never seen before.
3:30 pm
I do not agree with these proposals, for the reason being that the idea of Texas not wanting to let business run the way the see fit and promote how they would like is just not okay and also Kentucky passing a law that states that you cannot taunt cops.seems very tone deaf and ignorant to me, in a country that takes major pride in being independent and letting their citizens hone in on that freedom, these proposals goes against everything the US stands for.
I absolutely disagree with these proposals, and I think they're a terrible idea. Everyone seems to want to limit free speech specifically when it doesn't align with their political views, and that's not right. The idea that people aren't allowed to insult police officers makes zero sense - they don't get a special right because of their occupation. As far as social media goes, I don't mind there being some censorship when it comes to speech that is directly harmful; I don't think hate speech in particular is dealt with well enough in some circumstances. However, censoring people simply because they said something you don't agree with. Politicians should not be exempt from being banned at all just because they're candidates for office, but it has to be for a genuinely good reason. These sorts of limitations would not be as helpful as some may think.
Joseph Castro
11 a.m. class
Free speech is a double edge sword that violently swings against truth from one side while elegantly sings against lies from the other. The guiding hand that wields the sword ultimately determines foe and method of blow. In the marketplace of ideas, the American people, enabled by the protection of the First Amendment, wield free speech and determine its usages in public discourse. It is a right bestowed by the constitution and governments must accept and respect the American people’s North Star.
In this sense, the public has a right to criticize police acting on an official capacity in real time, in person and online. For example, when George Floyd was suffocated to death by the police, bystanders criticized the police in person by telling them to get off his neck. Had these laws been in effect, the bystanders could have found themselves on the defense in the courts, costing them time and money. It is the American people critical of the police that guides free speech.
At the same time, the rights that protected the bystanders also protected the people critical of George Floyd’s character and his interaction with the police. He was narrowly presented as a criminal and chronic drug user, obviously ignoring the fact that George Floyd, a complex and growing human with a family, was suffocated to death by police.
Free speech, even in bad taste and even in bed with lies, needs to be wielded by the American people. Governments are comprised of people with biases and therefore are incapable of compelling truth or lie because truths and lies are heavily subjective. It is in the marketplace of ideas that the American people express their values.
Truths are hard and expensive but they are healthy. Lies are easy and cheap but they are harmful. The American people have the right to decide with ones to swallow.
Emilee Kownacki
Online
I think the proposals from Texas and Florida contradict the ideas of free speech that make up our constitution. Any law that is set to restrict free speech seems hypocritical to say the least. The freedoms that are promised to us as US citizens should not be challenged by our elected officials. Everyone should be free to express their opinions, regardless of what their opinion is. The entire basis of our government is freedom, and restricting what our freedom means is outrageous. We need to be smart about who we elect and vote for individuals who will protect our freedoms when the time comes.
Raul Rivas Hermosillo
It is outrageous what Texas and Florida have proposed recently. It is disappointing that government officials are allowed to propose laws without evidence. When does it become only political speech? Crossing a line will result in your removal from the platform. My personal preference is to use a social media platform that is more regulated than one that is less regulated. In the video above, the video's closing remarks appear to be responding to the video's recommendation not to do anything. As a result, the video recommends that users regulate themselves. No matter how sensible it is, it will never work out.
Jaxson Schoening Online
After watching the video, I am very concerned about the future of free speech and the free press. One part of the video that was interesting was legislature being proposed with rhetoric and words that are not being clearly defined. Such as fake news and election integrity. It is very divisive and not clear. When it comes to the point of talking to police officers that part was alarming as well. It seems it is empowering police more and giving them more rights to be violent when a citizen acts in a way they do not want to. And the citizen's actions that can cause a violent reaction are not clearly defined. It is also alarming that our elections are not deemed to be legitimate by some people. One of the reasons Americans show pride is because of having a democracy but now people say we don’t have real elections.
Jarris Jones
M-W 11:00AM
After watching the video it’s interesting to see what lengths people in power are going to in order to get certain aspects of speech control and regulated. Especially with politicians who are pushing certain agendas and only want to see speech that carry the same values, politicians want to keep setting the rules and from what i’m seeing will keep trying to come up with laws in order to get what they want. I personally think it may not be a good idea because that would mean eventually nothing can be said on social media platforms.
Bandera Barter
3:30 class
I am disgusted and not at all surprised that they are trying to pass a law that gives the police more power to arrest citizens who are trying to make sure that law enforcement is doing their jobs and not hurting people. The attack on free speech is frightening and getting worse as time goes on. However, I feel like both sides are going about it the wrong way. The thought that your political opinions can get you kicked off social media is scary. It was also extremely weird that Trump was banned from Twitter while he was in office. I do believe we need to do a better job of mentoring social media and stopping hate speech but the amount of censorship feels dystopian.
Abbye S.
11 a.m.
I think that the laws in Kentucky regarding speech aimed at police officers are an infringement of Americans' constitutional rights. As we have discussed in class, speech should be protected regardless of whether or not someone, especially those in authority, think that it is justified or in good taste.
As for the proposed laws regarding social media, though social media platforms are owned by private companies, I do think there should be federal regulations in place to protect speech and the people, especially the youth. However, I do not think that those policies should be politically driven like the proposed legislation in Florida and Texas. I believe it should be non-partisan and in the best interest of the people of the United States- not a certain political party or the pockets of America's elite.
Jacob Campos 11 a.m
These are all laws that will limit freedom of speech. A foundation for the protection of freedom of speech was to keep government and its officials on all levels accountable. Now many of these reforms or new laws are limiting the ability to criticize the government. These laws favor politicians and government which should never be the goal of laws. Laws should help overall good for citizens. Citizens must have the right to be critical to all levels of government as well as law enforcement in order to keep all levels accountable.
Noah Ezigbo-Dessesaure
3:30pm class
Making it a crime to insult and taunt cops doesn't sit very right with me. I understand that as a public official and you are to here to protect and serve, I don't see why with all the training that they go through that they can not be professional. Just like other jobs, companies, and business out here you see workers having to be the most patient with rude customers every day of the hour.
I do understand that the police have a very dangerous and important job to do. But it being a crime to punish people for their freedom of speech is ridiculous. Our country was founded by freedom and just like the first amendment no one should have to get criminalized for an opinion.
These laws are not a good idea because they absolutely cripple free speech. The law where it's illegal to insult police officers really had me reeling. Even the stipulation about the supposed insult being reacted to by a "reasonable and prudent person" really just opens the floodgates for police to claim they are in such a state and abuse that bill to the max. Florida's new law is nuts too. Bullying social media platforms into submission over political figures really rubs me the wrong way. If I agree with Gillespie on anything, it'd be that these laws are simply a way of people within the government to push their own selfish agendas.
Anna M. 3:30 Class
I think most of these proposals are ridiculous. Limiting free speech on any platform is scary but when the government is trying to limit free speech it is even more frightening. The proposed law about making it a crime to flip-off police officers is scary and reminds me of books like Animal Farm, where government officials are expected to be treated like kings, who must be respected more than ordinary citizens. Police officers should be mature enough not to lash out at someone for taunting them. As far as proposing laws to stop social media platforms from banning people, I think those are some what reasonable. What is illegal to say in person or in the press should be illegal on the social media (hate speech, libel, defamation etc) but social media providers shouldn't be able to ban people or tag posts because they disagree with the agenda. I've seen instances where Instagram tags posts as false information that were simply scientific. For example, a post describing the scientific development of fetus was removed by Instagram because it was posted by a pro-life Instagram account.
After watching the video, I definitely dont agree with almost all of these proposals. I believe that limited speech on platforms is the start to a scary future. Society uses those platforms to express themselves, share knowledge and advocate for change. One proposal that really surprised me was making it a crime to insult police officers. I don't believe that it is fair and especially with the recent issues regarding police in the news, it seems like a step backwards. I respect police officers' jobs and think they are a vital part of the community, but that proposal places them on a pedestal compared to the rest of the community which isn't right.
Lauren Rodee
3:30 P.m
I do not agree with Politicians advocating for the regulation of speech that does not complement their agenda or is favorable to their image. Laws regulation platforms are unconstitutional in my opinion. Due to the Section 230broad discretion on websites and platforms is protected. I believe that they are a bad idea because politicians no matter how upsetting the public opinion might be to their agenda. It matters and in a way places a check on their power.
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?
The proposals being made are absolutely unconstitutional. They each go against the first amendment and should not even be considered. If we start to limit speech on certain platforms, that will be just the beginning of the regulations put on our speech. Free speech should be given to everyone on any platform. These proposals are to fulfill selfish desires by those proposing it, which isn't fair or constitutional in anyway.
Lauren B. 11:00 am
After watching the video, my opinion on the way the government continues to run America doesn't change. I still stand firmly in my belief that as time progresses, the split between political beliefs, religious beliefs and public/private persons becomes more and more apparent. With celebrities, influencers and public officials who have a following in the media, they feel as though their opinion is the only way because they have a fan base that will back them up. It becomes harder each day to try and change the way someone sees something, especially in politics. Because of this, the government has so much control over us, slowly taking away our freedoms right in front of us. I don't think these proposals are good ideas. I feel as though the people don't even have a say anymore; it's the government's way or no way. I understand that not everyone is always going to agree; but it seems like, in some cases, even when the majority of the people disagree with the government, the bill is still passed with no regrets. I think this is unfair to the people of America and our freedoms.
Michael Walden
Online Class
I think these proposals are bad ideas because they all seem to be restricting people in completely unnecessary ways. In my opinion, they stem from overly biased perspectives and are clearly too far in one direction. For example, it doesn't make sense to get fined for saying something "offensive" to a cop. Why should a cop be above freedom of speech? These proposals are in bad faith if you ask me.
Connor R. 11 a.m. class
After watching the video, I think these proposals would not sit well with the public. I think the proposals are not a good idea since it would upset a handful of people because the suggested proposals restrict free speech. For instance, the first proposal talked about how the State of Kentucky proposed a bill that would make it illegal to insult or criticize law enforcement. This would then limit and restrict free speech, leading to many Americans becoming upset about the proposal. If it became law, individuals could spend three months in jail and pay a $250 fine, which I find a bit unreasonable and unfair for the public for just expressing their opinions.
Logan Koteras (online)
In my opinion, I think freedom of speech is the most important right we receive in the first amendment so I disagree heavily on the proposal of these laws. The first one to me is outrageous where they are trying to make it so you can't taunt or say offensive things to police officers. That is absolutely a violation of free speech and I think that is one of the worst proposed laws I have heard in a while. If I get pulled over in Kentucky and the cop is having a bad day, they could give me a fine and say I offended them for any reason. I agreed with the video when it talked about how politicians want to change free speech only to agree with their political agendas, they don't really care about preserving it the way it should be.
Lizbeth R. (3:30)
After spending the entire semester going through cases where the First Amendment protects as much speech as possible, it was mind-boggling reading about the Kentucky Senate passing a bill that makes it a crime to insult/taunt cops. "It's just one example of a slew of proposed new laws that are chilling free speech." There are some instances when there should be censorship for extreme cases, but 99% of the time, people shouldn't be fearful of sharing their stance on specific topics. As we have discussed all semester long, just because you may disagree with what someone believes/says, you can't censor them if it's not an actual threat.
11:00am (MW) Theina Garcia
I think the idea alone with these laws is crazy by itself. I will never understand how these are the politicians saying, "we live in a free country" yet are doing these kinds of actions. The first amendnment is very important and by limiting everyonf from exprossing their opinion is illegal. I dont understand how they can get away with this, especially with no proof. This just makes me hold more resentment towards the government. The whole point of our government was to protect the peoples rights but now its about gaining power and control.
Aaron Hand - 11:00 am MW
I can't help but disagree with the proposals being made by some politicians in this video. I believe you should be able to taunt and flip off police officers because how else can we express our annoyance with the state of the policing in this country. I don't agree with any censorship online at all for that matter. The web is a place for us to express our deepest concerns about topics that might be offensive in a face-to-face conversation with someone(s). No amount of legislation should seek to hush any opinion.
Cecilia Barboza
11 am
I think these proposals are outrageous and disappointing. I think that limited speech is frightening and goes against the first amendment. The proposal that would enforce crime on insulting the police is disturbing and totally ridiculous. Everyone needs to be held accountable for their own actions including the police especially the recent issues that have been brewing over the last few years. I think these proposals are just another way for the government to gain control over society and how one might think or feel. It feels as though we're taking one step forward and three steps back.
Avery D
The proposals, in my opinion, are not sensible. They are excessive and unconstitutional. The government will be entitled to continue taking away our constitutional liberties if such plans are approved. Simple views shouldn't be restricted because one side disagrees w them or doesn't like what they expressed. I don't believe that the government should decide what users are permitted to share on social media networks, unless it is classified as a form of emotional distress.
Ric D. 3:30 pm
I believe that these proposals are a lot of talk without seeing how they would effect their businesses. I think that officials need to understand that people are going to find ways to speak their mind, and with the freedom of speech being the first constitutional right there will always be people fighting for it. There will be people who think there should be more censorship and some who think less. The government should not have any say on what is shown online unless it directly harms someone.
I believe that the first amendment includes the freedom of speech because it is important that every is allowed to have their voices heard. The government agreed to that law and should not go against that agreement in any shape or form. It shocked me to hear that the state of Kentucky was even considering making it illegal to insult a police officer. It sounds to me that the government is getting sensitive and want to protect the feelings of the police officers but does not take in consideration that they are restricting people’s freedom of speech. Texas’s governor had the audacity to announce his consideration of holding people accountable, so basically suing them, for on social media for censorship. The world is constantly changing and evolving with the new generations, and we must listen to what people have to say because what they may be saying is something that change the world for the better. I do not believe any of those proposals were good ideas because each and every one of them would violate the first amendment in some sort of way.
Rebecca Cade 11 am
DeSantis and Abbott's proposals impede users on social media from expressing themselves. The platforms we use today are run by private companies, they have the power to do as they please without the government interfering. I fear if these laws pass, politicians and other notable figures will be punished for saying what they want. Even if these governors fear fake news and disinformation, nothing is as scary as being penalized for using your first amendment rights.
Lilia C. 11am
I think these proposals are a bad idea. Having it be illegal to taunt police officers just seems like there's going to be more horrible cases of people especially of color ending up dead or hurt without there being any consequences to them it might just enable them to do it more. The government is also trying to control the people so much. I think it is unfair that they are trying to minimize our freedom of speech just because they don't like what people are saying or that it goes against them. I just don't understand why they're trying to focus on censoring people's voices instead of solving actual problems that need fixing this country is supposed to be a democracy not a tyranny and I think that's being forgotten.
Guillermo Jaimes Arroyo
11:00AM
To start off I would like to state that I dislike greatly, cancel culture. It's a fairly new idea and it has to go. People now of days can not state their opinions on a subject without getting cancelled. The fact that the government wants to capitalize on this is awful. No American should have an upper hand on the public. It should be all or none.
In addition, I believe us as Americans should have the right to free speech. Offcourse there should be limitations but these limitations should focus on what's best for the people not the governing bodies as they to fall under "the people".
Tabby K. 11am
I like the angle this guy took when talking about these laws. Politicians have brought up the problem of censorship. Still, they usually only focus on whether their own media is being censored and create hyperbolic situations that only apply to one side. There are too many censorship laws being proposed. It is outrageous and hinders free speech creating a more significant divide between differing beliefs and parties. When people cannot communicate, assumptions run amuck, and all one can see in another is the stereotypes they built. Censorship is a slippery slope and, hopefully, will not be taken to extreme lengths during my time. To the point of his video, cops should not be an exception. Doctors, teachers, businessmen, and fast-food workers get yelled at all day long with nothing to protect them. Seems fishy that a government-sponsored group would somehow be an exception to insult and injury.
Marlenne Hernandez (11 a.m.)
I honestly don't like these laws that are being proposed, it is taking away the freedom of speech from the people and business's. People shouldn't have to stop themselves from expressing how they, because that defeats the whole purpose of being honest. The government is trying to control everyone, and as soon as they mess up they will find a way to seem as the victims. Instead of worrying about censoring people's voices, they should worry about how to solve the issues.
Cittlaly E - Online class
After watching the video, I had a few contradicting thoughts. I agree that politicians shouldn't be able to decide what is "right" and "wrong." As human beings, we have the right to choose for ourselves. However, in this particular case, I agree with the Kentucky Senate. It should be a crime to insult and taunt cops. Not all cops are the same, and just because there are a few bad cops, it shouldn't mean that all cops deserve to be labeled the same. Also, I understand that we all have the right to freedom of speech and should be able to say what we want whenever we want, but this law isn't restricting us from that. They are simply stating that we must respect law enforcement.
Police officers are the source of protection for the public. They are the professionals who respond to local dangers and emergencies. They help to keep criminals off the streets and work to protect citizens and their communities from harm.
After watching the video and reading the article, I completely disagree and am honestly repulsed at the thought that the Kentucky senate though this was a good idea. This proposal directly violates our first amendment rights. This was exactly what our founding fathers wanted to avoid. Citizens should not be jailed and fined for what they say, no matter how offensive or disrespectful. Passing this law would definitely start an uproar among Kentucky residents and rightfully so. This law should've never been proposed to begin with.
Miranda Prescott 11:00 a.m.
After watching the video and reading the article I disagree with the proposals. I believe it is unfair and goes against the first amendment. Public officials should be able to use social media and post just like anyone else.
I see a lot more censorship and violations of the First Amendment today. I didn't read about the Senate bill restricting hate speech to the police until I read this article. Not only does the government want to censor free speech but social media platforms do it all the time as well. It's not right, it's not constitutional. All of this censorship is just a way for the government to have more control over us and keep all their power. The same goes for cancel culture. It's not just government censoring, regular individual citizens and companies "cancel" each other all the time just because they don't really like what someone said. Granted, they are allowed to express their opinion on what someone has said but the person/company being cancelled should also be allowed free speech without the fear of being cancelled! That also creates a chilling effect in our society. Don't get me started on Christian censorship...that's another whole agenda.
Sydney MW 3:30pm
By making it a crime to insult and taunt police, I see how it can be argued that it is protection for them, but as an African American this sounds like a terrible idea. Giving them the right to punish people for something that is situational and can have such a loophole doesn't sit right with me. An insult can vary from cop to cop, what offends one won't necessarily offend another. Even though that is not why the proposal was pitched, the proposals will allow access to protection when these cases of police brutality occur and to me that is wrong.
Sarah SIlguero (11a.m.)
I do not at all believe that any of those proposals are good ideas. First off, to not be able to flick off a cop? Flicking off a cop may not be kind but it is defended by our first amendment and there should be no conversation about it. As for social media and all the censorship, they want to do is absolutely ridiculous from both parties. The government can't pick and choose what we are allowed to say and not say, read and not read, follow and not follow. If that happens we lose our individual voices and government has more power than it should. The GOvernment wants to censor what they don't like, imagine that, they will never be called out for anything bad they do, they will be superior, The government was made for the people so it is ironic how everything may turn out.
Sofia Gualy 3:30
I believe that these proposals are an extremely bad idea. Making it a crime to talk badly about police officers is protecting the wrong people. This completely violates the first amendment and doesnt sit right with me. I think this law will cause quite the outrage and can lead to many other things.
Carol G. 3 p.m.
After watching the video I was shocked to learn about all the crazy bills that are being passed for censorship and regulation of social media. I think that it is a major infringement on people's and companies' first amendment rights. I believe that companies should be able to do whatever they want to on their sites as long as it is morally and ethically correct. I think the way social media companies are handling users who post about politics correctly or not is great. They have a warning on all the posts that bring you to a reliable source to learn more about the topic that was posted. There should not be any more government regulation, adding more will make the users want to defy these laws because they are so arbitrary and infringe on their rights. Bottom line it is not a good idea.
Jordan Gentry-Online Section
I 100% believe and know that cops have a very dangerous job and have to risk a lot because I have a family member who is a police officer and I have heard many stories. I just think that it should not be a crime to insult police officers. Not saying that anyone should disrespect a police officer but they do it to people all the time. Isn't that one of our rights from the first amendment? We all deserve our freedom of free speech. Why do cops get to do it but people can't do it to them? It just doesn't make sense to me. It seems as though the government just pretends that others don't have feelings or their right to free speech. I think that overall these laws are ridiculous and should not be a thing.
Marion R.- MW 11am Section
I believe these proposals are extreme and unnecessary. There are a few instances when free speech should be censored, but this will make society live in fear to voice their opinions. The proposal regarding taunting a police office is ridiculous because as a “professional” they should be able to control themselves and not lash out when it is being done just like how everyone else in the work-force is expected to do. At the end of the day, politicians want to control social media for it to be one sided and benefit in their favor. It is limiting our first amendment.
I disagree with these proposals from Texas and Florida. The idea of free speech is getting more and more controlled to where there are so many different limitations on "free speech". Free speech is a basic freedom we should have, but it's slowly being taken away from us. These new proposed laws leave so many questions unanswered, like who would be the one to decide if a cop was insulted or taunted. There's also issues with social media platforms censoring political and religious posts. This is basically going against the first amendment of free speech, filtering and censoring what people believe. People should be able to express their beliefs peacefully without being punished or silenced.
I think that the proposals from Texas and Florida are outrageous. I believe that yes some speech such as fake news should be regulated, However I feel that the regulations are getting out of hand. There is no reason to strip us of our freedom of speech so much that it doesn't even become a freedom anymore. I especially don't agree that speech regarding police should be limited. We are entitled to our own opinions and it is our only defense against people with higher power then us. Especially when some of these people abuse their power against us.
Aliyah Hale 11am
I disagree with the proposals from Texas and Florida. The idea of free speech has slowly been getting more and more controlled. There are few times when free speech should be censored. I do not believe that it should be a crime to insult a police officer. Being a police officer is a professional job, they should go into being able to control themselves around people who are lashing out and being disrespectful towards them. I believe that this could open a door that will create more assaults and harassment.
Celeste Parler
3:30 PM
I think there's a line to be drawn when it comes to what censorship is permitted and what is unconstitutional. The speaker mentions how banning President Donald Trump on Twitter is unconstitutional. But President Trump broke Twitter's community guidelines for inciting violence, and any Twitter user who does so can be banned by the platform because Twitter is a private company. He wasn't kicked off the platform for "being an asshole" like the speaker said he was. Anyone on social media has the right to "be an asshole" regardless if I find their speech offensive or not. Inciting violence cannot be protected, but fair debate and criticism must be protected.
As we talked about in class, it cannot be up to the government to determine what is offensive or what hate speech is. It is also not the government's responsibility to enforce social media sites to regulate disinformation because lying without receiving a tangible benefit is protected by the first amendment.
Kayla W
3:30
I think that most forms of speech restriction are harmful. Banning taunting police officers is a ridiculous infringement upon the first amendment. It reminds me of what we are learning about public figures and how they have to prove actual malice because they signed up to be in the spotlight. Police officers signed up for their job and all the things that come with it. As for censorship on social media, I think that there is a time and place where it is appropriate, such as inciting violence like Donald Trump, or spreading false news (facts, not opinions). I get why people are upset about censorship online, but fake news being disseminated at this speed is a rather new issue, and as times change, legislation must change with it.
I think that the proposals mentioned the video are a bad idea, especially the restrictions against criticizing police. Limiting free speech doesn't make any sense and is not a reflection of the values are country was built upon or the ones we stand for today. It is just so blatantly obvious when politicians want to manipulate certain things in their favor. I've always found it interesting when politicians try to make laws regarding anything on the internet, including social media, because U.S. citizens seem to think we own the internet. The internet is a place owned by no one, not limited to country or state bounds, and knows no limit. The Internet Law, or Cyberlaw, exists to keep the egregiously bad content off of the internet, but other than that, nobody is restricted from posting or doing whatever they want, which is how it should be. Why do U.S. politicians always feel the need to try to place laws on a place like the internet? It's never made sense to me, it's not our land.
I find these proposals to be ridiculous. To know that so many people support these limitations on free speech is sad. These proposals infringe upon fundamental rights within this country. As said in the video, the politicians who are seeking to write these limitations into law are doing so to silence naysayers... or they're just blatantly ignorant. Free speech should be left as such. The internet will ALWAYS be full of dissenting opinions, but isn't that the whole point of a dialogue, especially about politics?
Riley T. 11 a.m.
It baffles me that we are at this day in age where we have come so far in things and then go backwards when it comes to basic human rights. It's shocking to hear all of the crazy laws that these politicians feel the need to be made. Social media could also handle it better, there shouldn't be so much government regulation over topics that people genuinly want to discuss and debate. The First Amendment was made for a reason, also that it was made so many years ago. You just can't change that for this country. We are fortunate enough to even have these rights, and the idea of taking that away would just be hurting our country.
Arya Manasco online
I find these proposals insanely disturbing. With these proposals cops will abuse there power so much more knowing no one can stand up against them. It feels as though we are going back in time with proposals like these. It’s proposals like these that give cops a superiority complex and allow them to feel like they are better/ more powerful than a regular citizen.
After watching this video, it is even more obvious to see how much the government is trying to take control and it is scary to think about. I feel like this country is going backwards, especially with the law that prohibits something as small as flipping off a cop. That gives even more power to the cops to potentially abuse. I also do not agree with the banning of books and other publishings that should be allowed for free speech.
Nathan X. 3:30 pm
These proposals makes no sense to me. What is the point of having free speech when you can't have an opinion on a certain topic. Getting punished for taunting an officer is out of hand. People have the right to free speech and enforcing a law for this limits what freedom of speech really means. I feel like the government is discreetly trying to control its citizens by having influence on the media. Freedom of speech has been compromised and has slowly taken certain aspects of speech away.
Beth Bruch 3:30
The legislation being drafted in the different states is completely ridiculous and outright unconstitutional. It’s one thing for a private company like Twitter and Facebook to be able to control what does and doesn’t happen on their platforms but when it comes from the government it’s actively stripping us of our unalienable
rights. With social media, there’s a part of me that wants it to be free and open for all but another part of me understands that with the complexity of digital space content has to be monitored. In an age we’re antisemitism, homophobia, racism and ableism can be spread like wildfire and seeded into impressionable groups like children, we need to be careful of what goes live on these mass platforms.
Erendida A Online
Having a law in place where "taunting" police is illegal is such a dangerous law. This law protects police in a way that could potentially harm others because they could take anything someone says as "taunting" them. Interactions with police are already so stressful and emotions are always high, so the fact that they can't handle a couple of words that come out because of that should say something about their training. Police officers are here to make sure everyone is obeying the laws, but they shouldn't be above the law taking away our freedom of speech.
Katie Armstrong 11am
The recent proposal on making it illegal to insult cops is not okay in my opinion. America was founded and built off freedom of speech and if the government takes that power away, that is when they have full control. It is understandable that they want to protect their law enforcement, but the people have a right to protect themselves too. You can't just put people behind bars for speaking their mind, its inhumane. Limiting speech online is the same thing, government and higher power controlling the algorithms and what is being seen online everyday as the popular opinions when in reality were being shown what they want us to see. Freedom of speech is a right that needs to be protected and enforced for everyone.
Lia F - online
I think it is completely crazy that insulting a cop, or offending them in any way, can be punishable. If free speech is limited I think worse things will end up happening and the citizens will not trust the government any more or at all. Censorship online I feel like it depends, private companies are allowed to do as they please I think for the most part is best to not censor anyone I would rather use the block button. However, when it comes to the time Trump was inciting violence in the U.S. I think it was a very smart move from Twitter to ban him in that app.
After looking at the video, I can conclude that the proposals being made are ridiculous and a not a good idea. Police forces have already been seen as taking advantage of the power that they have, so for the government to propose these ideas are just dangerous. The police can take any little things someone says as "taunting" towards them and take advantage of that. These proposals contradict the 1st amendment which protects our free speech.
Jadyn Delgadillo 11:00 am
After watching the video I personally think that the proposals being made are not a good idea. Because there is already such a power dynamic between police officers and the general public, we as citizens already tense up whenever around a cop so now throwing in that insulting them or offending them can be punishable seems outrageous. Especially because we have the amendment in place for freedom of speech. Also there is such a wide open space as to what could come off as "offensive" towards a police officer because at the end of the day they make the decision on what to punish us about.
Katrina A. 3:30 p.m.
The proposals made by Kentucky, Texas, and Florida were absolutely disheartening and disgusting to learn about. In my opinion, a lot of the legislation being passed nowadays that focuses on significant issues favors the one side as well as those with a higher power. It is unfair and seems targeted that our First Amendment right to freedom of speech is being restricted to protect the feelings of police officers, public officials, or big corporations. I feel as if the government's legislation on censorship is to exercise more control and power over the people rather than to empower them. Nowadays, public officials are passing laws that favor their agendas and their beliefs, but sadly this is what our world of politics has come to. As each day passes and more laws are put into place or changed, it feels like we are going backward.
Eduardo Gonzalez, 11 a.m.
Like Nick Gillespie of Reason, I think that these proposals are good examples of government and politicians overstepping the boundaries that protect private citizens and businesses. I don' t think proposals like the one he lays out are a good idea because they go against the U.S. Constitution's first amendment. I think that giving the police or politicians/elected officials more power to police the opinions and speech of citizens only puts us on the track of less liberty and free speech, and more authoritarianism and censorship.
I think that any infringement on First Amendment rights are unconstitutional and shouldn't be up for debate at any time. One of the best things about the United States is the freedom we have in regards to speech and I don't think it would help anyone if we went backwards with this. Censorship is a slippery slope in regards to political figures not wanting negative things about them said publicly, yet I don't think this should be illegal.
Laura Hornung (11am)
One of the best things about the United States is that we have freedom (or should at least). Any infringements on those freedoms should be held unconstitutional, we all have freedoms of speech we already accept and give up such as hate speech. Censorship is a controversial topic due to the fact that social media today is a huge platform where people express their opinions about things like political figures which I don't think should be against the law
Summer R. (Online)
I think that there is a major issue with censorship in the United States. I think proposing any bill that would further censor speech would be harmful and completely against the First Amendment. The very first bill that was mentioned in regards to offending a police officer is absurd to me. If people have to censor what they say to an officer out of fear of retaliation, that is an issue. I think regardless of governmental status, the same rules should apply to everyone for free speech. So, in that case, if that bill were to be passed there needs to be another one in place for every being in the United States saying you cannot offend them... and that is just overwhelming inefficient and absurd to propose. When it comes to social media, I think the same standard follows. A person with a large following (ie. Donald Trump) should be held to the same standard as someone with a small following (ie. myself). In total, I think it is unfair to keep taking away from the First Amendment laws.
Tara Haynie (3:30)
I think the laws concerning punishment for speaking ugly to cops violates the public first amendment rights. The right to protest against the enforcement of law, should be included in the right to free speech, assembly, and petition. Hearing about how each political party wants control of the media because they want to push their agenda is not news to me. Tthroughout my many years on social media, I have seen first hand the brainwashing from politicians. I think that when the framers were writing the Constitution, they had lots of foresight. However, I don’t think social media and current technology is something that they could have ever imagined. So this ambiguity creates a lot of wiggle room for social media laws. The gray areas is where things get so complicated. I don’t think rewriting the Constitution would be the answer to these concerns or anything like that. Although, I do think it is important to consider the contrast between the time frame we are living in now vs when these laws were created. I do not think that any political party should have dominance or power over social media. The only way to have a true democracy is to have access and the right to free public opinion. The new laws should not infringe upon American's right to speak freely. I hope that free speech laws continue to protect as much free speech as possible.
Emily S. 11 am
After reading the first bill about making it a crime to insult and taunt cops, I think it is extremely unnecessary. I do not think these people deserve jail time because if someone flipped me off or offended me, there is not much I can do. The more I read, it seems like the government wants to control as much as they can on the internet. The internet is a place where everyone can share ideas and thoughts, but it is becoming more limited. I do think certain things should be limited or flagged, such as misinformation or hate speech, but people deserve freedom.
I think these law proposals are a bit too government powered. Making it illegal to say something to the cops that they might find offensive can get a little out of hand, as some cops sometimes do go on power trips. I think business should be able to capitalize on social media and be able to make money and promote however they'd like. I do believe that hate speech should be removed and censored but where do we draw the line on what is hate speech and what isn't
Personally, I feel like the more vague laws we have put into place gives the people more opportunities to mess up. The government continues to try and place us under stricter laws that fit their agenda. "A reasonable person" is not a very well thought out law because who is deciding what is reasonable and what is not? I agree that hate speech is an issue we face in our communities that needs to be addressed at some degree, but putting people in jail for flipping off a cop seems to be extreme and just another way for them to control our thoughts and actions further.
I believe the proposals are not good ideas, as this would go across the first amendment. The government and politicians are making it seem as though they are trying to gain full control over Americans and minimize free speech. I think if government wanted to put regulations on something, then do it towards what has been hurting more Americans than just say "f the police", etc. Regulations on guns, for example, that can be something to have focus on. I think politicians need to do better in understanding that they are there to serve the people, not the other way around.
Daniel Duran 330pm
I disagree with the law proposals. Not saying that it is right to flick off of a cop, but there is still your first amendment protecting you against that. Also, I feel like people should have their right of freedom of speech, rather than most of the censorship that has been going on. I feel like if you don't like what someone is having to say on social media or whatever the case might be you can just block them or not look at it.
Hayven Stein Online
I find these proposals chilling. This is absolutely horrified that these proposals are even being made. I understand limiting speech on social media platforms because those are private businesses and they can do what they want. But the government should never impose on our freedom of speech especially if it is to comment on the government. One of the main reasons that the founding fathers but freedom of speech in the constitution was so that citizens could freely criticize the government.
Diego Gonzales 3:30
Even though I agree with the notion that misinformation is being spread far too easily in the media these days, I am not comfortable with how these proposals could limit free speech. There have to be better ways to combat the flow of misinformation that does not involve ignoring the first amendment.
Breanna Evinger (online)
I most definitely disagree with the proposals. It would be wrong for the government to try and limit our free speech and what we can say whether that may be online or in public. I think there should be some things that shouldn't be said that could be hurtful to others, but I think the government has bigger things to worry about rather than limiting our speech.
Haymanot Eshetu | Mon/Wed 3:30-4:50
Senate Bill 211 is completely unreasonable and most definitely will impact the meaning of free speech for American citizens. These rigts exist to allow for rights for all, afte rall that is the american promise. For this bill who is "reasonable" the officer or the citizen, or a bystander, these laws will be incredibly difficult to regulate and will only benefit police officers as it's their word in the trial against a civilian.
Through the first amendment, your rights of speech and religious pov's are respected and upheld, this is governors attempting to censor media that may not flatter their views. This has become an issue, policymakers own said news companies like FOX and MSNBC, and they already have their hands in controlling the media. Controlling the media is a pressing issue for them because we now understand a lot more and have access to voting, their private lives, and their treatment of civilians behind closed doors, and it's showing the ugly side of politicians.
The country's voting turnout has changed since Obama became president, waves of opinions are swayed and civilians are asking questions. Instead of assuring the people, politicians are trying to silence opinions at all costs which gets you wondering if they were truly ever serving the people or themselves.
Macayla M - Online
While I do see that we have the right to free speech as Americans, I think that the bill forbidding the insult and taunting of cops is meant in a different context. Police officers deal with criminals daily, so if someone were to make a comment that would seem threatening, it seems fair to me that officers would take action. HOwever, I'm not condoning officers using an unfair force against the public, but I understand that it's unsafe to make comments and threats that would make them assume they mean to inflict harm. As for businesses running themselves the way they see fit, I can agree with that. I would not want my own business supporting or making money from something I don't align with. However, I think that comparing that concept with free speech on social media platforms is not the same thing. We should be allowed to say what's on our mind, within reason, and not get banned or suspended for doing so.
Matthew Kokesh
3:30 p.m. class
These proposals in my opinion are uncalled for and would not even pass in my opinion. The legislation for damages against deleting religious posts is kind of weird. Its a private company and I find it weird when people other than the company such as twitter try and use freedom of speech laws on a private app. I also thing that the Sp12 law is a breach of the first amendment and would not pass but honestly it might. Overall I just cant believe how far these freedom of speech proposals are pushed when they are about private companies and it should not adhere to them. We live in a crazy time where lots of laws and proposals are going into circulation and will pave the future in such an important way.
Leslie B. 11am
The laws that Texas and Florida are proposing are blatantly against the first amendment. It’s scary how political parties are willing to try to encroach on rights mainly the first amendment rights to help them keep their party ahead. It’s just l showing the untrustworthiness of political figures.
Tyler E 3:30 class
I think it is a bad idea because each side is just trying to use these proposals to their own advantage. They also seem to have no regard for the first amendment which is wild because that shows our own government trying to silence us
Reuben O. (3:30)
I think certain platforms have the right to dictate what is being said and posted on their platforms, so I believe the bills being suggested are unjust. However, free speech is a slippery slope. Personally, I think as long as you are not promoting hate, violence, or spreading false information, you should be able to express yourself freely without backlash or being "cancelled". It should not be a crime to flip off a police officer, you should not have your book removed from a website because of your opinion about a topic, those certain things should be protected because they are not causing rational distress to anyone.
Madison R. (3:30)
I do not like the idea that you can get in trouble for flipping off police officers. It's a part of our free speech. Not everyone agrees with what some police officers do and I feel like they should have the right to express their feelings. As long as it's in a safe way obviously. Also, the fact that some social media sights are restricting free speech is crazy to me. Social media has always been a place where people can speak freely and have an outlet to say what they want. I feel like our right to free speech is slowly getting stripped away from us.
After watching the video I think that the propositions created are a misestimate because the power between officers and the population has its tensions. The fact that slandering officials can be unlawful is shocking. The first amendment is there for a reason. The terminology for what can be "derogatory" towards officials can widely range and cannot be specifically defined. In conclusion, the officials are the ones that determine how "derogatory" the statements may be.
Dakota Davis
11am
Listening to the proposals outlined in the article made me feel a bit uneasy. In today's society, we are accustomed to being able to express our opinions and criticize the government however we please. The first amendment aims to protects American citizens from government censorship, but in a society so digitized, it is becoming increasingly more difficult. Social platforms and the American government don't know how to navigate the grey area.
I do agree that private platforms should be able to limit any users they deem dangerous or damaging for their platform, like Donald Trump. However, I think banning people just based on political ideologies is foolish and a very slippery slope to fall down.
I'm not sure how I feel about these new proposals. On one hand there is a lot of misinformation and terrible messages on the internet, but is censorship the right idea? I do think that if the message someone is spreading is dangerous to public safety that it should be censored. But I don't think you should be able to censor someone just because they have different views than you.
I'm not sure how I feel about these new proposals. On one hand there is a lot of misinformation and terrible messages on the internet, but is censorship the right idea? I do think that if the message someone is spreading is dangerous to public safety that it should be censored. But I don't think you should be able to censor someone just because they have different views than you. (Accidently posted without posting my name)
Ansel G.
Online Class
While I do not necessarily agree with most of the proposals that were mentioned, I can't help but be neutral when it comes to politics. I think that people should be free to speak their minds and practice certain actions that may be questionable to me, but may not be to others. For example, the issue mentioned with proposal SB211 is that you may receive time for flicking off a policeman which limits one's right to express due to the insulting nature of this gesture. You'll never find me flicking off a cop or disrespecting one. I am Hispanic and about as dark as you can get, despite the absurd number of interactions I have had with police, none of them have been unpleasant or racist towards me. Then again, I respect the police and I communicate my appreciation to them, while they hand me my speeding ticket. Respect goes a long, long way. Unfortunately, inner cities are plagued with so many disparities that it makes it difficult to be supportive of one another. I can understand why SB211 is being considered because I come from a family of law enforcement. The number of insults being thrown their way every day because of the attitude surrounding law enforcement, an attitude that is supported by left-leaning politicians, is astounding and can cause unnecessary confrontations. This negative attitude towards policemen is exacerbated by the idea that policemen are inherently power-hungry, they are all bad, and "f*** them, that's why". If more people interacted with them, they would find out that they put on their pants one leg at a time, just like everyone else. Most people have derived this opinion of them because of the myth surrounding law enforcement in that they are the enemy. It reminds me of the plethora of videos on YouTube of interviewers asking college kids why they are voting for a particular candidate during this recent mid-term, and I kid you not, 98% of them do not know why they are voting for the person they named. The general consensus is that they "heard" their pick is the good guy and all their friends are voting for them. It's the same concept; most people have not had real-life experience with the police, otherwise, they would feel differently about them.
I believe that the proposals mentioned in the video are completely irrational and unreasonable. From being able to be fined and imprisoned for flipping off a cop; to government officials making unnecessary laws that only benefit them, is very disappointing to hear. If someone doesn’t like something that a a cop has done, they should have free will to express themselves however they please without the fear of potentially being fined or harmed for their right to express themselves. The proposals that are being made in Texas and Florida are especially ridiculous, these government officials are proposing all these laws simply with only their own personal interest in mind, and there is always a very thin line of what’s deemed acceptable on social media and what’s not depending on who you ask. The fact that they are trying to tell social media outlets how to run their platform is insane, because I believe that it is very clear when someone is being blatantly disrespectful to others and their viewpoints, so I believe that the rules put in place by these social media platforms are very necessary and government officials should not be the exception. We have been silenced for so long, and to think that they are trying to continue to silence our voices is a true violation of our free speech rights.
I think it's crazy that people want to censor social media beyond the first amendment. We should be able to state anything we want online with appropriate censorship and actual concerns, not just for political differences. These proposals are being disguised to be for a safer experience when in reality it's for political preference. I believe there could be censorship just like there is in real life with certain expectations. You're not going to yell fire in a crowded room and so you're not going to post threats online. However, censorship of unnecessary stuff is pointless and restricting.
Ariana M (Online)
I think these proposals are absolutely ridiculous. I was surprised to see the Kentucky bill trying to make it a crime to insult or taunt police officers. With the abuse of power we've seen from police officers, they do not need more protection. It seems to me they just want police officers to be invincible. It would be a shame to see any sort of bill like this be passed.
The proposals mentioned are borderline violating the First Amendment. I feel like the politicians are forgetting that they are supposed to serve citizens and do everything in the citizen's best interest. In my opinion, politicians let the power get to their heads and only act in their best interests.
Post a Comment