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 (released in 2021) 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?
With your comment, please include your first name and the initial of your last name, and your class (11 a.m. class, 3:30 p.m. class, Honors class or Online class). I need this information to keep track of your comments for participation points.
218 comments:
1 – 200 of 218 Newer› Newest»Jackson K - online
I personally don’t agree with the proposal to block these apps from censoring certain businesses. While I agree this can create a lot of influence, these apps aren’t the government, they are simply apps. I feel as if these apps can be run the way whoever created them want to. If an app wants to block certain people who post stuff they deem as harmful, they have the right to shut them down.
As citizens of the United States, I believe we should have the right to free speech. Freely expressing your thoughts and opinions opens conversations. It also is what makes us different. When talking about censorship online, having individuals unable to express their opinions, only conforms us. Individuality will soon be non-existent if policies like this continue. Alongside internet sites censoring content, I have a problem with the censoring of materials or individuals simply out of fear of being canceled or fear of associating with a specific part. For example, the banning of Dr. Seuss's book annoyed me from the start. Personally, I find it ridiculous that people believe that something in a Dr. Seuss book could be controversial or have a detrimental impact on their children's development. Another example is when Donald Trump was banned from Twitter simply because of his character. Not to mention, if politicians propose laws and rules that only apply to their own agendas, the over-popularization of one political party will be too dominant for other parties to fairly campaign. Overall, I consider censoring or proposing laws that limit free speech will only snowball and we’ll eventually be citizens who will be the exact same because our self-expression has been conformed to fit a specific mold.
These new laws, like making it illegal to insult cops in Kentucky, are definitely a threat to free speech. It’s crazy to think flipping off a cop could get you in trouble when that kind of speech is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment.
In Texas and Colorado, politicians are trying to control what social media platforms allow, whether it's stopping censorship or banning "hate speech." Both sides are trying to push their own agendas, which isn’t cool. Section 230 already lets platforms manage their content, so they shouldn’t be forced to change that.
Overall, I think these proposals are bad ideas. They mess with free speech and give too much control to politicians.
Sam K.
Online class
Ally D
Online class
Free speech is fundamental to our democracy, and the increasing censorship. Whether from the government or social media, threatens our individuality and open dialogue. The examples of Dr. Seuss and political figures show how easily we can slip into conformity when fear drives our actions. We need to protect diverse opinions, even if they’re controversial, to ensure a vibrant and dynamic society. Let’s keep advocating for the right to express ourselves freely
Hi, my name is Riley Andrus from the 3:30 p.m. class.
After watching the video and reading the article, I believe they are not good ideas. Laws like the one proposed in Kentucky, which criminalizes insulting cops, literally directly infringes on free speech and could be used to silence protesters and critics. Similarly, the Texas bill aimed at stopping social media platforms from moderating content interferes with businesses rights. These platforms should be able to enforce their policies to maintain a safe environment for their users without limiting their speech. Government attempts to regulate speech in such broad and vague ways set a dangerous precedent, potentially curbing free speech rather than protecting it.
Hannah McGee - 11 am class
My opinion after reading the article and watching the video is that the proposed bills are NOT good ideas. Both bills directly infringe the constitutional right of free speech, and like the video said, would not hold up in court. Government officials and bodies should not be allowed to censor free speech just because it could tarnish their reputation. And if it's "fake news" why do they care so much about it being removed? Just ignore it like regular day to day citizens have to.
Hey there! I am Kyla McClintock from the online class and after watching the video and looking at the article, I feel that as Americans we should be able to be kind and courteous about what others think. I firmly believe that when we are given free speech it shouldn't be to bash other people. In saying that, of course, people are going to do what they want, and therefore the bills shouldn't be passed. It doesn't matter if you are for the left candidate or the right, or whatever the case it, everyone should be able to get along regarding their opinions. I personally think that if you own a business, you should be able to speak what you think, but they should expect to either lose business or gain it. There is no win in the world of the government. Everyone is going to be divided until someone comes into office that will actually help the country and set it straight. If the government really wants to keep its citizens safe, they would move on from such insignificant issues and focus on something more important.
Ethan Ratliff
(Online Class)
The Kentucky bill that prohibits free speech against officers is a direct violation of Americans’ rights to free speech. I found it crazy that even hand gestures, such as flipping off a cop, could lead to legal trouble when the First Amendment is supposed to protect our expression. Though it’s not the best thing to do, it should spark a conversation about dissent and criticism, which are essential to our democracy.
I also don’t think the government should have the authority to ban "hate speech" on social media because that also goes against the First Amendment. I get that the intention might be to protect people, but giving the government that kind of power can easily lead to overreach and could silence important conversations. Free expression needs to be protected, even when it means allowing views that some might find offensive or uncomfortable. If we start picking and choosing what speech is acceptable, we risk losing the very essence of what makes our democracy strong.
Maddy Allen
11AM Class
After watching the video and reading the article, I think the proposals to regulate speech through legislation, as discussed, raise serious concerns. While the intention may be to protect individuals from perceived censorship or misinformation, government regulation of speech, especially on private platforms, can create more harm than good. It risks suppressing freedom of expression and places too much power in the hands of the state. Protecting free speech means defending even uncomfortable or unpopular opinions, and I don’t think these proposals effectively uphold that principle.
Hannah Holbrook 11am Class.
In some extreme cases, I believe government intervention is needed. particularly when it poses a clear threat to public safety or incites violence. However, it’s important to be carful of overreach that could infringe on free speech rights and suppress speech or protest. A balance must be found to protect public safety without limiting free expression in a way that harms our rights.
Brianna Bordosky- Online class
I believe that most of the proposals documented in the video are too regulatory and like the narrator said, directly defy first amendment rights. The law made towards crude gestures to police in Kentucky in my opinion is not something I would consider as "fighting words" (a concept we discussed in this class) and I believe those actions should be protected by the Bill of Rights as there is no harm inflicted. I also believe the banning of books and certain social media posts whether or not they be controversial in some contexts is a slippery slope. The contexts, problems, and sometimes misinformation that is spread should not be blocked altogether as that would truly violate our freedom of speech, but there should be additional context/fact-checking or expert rhetoric in order for the controversial content to avoid inflicting any harm. One thing I wanted to point out about the video was that the narrator insinuated a mis-justification of Trump's ban from Twitter, however Trump was banned after the 20+ tweets on the day of the January 6th incident. The content that was tweeted upon that event could be considered incitement to violence and in that case provides justification for termination of his account.
My name is Gretchen B., and I am in the 3:30pm class. After watching the video, I think that the government should strive to maintain as much free speech as possible. I think that if apps want to put some software for users under a certain age that censor inappropriate content out, that is fine, but censoring something altogether could be a violation of the First Amendment. I also think the proposal about police officers could be a problem too. If the police are called out to monitor a protest and someone decides to flip off the officers, they could be arrested for exercising their right to protest peacefully. When the government tries to silence free speech, it reminds me of when the colonies broke away from Great Britain and made an Amendment where the American people have a check on the government so that what happened to them doesn’t happen to us.
I’m Emily Googins and I am in the 3:30 class. I don’t really like the idea of these new laws. Any laws that have to deal with censorship of speech automatically make me nervous, and these ones do for sure. I think laws censoring online speech are always dangerous, and thinking you can simply “ban hate speech” makes me wonder how far we could be censored. None of these laws presented make me feel more comfortable. I think they are a threat to our freedom of speech and don’t go along with the First Amendment.
Chloe Brewer MW 3:30
I do not like the ideas of these new laws because as many of my peers have said, free speech is a promise given to the American people through the First Amendment and these laws almost destroy that idea. Free speech, whether people agree with it or not is still a right all citizens have. I especially worry about censorship, the concept itself seems very controlling. Like Gretchen said, I can understand security software platforms that censor inappropriate content but not cenosoring content entirely.
Buddy Santos M/W 3:30
Speech regulation proposals run the risk of violating the right to free speech and may have chilling effects that prevent people from speaking out. A healthy democracy depends on free speech, and speech restrictions can stifle dissent and limit lively debate. Regulations from the government may also be abused, which could silence critics or stifle opposing viewpoints. Promoting media literacy and critical thinking can more effectively address problems like disinformation than using punitive measures. In the end, any proposed legislation ought to be thoroughly assessed to make sure it upholds rather than compromises the fundamentals of free speech.
I think the proposed bills are bad ideas after reading the article and viewing the video. As shown in the video, both laws would be unconstitutional since they directly violate the right to free expression guaranteed by the constitution.In my opinion, Americans ought to be able to show consideration and consideration for the opinions of others. In my opinion, we shouldn't use our freedom of expression to disparage others. stating that since people will undoubtedly do what they want, the measures shouldn't be approved. might do more harm than good. It puts too much power in the hands of the state and runs the risk of stifling free speech. Upholding free speech entails defending even awkward or
Grace R. Online Class
Right off the bat what surprised me was the fact that Kentucky tried to pass a bill that would make it a crime to insult a police officer; when clearly that is a violation of a person's First Amendment Right. Also, these new rules and laws that politicians are trying to impose just because they don't like what someone has said or done are violations of the First Amendment. When it comes to the usage of the First Amendment, there are boundaries that one must adhere to keep their speech protected, but stating their opinion on certain matters is not one of them. Furthermore, I do not think that these proposals are good ideas, and I believe that they impose a threat to the First Amendment rights that we are entitled to as citizens of America.
Destiny Smith - 11 a.m. class M/W
After watching the video and reading the article, I do not agree with the proposals of these bills. The Kentucky bill is very obviously a violation of the First Amendment. Flipping off a cop is not something someone should be charged/jailed for. This is very much a way for the government to control citizens and place major power into police hands. I also do not think the government should be able to censor online apps. These online apps are not government entities and apps are usually made to be a form of open communication and opinion expression. The intention may be to protect people from hate speech, but people with hatred aren't going to stop, making things just far more worse.
Hi, I am Pete E from the online class. After watching this video, I think my overall feeling was a concern over how the concept of freedom of speech seems to have been treated in the last few years. It truly seems as if politicians will only defend the "free speech" which supports them or their agendas.
Speaking more specifically to each law or potential legislation presented in this video, I'll start with the Kentucky Bill that would make it a crime to taunt cops. Personally, I think this is going a bit too far. After all, people's right to express themselves is protected by the First Amendment, and this also includes language aimed at police officers. At the same time however, in protest situations police are often facing very rowdy crowds, and certain words might instigate acts of violence. So, I do not think there should be a law allowing the arrest of anyone who taunts officers, but in the cases where words are used to instigate or call for physical violence or harm, then, perhaps, a case can be made for an individual to be arrested.
On the other hand, I completely disagree with the Texas law that aims to punish social media platforms for how they monitor content. Social media companies are private enterprises, and they have the right to monitor their own websites. If people do not like the policies of a social network, then they can join a different network with different content policies. As long as a social media company is fairly monitoring content as they see fit, then I do not think they should be punished.
I also disagree with the Colorado law targeting hate speech. I think the wording of this law is too vague. As a result, some politicians might seize the wording in this law to give them the opportunity to silence their opponents. For example, simply disagreeing with a certain agenda may fall under the classification as falling for "conspiracy theories."
Also, I disagree with the idea of the government interfering with news networks on the grounds of "misinformation." The problem with this concept is both sides of the political aisle accuse each other of misinformation. News outlets from either side claim they are telling the truth, and the other side is lying. Honestly, I believe both sides have the right to report the news as they see fit. Unfortunately, in today's polarized news world, outlets seem to avoid simply reporting the truth. Thus, it is harder for audiences to seek the truth.
Overall, all of these proposed pieces of legislation show that the First Amendment's freedom of speech is a hotly debated topic today. Sadly, it seems that politicians today are willing to suppress the speech of others, as long as it brings them some kind of political benefit or advantage. For sure, I would like to see a political environment where both sides of the aisle are staunch, adamant defenders of free speech.
Alexis M. - Online Class
Changing the freedom of speech shouldn't ever be a topic of conversation to change or reluate. And they are vague at the same time of what they think should be restricted. These proposals are meant to be vague for the possibility of shifting it and using it for easier manipulation. To keep what they want to be regulated, what is more favorable to them. It's very interesting how freedom of speech is the thing that the Government wants to have some control over. Just a little thought I had of all our rights they want to change speech rights, or possibly it might be the beginning.
Gavin M, 11 a.m. MW class
No, I don’t they are good ideas, none of them are. Censorship is a terrible idea. The goal posts will always move to what is considered hate speech if it becomes banned. The lines between hate speech and normal speech will become blurred over time, until there are too many restrictions to speech, that we’re afraid to speak online. These examples provided are all bad. The fact that private companies with the power they do have, are seeming to control what is said, considering that they host a large flow of information, is terrible. If you want to own a public forum, keep it a public forum, with no censorship. Allow anything not inciting violence to be stated. The idea that individuals shouldn’t be able to say certain things not pertaining to threats or inciting physical death or violence, is insane. If it isn’t inflicting direct and irrefutable harm to an individual, it should not be punished, and in fact it should be allowed. We live in an era, where people want to silence a person for that person hurting their feelings with what was said. Not their body, not their limbs, nothing physical. We’re talking about their feelings. People would rather have their feelings protected, than allow freedom of speech to continue prospering.
My name is Kyle H. and I am in the 3:30 class. While I agree with most of the points in the video I feel the political climate right now is much more volatile than he realizes. So much speech can be misconstrued as instigation because the general public's idea of where the line is drawn has move incredibly towards the most simple aspects of political discourse. While laws are the last possible answer to the problem, there needs to be a societal change in order keep the peace. If laws can keep people from being shot by inept cops, keep political assassinations from happening, and just keep the more unruly aspects of our society from killing each other over who votes for who, then maybe its time to think of a way to do it without stepping on our free speech rights. I really don't think its possible but we need a way to keep this pot from boiling over because its getting really hot in this country (both literally and figuratively).
Matthew C 3:30 M-W. I agree with the points he is stating.These proposals are all directed and blatenly cracking down at free speech rights to support an agenda or to silence voices that may be speaking against them. I think there a terrible idea, and its infuriating just hearing about them. I believe these proposals are crossing the line in the sand set by the first amendment when it was first written. If you start setting boundries on what can and cant be said, especially with super broad terms like hate speech, then whoevers in charge can use these charges to arrest, silence, and harass anyone who isnt with there agenda.
Upon reading the first paragraph in this article I am absolutely disgusted. People get arrested for so many reasons and many times there should be no reason for the cops to put someone in this position. It is reasonable to react, especially out of anger towards a cop without getting physical. To make a law against this is absolutely insane to me. As for social media, I think it is very hard to regulate because there would have to be fact checkers built into everything and censorship of everything. It is hard to decide what to censor even if you don’t like it, but who decides that? These proposals are hopefully just proposals even if we see the government slowly trying to control everything for their own agendas.
Sophia Colston MW 3:30
Christopher K 11am M/W. Personally, I don't agree with these different legislations at all. The fact that the Kentucky state senate has passed a bill that would allow citizens to be punished for insulting or taunting cops is crazy. Criticism and free speech are at the core of our country and being thrown in jail for that seems outrageous. How else are people supposed to protest or share their dissatisfaction with government agencies like the police? Additionally, I think it's a really slippery slope for government agencies to start getting involved in online censorship. Ironically though it's also the Kentucky government that wants to punish social media platforms for silencing or censoring their speech regarding political or religious posts. I think that it's good to hold these companies accountable for biased censorship because this content-based regulation allows for certain ideas to permeate through social media more while blocking opposing ideas. But how can they propose that while simultaneously protecting government employees from the same types of public scrutiny or speech it seems counterintuitive to the goal of protecting the public's ability to exercise their First Amendment right.
Genavive Petrie MW 11:30
Although I agree that government should not be able to restrict free speech and that politicians on all sides try to create narritives that benefit their agenda, it's hard to comepletely get behind the point that privately owned social media businesses should be stopped from banning people and or messges. It is a scary propisition that we rely on social media so much for our news and information that may be censored or monitored, but at the end of the day they are privately owned and cant be held to the strict 1st amendment standards as publical places. I can see where the arguement stems, since these platforms are akin to public areas becuase there are so many people on them but they aren't. Especially with the way misinformation is running rampant, and how easily things that are not true spread I feel like social media have this huge burden of maintaing sites to not be truthful and encouraging. There should definelty be alot of discretion used against bias as to make sure peopel arent being censored on platforms for unpopular opinions.
Hello, I am Christian P. in your 3:30 p.m.
Personally, I don’t like any of the proposals that are being proposed from either side of the spectrum. I don’t think any of them are a good idea, only one can I think of as potentially good intentions but as they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. First with the bill that Kentucky Senate passed to not be able to insult and taunt cops, this is insane to think about the fact that the first amendment is being stepped on even more so that its against cops making it feel similar to Russia with not being able to criticize them. They should be able to handle insults and taunts without needing to cite people.
Next, in Texas with prohibiting business censorship and such, seems wrong and confusing that the government is trying to interfere with private business when within capitalism I thought that the government shouldn’t interfere. So unless its from a public or government building then the way that a private business runs their business is their business.
Then with Colorado on the digital communication commission, I understand where they are coming from with the last two points but like the article says its to vague to be able to actually be used in a proper way and as such this could lead to massive oversteps by the government. With the hate speech as we have learned there is a certain guidelines that must be followed to be classified as hate speech and id be worried of the commission following it.
M/W 3:30 Class -- I think these proposals relate to our lecture material regarding hate speech and "fighting words." While I personally think hate speech should not be protected under the first amendment, the court decisions reflect that hate speech is protected. Unfortunately, it's led to the downfall of X, formerly known as Twitter. Regarding the proposal to make speech towards cops illegal, I think since they're public figures past supreme court decisions reflect that speech such as that is protected. I see a judge blocking these bills if passed.
My feelings are mixed about the legislation being considered by various state legislatures, specifically in Texas. I understand the intention behind some proposals—like regulating misinformation or protecting individuals from harassment— but a lot of them seem like they take away from free speech and the free press. I believe that the government should be careful when intervening in matters of speech. History has shown that even well-meaning legislation can lead to unintended consequences. This allows for opinions to be suppressed. For example, regulating misinformation can easily become a tool for censorship, where authorities may determine what constitutes "true" information based on subjectivity. This can hinder the public's access to a diverse range of perspectives.
Claire Smith 3:30
Danielle Arciniega M/W 11am
It kind of baffles me but makes me laugh at the same time because so many people want to shush each other simply because they don't like the way something is said. Everyone is trying to control who says what, but that simply won't be the case because of the First Amendment. I understand the need of censoring sensitive topics, like political topics for example, as that can always get hairy, but at the same time, it shouldn't diminish what we have to say about a certain politician. I can't wrap my head around censoring what seems to me as the most normal (controversial) topics will almost always start an argument; there's no escaping that. To put a law over arguments because someone doesn't like what someone said, or because they feel threatened just baffles me because they are just words. Everyone is going to have an opinion on something, but that doesn't mean we should start putting laws on someone's own opinions
Lucy S online class
The proposals being made in attempt to "regulate" content on socail media is taking away free speech. Both parties seek to push out their own agendas and are stripping the American people of their right to speak freely on the internet and to show expression in person. How far will they take it, to the point where people are scared to speak out against what they believe is wrong? This country is a democracy, the more these laws come into effect, the less people have a say in their own country. I understand there are some things that should not be posted on apps, but false news is everywhere and it is not just from apps, news channels, as we have seen, are not always the most accurate news and just as biased. I see this as a violation to the first amendment.
Hello my name is Jamin Godwin-Ali and I'm in your 11AM class. After watching the video and reading the article, I think that all these proposals are not good ideas. For instance, the proposed law in Kentucky to criminalize insulting police officers is a direct infringement on free speech. Easily used to silence protesters and critics, it is simply frightening.
Similarly, the Texas bill that bars social media companies from moderating what contents appear on their platforms violates their business rights. Social media companies have to have control over what its policies are regarding creating a safe platform for their users without interfering with their moderation efforts.
The overall outcome of such actions by the government regarding their efforts to regulate speech so broadly and vaguely is dangerous. Instead of protecting free speech, these measures could curtail it tremendously.
Zoe C. 11am class
After watching the video and reading the article, I don’t agree with the proposed bills nor do I think they are a good idea. These bills violate a citizens right to freedom of speech. Although the intentions of the bills are to protect people, it ultimately just restricts citizens free speech. It is important that the first amendment is protected and not violated, and these bills do violate it.
Hello, my name is Dalilah G, and I am in the 3:30pm class.
I believe freedom of speech should be protected in the case of Kentucky, where a proposal that insulting cops can make it to where you can get in trouble and could potentially enact violence is too vague. There is room for somebody abusing that, especially in the wrong hands. Well, it's understandable. It's also not condemnable as it goes against the freedom of speech. For example, I could say, "That your hat looks stupid," and I could potentially get arrested for a comment that could be insulting to a cop, and if that cop is short-tempered, it could cause more violence than safety. In addition to the other forms of legislation proposed in Texas and others, the idea of being able to sue a social media company due to blocking certain people's behaviors or comments. It is tricky, but again, because there are other forms of expressing yourself and ideas. These social media companies can run it however they want because, at the end of the day, when you sign up, you agree to follow their rules while online, and they have a right to ban or remove content as per their terms and conditions. If the government had access to all social media, it would be a massive blow to freedom of speech and cover actually people's feelings over topics. Most social media apps just remove content that is found to be offensive or illegal
Aiden Gardner 3:30 class MW.
After viewing the video, I don't think the proposed bills are a good idea, but I think they should be passed. Does it somewhat restrict free speech? Yes, it does. However, social media is a wild place and I think there are some things that should not be shown or said, so I say pass the bills.
Heather Waters, 3:30p.m. I do not believe that these proposals are a good idea. I don't believe that law officials should be allowed to limit other individuals free speech rights. There are many instances of police brutality but people are not allowed to speak freely in front of a cop? It just does not make sense to me that you have to act in a certain way and give respect to law officials that is not reciprocated. I am not saying that law officials deserve to be disrespected, I just feel like if there is a standard that it should go both ways. If a citizen will be punished for cursing at an officer, punish the officer for cursing as well. No one should be above the law.
(Kaye Knoll, 11 am class)
In terms of the proposals in the attached article, I think balancing the need for free speech, and countering malicious disinformation are both important, but require careful footing. Clearly, something does need to be done about the various groups online and offline attempting to sow conspiratorial discord, and undermine democratic principles, but doing so in a way that leaves free expression intact is extremely difficult. The proposals in the article don't meet that test, and it risks them being either ineffective or unconstitutional. That said, in the coming years, a regulatory crackdown on big tech firms and the platforms they operate is extremely welcome.
erin merritt (11am m/w)
I don't think these proposals are fair or a good idea. Our first amendment is the freedom of speech, so I think our government shouldn't put any limits on what we say, create, or read. It would honestly be hypocritical, and I just don't agree with it. I think instead of this there should maybe be an age limit on certain social medias, or a filter to show you certain things and not show you others.
Mekiyah Marquez, MW 3:30 class
The Bill about making it illegal to talk badly about cops/ in front of cops is bs. I'm not at all saying that people should be insulting cops to their face but It's a very blatant infringement on the right of free speech as well as an abuse of power. People in other professions don't get the same protection from verbal assault, so why should cops who cant control their anger?
Regarding the other bills attempting to restrict speech on social media, I understand wanting to prevent hate speech but simply banning someone for being an 'a*hole' is a different story.
Hi, I am Zackary Martinez from the 11 a.m. class and after watching the video and reading the article I believe that the proposed bills are not good ideas. Censoring free speech towards the government, regardless of if it embodies the tarnishing of reputation or credibility, should not be allowed in the United States. The freedom of speech is found as the first amendment in the Constitution and without it who is to say you couldn’t make the comparison of the United States government and a unitary communist state like China. I believe you should be able to say what you want but given the circumstances sometimes you must face the consequences of your words or actions. Regardless of what people say about the government there will always be draw back and controversy given policies from both sides of the political spectrum, but ultimately society in the United States must rely on the government despite skepticism because it does protect our freedoms and rights in this country. The censorship of what some could consider “defamation” towards the government does not exist because the United States would be in shambles without the power and strength of our democratic republic policies. Whatever we say about the government doesn’t matter because we need the government to have our individual and societal freedoms.
Hi, My name is Rachel Perez, I am apart of the asynchronous class. After watching the video, I think that some of these proposals are okay. The first one being the Kentucky bill regarding police officers, I think it is a fair argument. Police officers risk their lives for ours everyday, yes there are some corrupt ones out there but theres corrupt people in any field. Since police officers do a lot for our communities I think they deserve to be respected. I mean would we flip off a member of the armed forces? Probably not. Now when it comes to the books, I think that is ridiculous. That truly does go against the 1st amendment. Those are just words on pages, what physical harm can it really do. People have the option of reading or not reading it and its a simple as that.
Mon/Wed
These are clearly a violation of the 1st amendment. Apps should be used the way the creator designs them. Restricting certain books as well is preposterous. It kind of reminded me of the book Fahrenheit 451 where they banned books. People should be able to post whatever they want on social media (in moderation of course). Hate speech is an issue that should be moderated. But just because someone’s being a little mean online doesn’t mean the government should have to start restricting what we post. People need to get some thicker skin and grow up and not take everything so personal.
These proposals represent a shift toward more government control over freedom of speech, which goes against the values protected by the First Amendment. By introducing criminal penalties for offensive speech toward police officers, as happened in Kentucky in response to the Breonna Taylor case, or attempting to control how social media companies manage content, like when Trump was banned from Twitter, I think these proposals are a bad idea because they restrict individual freedoms and give more power to the government. I personally believe that the first five amendments should not be changed, especially freedom of speech, to preserve the values the Constitution was made to protect.
Natalia H 3:30 pm class
Given what we have learned in our Media Law class so far, I do not think that these proposals are a good idea. In my opinion, they violate the freedom of speech amendment, and slightly mirror a dictatorship regime. Not being able to criticize politicians and their agendas defeats the purpose of a free press and free speech. Citizens of the US should be able to voice their opinions, especially when it comes to how we are being governed.
Avery May 11am class
Personally, I don't agree with the proposals and I see them as a violation to our First Amendment rights. I think that allowing the government control over these things is taking a step backward in our right to free speech/expression. I also think that by passing the proposal of punishing those who speak out against law enforcement/government is not a good idea. It allows the government too much control over the people, who I believe should be allowed to express their opinions without punishment so long as they are doing so in a respectful and safe way.
These proposals can spark important strong debates about the balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual rights. Some people may differ that these proposals are necessary to maintain public safety and order. For example, making it a crime to insult police officers could help protect law enforcement from harassment and threats, making sure they can perform their duties without fear. But, preventing social media platforms from moderating content might promote a more open and diverse range of opinions, reducing the different viewpoints. From this perspective, these proposals could be seen as a good idea because they aim to create a safer and more balanced environment for everyone.
Grace Raborn 3:30pm class
Diego Medel, MW 11:30
This is an interesting situation, while I full heartly agree with the rights of private platforms to moderate as they deem fit and have supported a lot of the suppression that has come on it, I also am not all for the lawless land that it can create and I think a good example of that is the takeover of Twitter and conversion to X by Elon Musk. Twitter used to be a great place but now X is rampant with disinformation, extreme right wing conspiracies, racism, hate speech and even snuff videos all on the timeline with little to no moderation taking place. This is somewhat of an extreme example of what happens when platforms don't police themselves. Now some people might have been upset when platforms did police themselves and censored these things but I think it was a much better time because unfortunately a lot of people online take things at face value, I have seen countless crazy political conspiracies and in the replies an army of people defending them and calling you an idiot for not believing that theyre eating cats and dogs in the middle of Ohio even if there is verified reports in the main stream media that is simply not true. These proposals though are just really overreaching the government shouldnt have a say in how these private platforms control the content they allow, I think they should be able to regulate themselves, in fact some of the proposals I do agree with there should be a certain level of regulation that they should comply with, there shouldn't be a safe space to share racism and hate speech and disinformation at all, especially with how rapidly news spreads on these platforms and the way their algorithms favor sensational content that attracts the most user interaction. Ultimately even though it is an over reach on part of the government I would be in support of legislation that puts a ban on things like racism, hate speech and misinformation because I think it is for the greater good, if we look back the Patriot act of 2001 that greatly broadened the surveillance powers of the government among other things could also be seen as an overreach on the part of the government but it was a necessary "evil" that was done for the greater good of our society.
Addie Hicks, MW 3:30
After watching the video I believe that the proposals made to limit what people are saying on social media and the internet regarding certain political or government topics is just unreasonable. Social media is essentially one of the biggest mediums for news in this generation. Realistically with free speech and free press in place, the people have a right to speak on any matter in any tone. It's unfortunate that the higher ups that are pushing for these restrictions cannot see how debilitating that would be for everyone else.
Camilo Mayer MW 3:30 Pm class. I do not think that the proposals stated in the video are good ideas. I think this because I believe them to be a direct violation and infringement on the 1st amendment, freedom of speech. While I do respect police, I do not think you should be in law enforcement if you can not control your temper when people are verbally taunting you. In regards to the social media proposals, I do not think the government should have a lot of say so in what people say online. Online speech should be treated as the 1st amendment in my opinion, and while there are a lot of vicious things people say, what makes it different than real life free speech?
Hello, my name is Destany Sanchez and I am part of your MW class at 11 am. As someone who's huge on social media, I personally do not agree with the government choosing to involve themselves in social media as it is a private business and the developers should have a say in what goes through their app and what doesn't. I do feel like that these social platforms should be moderated in some sort of way with how there are some actions that do cause hate speech on platforms, but it should be up to the developers, once again to enforce those rules and regulations on their app (like they have been doing). I don't think proposals are going to do anything and everyone should take some form of class or watch some sort of video of internet safety and what not to do on the internet at this point like they did in the 90's, because it's gotten to the point where there are a lot of incidents involving either hate crimes or cyberbullying because people cannot behave on the internet. Sure we have some form of free but limited form of speech on the internet but it doesn't mean that we should necessarily cause all these problems.
Emma Rosenberg MW 11a.m. class
I personally do not agree with censoring because it does not fully align with the freedom of speech. I do however think that there should be some form of moderation regarding content, but nothing that outwardly limits freedom of speech. I can kind of see sides when it comes to the law being made to not harass police. I think it can prevent a cop from doing their job to the best of their ability, but also, free speech is a fundamental right that we have.
Carlee Pharris: Online Class
After reviewing the video and article, I found the proposals regarding free speech and government regulation quite thought-provoking. The idea that government intervention can often pose a greater threat to free speech than private entities resonates with me. History shows that when governments impose restrictions, it can lead to censorship and the suppression of dissenting voices.
Bridget Price- Online: To start off with the proposal of Senate Bill 211, which mandates up to three months imprisonment for a person who “accosts, insults, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words.” I believe that this proposal is highly controversial as it limits our first amendment free speech rights, I think that this is a bad idea because it leaves too much power in the hands of the officer to decide what they believe is an insult or not and depending on who you are or if they officer think you're a threat or not will have different interpretations. I believe that leaving this much interpretation into the hands of a police officer to decide is inappropriate a misuse of power, if they want to do something like this it needs to be more clearly defined. I have had a friend for arrested for assaulting a police officer because he threw the pen back at the cop's chest after he signed the ticket he had got. Obviously what he did was disrespectful but the cop was also being disrespectful to him and my friend is around 250 ibs and 6,3 with a beard so I think the officer probably felt threatened by him, but if this law was passed then my friend throwing a pen at the officers chest could be sentenced up to three months in prison for simply tossing a pen if the officer deemed him a threat enough. Another legislation I wanted to comment on was that companies can be sued if they remove or ban a political candidate or political comments on their platform. I think that this is contradictory to every law that allows business owners to run their business the way that they want to. I think that this also prevents platforms from having control over powerful people such as political candidates that might fill up all of the comments on Facebook or twitter with political banter or content. If we didn’t have someone to combat this then I think we would have so much content it would be overwhelmingly controlled by who had more control over the media. If we make it illegal for Instagram or twitter to ban posts or people, then who will stop this content if we deem it as harmful or fake news. On the other hand, I can see how this concept of censorship can go to far with the proposal from the democrats about censoring hateful speech or order changes about the way the platform operates. I think that this would also be overcompensating and that this would be too far from the other proposal of having companies not be able to censor anything, and this could possibly infringe on the free speech rights within the first amendment. Overall, all of the proposals are either too far right or too far left and I think that there could be a good middle ground in-between the proposals to make for the best legislation to be passed over the concerns of police enforcement and social media censorship.
Julia Zeddies, Online class. I think that these proposals (S.B. 211, S.B. 12, and the proposed law to create more regulation of speech on social media platforms) are all bad ideas because they have the intention of either limiting free speech, or, in the case of S.B. 12, trying to allow for things on social media that is not up to the government. Each social media platform is a privately-run business, and due to the terms and conditions that we agree to when we sign up, they can choose what to censor. In terms of S.B. 211, it is concerning that an unconstitutional law like this is even being considered. The First Amendment grants all Americans a right to free speech, so if somebody flips off a cop, a $250 fine and up to three months in jail is an abuse of authority.
Lauren R. from the MW 11 am class. I think it is wild that anyone can see these censorship laws as anything but chilling. I also cannot imagine that this is constitutional in any way. Law enforcement officers already have the power to end lives and get away free of consequences in most cases-- giving them more power will make it so much worse. I do think censorship may have good intentions but there's a reason they say the road to hell is paved with it. However, I do think it's important to have some moderation. Just not government censorship.
Perri Mason 11am. After reading the article and watching the video, I still do not believe in censoring just because we do have freedom of speech for a purpose. Obviously, there should be some form of guideline in a way, but also the limit should be very broad. I do not think that its okay that the proposals are being made to limit the political/government topics on social media because, once again that an issue with freedom of speech.
Hi! My name is Aly D. I am in the 11am class on Monday/Wednesday. I believe in free speech as our first amendment should protect us, after watching the video I believe the new bills are not for free speech and pose a threat. I do not think this is a good idea as they are trying to censor/ ban what is supposed to be free speech. I believe if there was a balance between government and free speech then we would be on the right path to peace.
Haley Carter, 11 a.m. M/W class
Upon reading the article and hearing about a laws being ratified to control the way you even speak to police officers is a gross miscarriage of the law in my opinion. The perspective that police officers have an inherent step above “civilians” is very skewed, as I think they should be seen as equals protecting their equal counterparts, not their inferiors.
Natalie Ramirez - Online class
Out of the all the laws in the video, the one stating that insults against a Policeman would become a criminal offense was what stood out to me the most. The criminalization of certain forms of speech sets a dangerous precedent. Where does the line get drawn? This could open the door to further restrictions on free expression, potentially impacting other areas of public discourse.
Osmara Valles, 11:00 am class
After watching the video, I believe the proposal of these new bills are unconstitutional. These go against freedom of expression and free speech since everyone is allowed to say whatever they want on whatever platform they choose to do so. There is a fine line between threats and other concerning matters that might potentially harm someone to just overall expressing an opinion. I don’t think implementing a bill where censorship is involved should be a top priority today and definitely in this generation where social media is heavily used by everyone.
Cristian R - Online Class
These proposals raise significant concerns about government overreach and the potential chilling effect on free speech. While the intention behind some of these laws might be to protect public order or prevent misinformation, they could also lead to unintended consequences, such as stifling legitimate expression and debate.
In my view, these proposals are problematic because they risk undermining the fundamental principles of free speech. The government should be cautious in regulating speech, as it can easily lead to censorship and suppression of dissenting voices. Instead, fostering open dialogue and protecting the right to free expression should be prioritized.
Gina Deserio Online Class
Government actions at various levels pose a growing threat to free speech. I read that both liberal and conservative parties are pushing to restrict or compel certain types of speech, especially on social media, which I don’t believe is a good idea. Government-enforced restrictions in this area can be seen as a violation of First Amendment rights because they limit citizens' ability to express themselves freely.
Gracie Golleher - 11am class
After seeing the video, I think the new bills are dangerous and do not support free speech, even if I think our first amendment should protect us. Since they are attempting to restrict or outlaw what should be considered free expression, I do not believe this is a good idea. We would be headed toward peace, in my opinion, if there was balance between the government and free expression.
Ryan Orr 3:30 class
Restriction and censorship of any speech has always and will always be a bad day for the citizens of any government body. I agree that social media should never intervene in what should be posted and what shouldn’t. Even to the level of offensive and explicit content, as it is the job of the person searching to restrict their content in a way that is reasonable. The freedom of speech online is almost unlimited as most posts are not directed to individuals. However any post should fall under the basic jurisdiction of the first amendment, such as in cases of defamation. Hate crimes should also be held accountable by whoever posted, and in most cases, they are as everyone can always see your digital footprint. What government needs to realize is that these companies are in fact private and therefore should be allowed to govern their company in whichever way they want to. If someone doesn’t like how the site is being controlled, then don’t use it. In recent times there are plenty of outlets to use social media without the worry of censorship such as rumble, x, and more. In my opinion if the big tech companies don’t comply with the demands of the people, they will be overtaken by the smaller companies.
In recent years various state legislatures, including in Texas, has introduced legislation that poses threats to free speech and free press, as highlighted in the video attached. While some lawmakers argue that these measures aim to protect certain groups from harm or misinformation, I find them concerning because they could lead to censorship and a chilling effect on open dialogue. Free speech is crucial for a functioning democracy, allowing for diverse opinions and healthy debates. The potential for these laws to be abused is significant. History shows that government overreach in regulating speech often leads to violations of individual rights. Overall, I believe these proposals are not a good idea as they undermine the freedoms our society is built upon and could disrupt the open exchange of ideas that is needed for progress.
Mikaela Sedillo 11am Class
Danny Nguyen /Online class
I believe that censorship of any kind in a functioning democracy would't work. I think Bill 211 is unconstitutional and would negatively affect an individuals right to free speech, and officer would hold too much power. As someone who uses social media as a quick source of entertainment and sometimes news, I believe that it's important to have moderators to review hate content, and misinformation. Social media nowadays is stuck in a haze of what is considered freedom of speech. For example, the social media platform "X" or used to be known as Twitter, has now became a lawless land of racism, hateful videos, misinformation, and extreme right wing content. I believe that freedom of speech should has some sort of moderation towards (racism, hate crimes, political misinformation, biases) when it comes to social media, as you can see how divisive it makes our country. I consider some moderation as a necessary evil.
Alexah Alvineda 11AM
Recent legislation in Texas and other states that seeks to regulate speech raises significant concerns about potential infringements on free speech and free press. Many of these proposals aim to restrict content on social media platforms, limit discussions in educational settings, or impose penalties on organizations sharing certain information. Such measures can create a chilling effect, causing individuals and organizations to hesitate in expressing their views, which undermines open dialogue essential for a democratic society. Additionally, vague language in these laws can lead to arbitrary enforcement, further threatening the rule of law. While proponents may argue these regulations are necessary to combat misinformation or protect specific groups, the methods proposed often risk censorship and stifle diverse perspectives. Overall, although the intentions behind these proposals may be to foster a safer information environment, they frequently overreach and threaten fundamental rights. Striking a balance between protecting individuals and preserving free speech is crucial, but many of these proposals lean too heavily toward regulation.
Khalilah W- Online Class
I believe that we have a delicate check and balance system for a reason. More governmental control of our protected rights is not the answer to the problem of hate speech and misinformation. We should avoid censorship and preserve freedom whenever possible, however, in the face of imminent danger like major security breaches, insighting a riot, or trying to systemmatically overthrow the government, I believe addition legislation is needed to speak to those issues. We should also work on better fact checking and safety protocols to headoff misinformation on some platforms. Language can be added to privacy policies on apps and social media sites to account for this technology. Rather than banning or deleting a post, it could simply be labeled as false, thus removing the harmful nature of misinformation campaigns.
Jayden Henderson MW 11am
I somewhat agree with censoring, especially on social media. While the First Amendment is crucial for protecting free speech, there’s still a need for moderation on these platforms. Social media reaches millions instantly, so companies have a responsibility to manage harmful content like misinformation, hate speech, and incitement of violence.
I don’t think platforms should silence opinions just for being controversial, but when content has the potential to cause real harm, some moderation is necessary. This isn’t about shutting down free speech but about creating a safer environment. Censorship doesn’t have to mean blocking all voices—it can be about setting basic standards to filter out harmful or misleading content. Social media companies should aim for a balance that respects freedom of speech while ensuring a responsible online space.
hjj
kkhjg
Jollean V, M/W 3:30 class.
The proposals highlighted in the article revolve around government actions aimed at regulating speech, which often pose risks to free expression. I personally think many of these proposals could be problematic, as they could lead to increased government control over time and go against the First Amendment protections. It would be important to make sure any regulations carefully balances protection from harm with guarding and keeping safe free speech rights.
Keyari Davis - Online Class. The restriction of speech has never boasted well in the past. It is an individual freedom that gives citizens rights that not even the government should/ can take away. However, as presented in Texas the legislature is trying to limit Americans/ Texans their freedom of expression. The new bills trying to be passed, I feel will have a negative effect on the American/ Texan people.
Hector Santos M/W 11:00 A.M class
Much like everyone else here I agree that the policies in Kentucky are horrible as well as the ones on social media, so I am not sure what else to ad. Because I don't get involved in any discourse on social media I personally believe people need to make a much bigger deal about actual government censorship because that is very dangerous. Censorship of free speech in general is bad regardless of the reason. I understand that people in the higher authorities want to limit as much conflict as possible but I think this has the opposite effect. If someone is expressing harmful and hateful ideas why not just call them out or explain why they are flawed instead of trying to silence them? By doing this all it does is push people to be more isolated and as a result they will end up getting pushed to more extremes.
Hey! My name is Hunter Farias 3:30pm. Since I've been in college I've noticed that freedom of speech is a huge concern on campuses, so I totally get why this issue with government regulation is worrying. While I understand the need for some oversight, it feels like restricting certain topics or ideas could lead to a slippery slope. When laws start limiting what can be said or published, it can create a chilling effect, where people are afraid to speak up, even on things that genuinely matter. We need open discussion to challenge ideas and improve society; it’s concerning if these freedoms are gradually chipped away by legislation
Austin B Online
After watching this video, I do not think any of this is a good idea and feel that it would very much be an abuse of free speech. I do not believe that giving the government that much control is any way a positive. A law passed here for moderation and another over here and they are controlling anything and everything that individuals want to say. People should be allowed to express their opinions openly and without the free of something happening to them. It is odd to hear the politicians of pre internet to today seem almost opposite of what they wanted to fight for from controlling to lack of it. I could easily see the officers abusing these new laws if they were put into place. The smallest gesture or wrong look and get arrested for no reason. I could see social media platforms ending completely with these kinds of regulations went into effect. Think of all the people who were banned for something so small on social media. there would be a large number of lawsuits happening. I do not believe business would even dare to touch social media for there are times that users harass people for no reason and deserve to be banned or blocked. Everything would just be abuse of authority and none of it would end well.
My name is Kennedi Williams, and I have your asynchronous online class. I think the Kentucky bill prohibiting people from taunting or insulting an officer during a riot feels juvenile. Protest can be a very emotional experience for some people and there's a lot of passion behind it. People should be allowed to express that and I don't think an individual should go to jail because they offended an officer. An officer is there to protect and serve, so arresting someone because they hurt your feelings or said something you didn't like seems very weak to me.
I do feel as though politicians only want to sue social media companies/platforms when they realize they can’t control them. They want a broadcasting channel or social media site to show what they want people to see. They want to be portrayed in a certain light and I can understand that however they don't work for you. They’re not obligated to always show your viewpoints or represent your political party. If they give you special treatment, then they’ll have to do it for everybody. Social media users are allowed to express their political opinions online regardless of which political party or perceptive they represent. I don't think it should be censored unless it is blatant hate speech, or it's intended to cause harm.
I’m Christina Saenz from the 3:30 pm class.
After watching the video and reviewing the article, I feel that, as Americans, we should be able to express our views with kindness and respect for others’ opinions. Free speech shouldn't be used to tear others down. While people will ultimately say and do as they wish, I don’t think these proposed bills should be passed. Whether you support one side or the other, everyone should be able to coexist peacefully with differing opinions.
In my view, business owners should be free to express their beliefs, understanding that they may gain or lose customers based on those views. There are rarely clear "wins" in government matters; we’ll remain divided unless someone takes office who genuinely works to unify and improve the country. If the government truly wants to protect its citizens, it would prioritize more pressing issues instead of focusing on minor concerns.
Ty Thompson 3:30
The proposals to regulate speech across various levels-such as Texas's bill to limit social media moderation and Kentucky's proposed restrictions on criticizing police-have flaws despite a few valid points. These proposals overreach by attempting to compel or restrict speech, clashing with First Amendment rights. While concerns about arbitrary censorship and misinformation on social platforms are reasonable, legislative controls risk undermining free expression. Encouraging open debate and independent oversight, rather than state intervention, would better balance free speech with responsible content moderation.
I feel concerned about how freedom of speech has been handled in recent years. Regarding specific laws mentioned, the Kentucky bill criminalizing taunts toward police goes too far. While people have a First Amendment right to express themselves, including criticism of police, words that directly incite violence could warrant intervention.
I also disagree with the Texas law penalizing social media companies for content moderation.
3:30 class
Ashelyn P- 11 AM Class
To me, these laws are very upsetting but not surprising. We often talk about Supreme Court cases and how the judges typically rule in favor of free speech. Though they recognize that the comments/actions of the defendants may not be “nice” or “appropriate”, they are able to recognize that these actions fall under the First Amendment right to free speech and protest. Most of this speech fall under fair speech and criticism, which is what politicians and public servants sign up for when they place themselves in the public eye. These laws and regulations are directly impending on our First Amendments rights.
Aden L - 11am class
After watching the video I find myself agreeing the position of the host not just because its being feed to me but because laws which would send you to jail for insulting not assaulting but insulting a police officer are extremely unconstitutional. I think that laws which overextend there goal and silence free speech are insulting to the American majority. I never thought Id say this but I agree with Abbott in regards to how political are silenced when banned by these social media platforms I think its wrong in general and feel that it affects conservative polticals more so. Overall I hate the limiting if the first amendment and feel there is a line between fighting words and free speech. Also I think any government employee has not right to not here insults why there are at work or I guess on the clock.
Ashley Waters 11 am class
From my observation of the video and the article from Reason, I really do think these proposals carry a great deal of risk for free speech and free press protections. Many of the proposals mentioned in an effort to address issues such as misinformation and hate speech will cross the line into giving the government more power in regulating speech. That may produce a chilling effect on what individuals and media report or express. I would find it particularly intriguing the way in which all legislation, such as is being used in Texas, might lead to increased censorship when loose, subjective definitions of "harmful" or "offensive" speech could be used to silence critics. These kinds of laws may not only be at odds with First Amendment rights, but they can be a dangerous precedent of governmental interference with public discourse. Therefore, I believe education and awareness are far better options in handling such issues, like misinformation, than the introduction of wide-ranging and restrictive laws. In general, I think these are not very good proposals, as they have the potential to undermine some of the core values of free expression and create a slippery slope toward more government control over speech.
Peyton Bayne 3:30pm Class
Laws like Kentucky Senate Bill 211 this should never be passed it blatant anti free speech laws. Communities should be able to public discuss their opinions on local officials (including police) the power of public discourse/opinion is one of the core tools we as citizens have against tyranny. I believe social media has brought a lot of unpredictable effects on our political system but over legislating is not the solution. There should be a ethics board to make sure quality standards and TOS are being upheld, but I don't think it's the governments place to deem what is and isn't accepted to post on social media due to the precedent that would create.
Macie Saunders: 3:30 class!
I believe that these proposed laws risk a full violation of the First Amendment, as they entirely impede on free speech. There is too much room for abuse in a law that bans police-directed obscenities (what constitutes a threat? Who makes those decisions?). As for the moderation of social media platforms, I also argue against. Social media platforms are privately owned, so the government cannot infringe on a businesses' free speech rights and handpick which content is acceptable. While I wish it were lawful to ban speech and gestures solely on the basis of me not liking it, it is not and never should be in the United States. It's important to consider the reason Americans value the First Amendment so highly- there is no progress without criticism, and stripping the people's right to respond verbally is in direct conflict with that amendment.
Andy lacombe 11am class From my review of the video and the article, I believe these proposals present serious risks to free speech and press freedoms. Many of the measures intended to address misinformation and hate speech risk crossing into government overreach in speech regulation, which could create a chilling effect on what individuals and media outlets are willing to report or express. Legislation like that in Texas is especially troubling, as vague, subjective definitions of “harmful” speech could be used to silence critics. It’s essential to remember why Americans hold the First Amendment in such high regard progress depends on the freedom to criticize, and curtailing the public’s right to voice their views contradicts the very purpose of that amendment.
Andy Lacombe 11am another as well I would argue as well and go against them as well.
Kaiden S. 11 a.m. class
I do not think there should be laws censoring and regulating speeches on the social media platforms we have. While bad things do come from this, it reminds me of the Sullivan case we learned about in class, and how the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the newspaper instead of Sullivan because they wanted to allow breathing space for reporters. While not everyone is a reporter on social media, if the speech starts being regulated, then people will be afraid to share information and speak their mind when those opinions and stories may save lives. I think I agree with the democratic idea of regulating just the specific obscenity, fighting words, threats, and stuff like that, because those are still not protected by the first amendment. Other than that, I believe platforms should allow people to speak their mind, as long as they are following the rules of the platform and the law (speaking for US citizens).
Rylyne T. 3:30pm class
After reading the article and viewing the video, I'm worried about how government laws could affect free speech, especially in light of recent plans in Texas and other places to restrict what can and cannot be said online and in educational institutions. Some of these suggestions run the danger of violating First Amendment rights, even while they aim to safeguard groups or stop false information. Even well-intentioned speech restrictions run the risk of creating a risky precedent that eventually restricts free expression. Promoting media literacy and critical thinking may be a better method to solve these problems and safeguard democratic principles than enacting restrictive legislation.
Grace Wartman - 3:30 class!
The article brings light to how certain states and groups within the U.S are pushing for a more censored environment, both digitally and in person. If people don’t like cops they should be able to say something about it. The cops will get over it and live. This also is a huge reveal of prejudice on the Kentucky Senate’s part - so much so that it seems rather unfair. People should be allowed to air their grievances as they please, and stripping people of this poses a serious threat to their freedom of speech. This problem is seen across the entire political spectrum and makes the future of expression rights a little scary. This spike in censorship discourages political discourse and participation, which goes against the foundation and guarantees this country was built on.
Eric.S - 11am class
After watching the video, I feel we shouldn't be censoring people for their speech online, I feel like doing that is against our freedom of speech and as well people begin to get nervous to say things online as they feel we become regulated that we can only say certain things before being punished, which shouldn't be the case in our system. It really comes down to the people using these apes our platforms to regulate at the right amount, things such as racism shouldn't be allowed but someone speaking their opinion that they may not like something shouldn't be censored or an offense to be banned or removed.
Hi my name is Maddi Farmer and I am in your online class. After watching the videoC I do not agree with the proposals and putting them in place will affect our freedom of speech. The government is trying to censor speech digitally and using our own voice. I disagree with the proposal that insulting a cop would be considered a crime. I also do not agree that social media apps should be censored. In doing this, it defeats the entire purpose of the free speech we have as citizens of the United States. People should be able to freely speak their mind and share their opinions.
Luke Fox
3:30 pm Mon/Wed
After watching the video, it’s easy to see that no matter what side of politics you’re with, that side has been encouraging the lifting of restrictions on things they agree with, but want to further restrict things they disagree with, especially when it comes to free speech. With technology rapidly expanding in ways that haven’t been contemplated 10 years ago, it leads to people/organizations wanting to have a stronger fist to shut down opposition as uncertainty grows. I think the proposals want to wrongfully restrict free speech, and they only stand to benefit at what cost? It becomes a slippery slope when some element of free speech becomes less “free”, as it then brings the question of what are the limits of its regulation? Free speech must remain free if the United States wants to be known for its freedom.
Mai Tan
11AM MW
Even before watching the video, I believed that online speech should not be censored unless it was harmful in terms of the complex issues that we face each day such as racism or sexism. However, the video's contents display the government's fear of citizen-led government opposition on social media platforms. In today's society, social media is one of the largest and most impactful platforms to share and learn about current events and peoples' opinions on them. I believe that this type of speech is protected by the First Amendment, and that it is important to keep all these different perspectives circulating to uphold the notion of free speech in the United States.
Shelby Z. - 3:30pm class
After watching this video, I truly understand his perspective. While I recognize the significance of maintaining an online presence, I believe there’s a delicate balance between expressing an opinion and being disrespectful. In the realm of social media, even the smallest misstep can lead to cancellation, and this is especially true when discussing politics, where the stakes feel even higher. I believe everyone should have the freedom to express their thoughts, provided it’s done respectfully. It’s essential for people to avoid trying to silence opinions simply because they disagree with them.
Emma J 3:30 PM class
I do not agree with these proposals. The fact that in the year of 2021 even we were/are still trying to come up with ways to censor either media, or just people is crazy. It all comes down to freedom of speech, and this is a violation of that. The higher powers that want to fight back to things they either simply don't like, or just things they don't agree with. These are all issues that should not be ongoing, and will not stand up in the law in my opinion. As long as no one is being harmed, and they are just opinions shared, it is still just freedom of speech.
Sophia Delbridge - Online
Before looking at the article and watching the video I firmly believed that our media should not be censored by the government. While I can understand the reasoning's why they would want to put these proposals into place due to fear of an overthrown government. I think its hard to restrict free speech without taking away our fundamental rights. Once proposals like these start to be put into place it could give the government more ideas of ways to censor our media.
Knox White - 11am MW
I personally don’t think that it should be up to the government to decide content on social media sites because those are private companies which have the right to run their businesses the way they see fit. There could be an exception if it is something from a terrorist group or something similar, but even then it may be an issue where the government requests the site take it down and then it falls to the company’s discretion. If a politician doesn't like what's being said by the general public, then it is their responsibility change perception by serving their public and their interests.
Legislators feel that the solution to all problems are to pass laws and rightfully so because it is their job. Although, in this instance, this is not the case. I disagree with social media platforms censoring free speech and feel that since big tech rightfully has the power to operate their companies as they please there is not much you can do about it through constitutional legislation. I do believe that there should be a standard for these companies and consequences should be in place to hold these companies responsible for these actions that drastically have an effect on the majority of the population. With how popular social platforms are in today's world, free speech should operate just as it does in the Constitution. There just has to be a better legislation that can be passed to fix this issue rather than the ones mentioned in the video.
Kaden Bessent - 3:30 MW
Legislators feel that the solution to all problems are to pass laws and rightfully so because it is their job. Although, in this instance, this is not the case. I disagree with social media platforms censoring free speech and feel that since big tech rightfully has the power to operate their companies as they please there is not much you can do about it through constitutional legislation. I do believe that there should be a standard for these companies and consequences should be in place to hold these companies responsible for these actions that drastically have an effect on the majority of the population. With how popular social platforms are in today's world, free speech should operate just as it does in the Constitution. There just has to be a better legislation that can be passed to fix this issue rather than the ones mentioned in the video.
Faith Luis, 11am class,
This video was about the numerous bills that can seem a little out of reach & obstructing the U.S citizens first amendment right of freedom of speech like a Kentucky bill of it making it a crime to insult a police officer and if the crime is committed its possible to get up to three months of imprisonment or possibly a misdemeanor charge which can face a $250 fine or also a bill proposed to make social media companies liable for censoring users & can come with a pretty pricey fine . While watching the video it baffled me to know that this is a real concept that people are trying to despite the first amendment, freedom of speech. This definitely feels like these laws can get in the way of our freedom of speech & expression. I do not think these laws or some like these are not a good idea.
Hailey S, online class
I find these proposals troubling because they strike at the heart of free expression. Government interference in how platforms manage content risks undermining the First Amendment and could set a precedent for overreach. While it’s important to address harmful content, vague laws open the door to silencing valid voices and giving politicians too much control. I think fostering healthier online spaces shouldn’t mean sacrificing our fundamental rights. Instead, we should push for platforms to be transparent and responsible without heavy-handed regulations. Open conversations and community-driven standards seem like better ways to balance moderation with protecting free speech.
Bailey Williams, Online Class
I personally don't agree with the proposals to ban criticism of the police or add government censorship abilities to online platforms. While I do believe online platforms can pose higher security risks to our country as a whole, I don't believe censorship by the government is necessary. It is the right of American citizen's to be able to share their opinions, criticize their government, criticize their police force, criticize politicians and discuss any other topic they feel is worth discussion. The proposed censorship is worrying. It makes me concerned about how far politicians are willing to go when taking away our rights to free speech.
Ashley Avalos- 3:30MW
I do not agree with the proposal. If those apps want to be blocked or prohibit certain activity, they have the right to make changes. If there is inappropriate and foul activity then those should be blocked. For many businesses, the source of exposure for their products is only social media and for it to be taken down is not fair.
Hi, my name is Julianne L, and I am in MC4301, the 11:00-12:20 fully in-person class. After reading the article I think that these
proposals are a bad idea and believe they threaten free speech and the right to dissent. Laws that criminalize insulting police officers, or regulate speech on social media, are damaging to the very ethos of democracy since they may make people feel inhibited from highlighting authentic grievances against authority and muzzle unique discussion in the public domain. In addition, the vagueness of these proposals opens the door to random application and selective persecution, suppressing free speech even further. Instead of promoting open discussion, it seems that these efforts aim at advancing political agendas, and it should be of great concern that free expression by all citizens is protected.
Brianna V
Online
After watching the video and looking at recent laws in Texas and elsewhere, we need to protect free speech. The bills trying to limit what we can say on social media are worrying because they could lead to government overreach in online discussions. Social media is crucial for sharing ideas, and if politicians start restricting it, it could just get worse. While addressing harmful content is important, these laws could easily infringe on our right to express ourselves. We need to find a balance that tackles truly harmful speech without crossing into censorship. Overall, these efforts make me uneasy about the future, which is why I support keeping free speech as open as possible.
I am in the 3:30-4:50 MW class
I believe that these proposals are a bad idea for the 1st Amendment. Some of these bills are textbook infringements on the 1st amendment and it's ridiculous that the government is trying to censor this much content online. The internet is a free place where yes some things need to be taken down if it violates the media community guidelines, but not everything. This can ruin some small businesses' look online.
I am in 11am Monday-Wednesday class. Seeing these new laws as a bad idea makes sense. They risk government overreach into free speech, which the First Amendment was designed to protect. Laws that criminalize certain speech, like criticizing police, or force social media companies to follow government rules about what can or can't be posted set a dangerous precedent.
Eric Ulmer- Online class
These proposals of regulating content are inherent preventions of our First Amendment rights. I believe that free speech is so very important to our American society, and attempting to prevent political candidates from campaigning is maddening. These proposals are a horrible idea, and leads me to ask, what rights are the government going to attempt to take next? As the American population, we need to take every possible step that we can to stop the government from taking our "god given" rights.
Kaleb Leighton-3:30 Class
I'm not to sure what to say I'm not to big on social media and doing use it a whole lot so i don't have a clear stance as it dost affect me at all. I do think that people should be able to say what ever they want weather that religion, or politics, but if its to far then I don't know how you would regulate that.
I’m Amy N. from your online section, and it's surprising that the government would try to censor Americans' free speech. The United States is known for its democracy and freedom, and with all this censorship happening, it calls into question these American values. Censoring the media and the public is not a good idea because it violates the First Amendment.
The Kentucky Senate passing S.B. 211, which states that insulting or taunting an officer could get you fined or jailed, is not right. This is wrong on so many levels, especially because of the interpretation of what is "insulting." Police officers could use this to target minorities more easily, claiming they were taunted when that may not be the case. I think that since cops are trained professionals, they should be able to handle public opinion and be considered "the bigger person" with higher expectations.
This bill would impact free expression because it’s essentially censoring society.S.B. 12 is another attempt to censor private companies on social media platforms. Even if the content is harmful, society still has the free will to avoid harmful content on their own social media. I think it's important when Americans criticize the law and speak up about how they feel. When free speech is censored, our rights are violated, and we live in a democracy where we are allowed to have our own opinions.
Garrett Poor M-W 3:30
I don't believe that we as a state or a nation should ever censor speech unless its really bad such as terrorist threats and what not but i do believe that some police officers do face threating comments sometimes and maybe fear for their life but you never know. But looking through apps is kind of off putting because probably one out of 100000 people are probably dangerous. By our government being so nosy will definitely rub some people the wrong way because a lot of people these days do not trust the government and that will just add to it. Maybe there can be a way to make like a special reporting system for people on the app to press if they feel someone is a threat but still its online and you really never know someone's intentions.
The government attempting to pass legislation regarding moderating content goes against the First Amendment. Conservative politicians like Abbot and Desantis want to pass laws that ban the censorship of conservative politicians and speakers, impose fines, and allow users to sue if they feel like they have been treated unfairly. However, these laws will only benefit a select few. Since social media platforms are privately owned, they should be able to make rules and regulations about the content posted. Many platforms have rules against hate speech and harmful content, suspending accounts that break these rules. However, this type of legislation will allow users, specifically politicians, to freely post and spread harmful rhetoric. As the video says, many politicians want to “control speech in a way that favors their agendas and they don't care about whether a law respects the First Amendment.” Platforms should be able to keep their right to de-platform users who go against these guidelines without political interference.
Nairobi Alford 11am class
Sydney Allen-Online Class. I do not think the proposals are a good idea because they are limiting the right to free speech. When the government starts being able to control what we are allowed to say that is when the principles of our society completely change. Creating laws that will criminalize someone for exercising their First Amendment right interferes with American values.
Hello, I’m Adriel Carrasco from MC 4301.001. Honestly, I don’t agree with the article’s take. I think some speech limits, like stopping misinformation or hateful content, might actually protect public safety. Plus, holding companies accountable for biased moderation could create fairer spaces online. Free speech is important, but so is making sure it doesn’t harm others or spread falsehoods unchecked.
Marcus Alexander MW 11-12:20
The article discusses recent legislation that some believe infringes on free speech by allowing the government to control certain types of online content, like misinformation or hate speech. Personally, I don’t agree with these types of proposals. Free speech should be protected as much as possible, and having the government regulate it, even with good intentions, risks limiting diverse viewpoints. It’s crucial to let ideas, even controversial ones, be debated openly rather than restricted by legislation.
Zane Burgess 11-12:class Monday and Wednesday
I believe that everyone has a right to say what that please. But I believe a lot of people use and abuse this freedom. As I said I agree with no one can take your ability to use your words and form your sentence for you. But that doesn’t mean it allows you to say things that can give you consequences for those said words. For the police officers I don’t think you should be able to provoke them because their job is to deescalate the situation and keep peace and order. I don’t believe anyone should be flipping anyone off or cursing at someone. I feel like it’s aggressive and wrong. And when giving warning and amping the situation up they have authority and if need they will use it appropriately. Some officers are over the top and on power trips but most of the officer I’ve had run in a with did the ere job professionally. As a whole you still have the freedom to voice your opinion but that doesn’t make you invincible to your consequences.
Hi, I'm Marley T. in the online class. I believe free speech is a right that everyone is given the day they are born in this country. Although people can use it unfairly, it is a given right. Although flipping off anyone, especially the police, is not right, I do not believe people should suffer consequences for it. The second a person puts their hands on a police officer is a different story, but everyone should be allowed to speak what they feel, even if it is not agreeable, as long as it is not disturbing the peace and inciting a riot.
Jordan Sedillo-Online class.
I believe that since we are in the US. Freedom of speech laws are very important as it allows us to express ourselves freely and not have to worry about being censored by the government. I believe that having censorship of online post is not a good thing, as it goes against free speech and people should have the right to express themselves online if they agree or disagree with something. I also think that censorship of online post will have a snowball effect that is not a good one. As it can lead to people’s voices and concerns being left out, over important matters because they’re censored. Laws like this are not very good in my opinion as well, as how are we supposed to have discussions on topics if one side is censored of course this is just an example but I feel like as a society we would not be able to advance any because there is no one to question things.
Zoe Smith 11am M/W
I do not believe these proposals are a good idea. I feel this most strongly about the bill which makes it a crime to insult or taunt cops. If it is not illegal to insult or taunt a regular citizen, why should it be illegal just because they have a badge? Insults and taunts do not bring direct harm. I believe this bill could lead to the wrongful arrest of so many people. Being arrested or confronted by a cop can sometimes be a very emotional situation. This may lead to someone flipping a cop off or “taunting” them due to a heated moment. But I do not see something so simple as that being worthy of jail time and a $250 fine. As for the bill’s proposals with social media censorship, I do believe that platforms should work to remove all fake news (that is not in a sarcastic manner). However, people should have the right to post their political and religious beliefs.
Will McCommas, 3:30 Online Class.
After watching the video and reading the law proposal, I believe that this law should not be considered. Swearing and using your middle finger do not constitute fighting words or pose any immediate threat to anyone. I also find that small laws like these are stepping stones for law makers to make new ones that further restrict our first amendment rights to freedom of speech. I think that we should be able to express ourselves how we want to, as long as these expression don’t cause or incite any violence or harm.
(Sarah K. ONLINE)
After watching the video, I don't think these laws are a good idea. It seems like the government is trying to "help" whoever is feeling insulted by these accounts, but at the end of the day, they are just trying to push out a narrative that works for them and their campaign. It seems hypocritical that they would want to censor these accounts, but [some] will turn around and say or do the same or worse things. The Kentucky law is also absurd, I understand the "disrespect" aspect of it, but that is no comparison to the disrespect and discrimination that police officers have done to citizens all over the country, no matter their race, religion, or ethnicity. Granted, some officers can do their job professionally and peacefully, but in the same breath, some citizens are and are not compliant. Also, the law is a complete violation of the First Amendment (freedom of speech and protest).
Paulina P (11 am) I personally think that having free speech should be protected but in the same way I feel like people take advantage of it and feel like they can do and say whatever they pleae even if it harms another person at the end. i think social media should be a place where we can post whatever we want but it will turn into a problem when it's hate speech or bullying so I think we should have limits on what we comment.
Reese Z
Online
I don't think these proposals are a good idea because they infringe of free speech. The article mentioned that politicians from both parties are willing to propose and fight for certain things that further their agenda. The only agenda should be following the constitution and protecting the peoples rights. All of the proposals whether I think they are good or not, are bad ideas because it violates the First Amendment.
Kenna G
11 a.m. class
I think that freedom of speech is vital to democracy but I don’t agree with hate speech from either party. All hate speech is violent in my opinion but I know under the law that it’s protected under the First Amendment unless it incites/leads to violence. These ideas are just very subjective in my opinion and I don’t think that the government should be able to censor anyone, I just think hate speech further divides us and does more harm than good. I don’t agree with these policies because I think people should be able to speak their minds but I think that it should be done in a way that doesn’t hurt or make others feel unsafe.
Alexis D
11AM Class
After reading the article I think that free speech is a vital part of the country. This proposal should not be considered because as citizens we have the right to express how we feel.
Yes, sometimes I think it is too much and better left unsaid, however the second we start filtering words or phrases thats when it becomes subjective and opinionated. This is where it becomes right and wrong and makes one person have to dictate it and be the decision maker. That I do not agree with. The whole limiting free speech would do more harm than good.
Coty G. 3:30 p.m. class
I don't care for the Kentucky proposal that makes it illegal to insult police officers because any law that hinders speech can have adverse consequences such as a chilling effect. Since it is a jailable offense to "insult" an officer, people may go out of their way to avoid unintentionally offending an officer or completely avoid them all together. These laws are also rife with selective enforcement and can be utilized to punish individuals who police may have personal grievances with. Essentially, these laws can cause more tension between police and their local communities which is not what anyone wants.
Kallie Petty
Online Class
I feel as though over the last few years, especially very recently, the idea of freedom of speech has become very blurred and the government is making too many loopholes around what is and is not considered freedom of speech. I think a large part of our country used to be what freedoms we were given and what we, as a country, agreed were our rights. I do not agree that we should be censoring what can and can not be said to a police officer. There is a lot of controversy around how people interact with police and how what you say can and will affect how they choose to treat you and I think that not allowing us to "insult them" gives us as citizens too much room for error and leaves what can be considered an insult up to the police, which I can not imagine will go over well for many.
As American citizens, I believe we should have the right to freely express our thoughts and opinions. Freedom of speech fosters meaningful discussions and helps us maintain our individuality. When people are restricted from sharing their views online, it forces everyone to conform. If policies like these continue, personal expression will eventually disappear. In addition to online censorship, I’m also troubled by the practice of silencing individuals or content out of fear of being canceled or associated with a particular group. For example, the banning of Dr. Seuss books frustrated me from the beginning. It seems absurd to me that anyone could consider a Dr. Seuss book controversial or harmful to children’s development. Another case that bothered me was when Donald Trump was banned from Twitter just because of his character. Furthermore, when politicians create laws that only serve their own interests, it makes one political party too dominant, making it hard for other parties to campaign fairly. In the end, I believe that restricting free speech through censorship or biased laws will lead to a society where everyone is forced into the same mold, with no room for self-expression.
Sally P. Online: I believe it is wrong for these social media platforms to silence certain groups of people and their ideologies. Especially platforms that reach so many Americans! A social media platform should be just that - an open platform - for anyone to share their thoughts. Free speech has been blurred by recent politics, and after reading about the bill against "taunting and insulting" cops, this line continues to blur. I always return to the question, "who decides what is okay and not okay to say?" We don't have a societal handbook that dictates and outlines what is and is not acceptable, because everyone has their own personal moral compass. And this is a good thing, it is what keeps individuality present in our amazingly diverse country. I hope that people realize that being offended and disagreeing with one another is what harbors compromise and understanding in the long run.
Nikki De Guzman
11:00 am M/W
As an American Citizen I do not agree with the proposals mentioned in the article. I believe that every American has the right to free speech and no one not even the government should be able to censor you. I think that as long that your speech doesn’t incite violence, people should be allowed to say and post whatever they want. Not everyone is going to agree with you and not everyone is going to like what you say or post. People just need to realize that yes there’s going to be hate/bullying, but that is just the down side of living in a free country. It would do more harm if people weren’t allowed to freely say or post whatever they wanted.
Priest W - 3:30
After reading the article, I gathered that the laws being pushed are strong violations of the 1st amendment. In totality, it is a force of hand from the government on the citizens rights and protections. Business’s should control their usage of their personal apps as long as they remain fair and true. This is a clear sign that they want to limit voices. Including the law regarding speech towards law enforcement. Never once has it been okay to get violent or violate someone’s rights because they passed judgement. The boundaries of our free speech are slowly becoming more restrictive.
isaiah koch
3:30 class
i dont think any censorship should be allowed on apps, i noticed instagram censors and removes comments often. i think freedom of speech is one of the most important things in our constituion. The freedom of expression is curcial for us as a society. Its what separates us from communist countrys. Our freedom and bill of rights is what makes america the land of the free and home of the brave.
Mikenna Pugh 3:30 class
After reading the article, I find it disturbing, and I disagree with the bill's passing in Kentucky. People should have a right to speak their minds and stand up for themselves, even if someone else may find it offensive. Speaking freely is preached daily, and it is unfair for someone to take that away.
Levi Davidson 3:30 Class
This 5 minute video inspired me much more than either political candidate in this year's race did. Sadly. It hurts as an American to see people from the same county, same parents even, not be able to have a civil conversation about politics. The way that the American people have become so one sided that they can't understand underlying points from either side is not only causing a massive miscommunication between many americans but also throwing younger voters from even choosing a candidate.
Ivy Murph 11am M/W
This seems ambiguous and subjective. There's no way to draw a clear line of what's free speech and what's not with this proposal, giving more power to law enforcement and too much room for interpretation. This could also lead to certain individuals being targeted unfairly. It's possible to maintain respect for law enforcement while still having free speech.. For social media, it should be up to the platform owners and not politicians. I don't think anyone should have to power to what we see, hear, or say because it's how we learn and grow as a society.
Allie.K 3:30pm Class
No, I don’t think any of these ideas are good. I believe censorship is bad because it begins to risk the confusion of hate speech and regular speech, leading to a plethora of restrictions. I believe these private companies should not be able to control speech on public forums. It is called public for a reason however, I do think that there needs to be limitations when it comes to violence.
Katherine Rea 11am class
I think it’s important that we have the right to express our freedom of speech and the Kentucky bill that makes it a crime to insult a police officer goes completely against that. I think this would incite even more police officers abusing their power. This would also make people fearful of expressing their rights and protesting. I also don’t agree with censorship on these apps because like stated in the video, it is such broad terms and could lead to media appealing to certain agendas. But on the other hand if it could cause mass harm there should be some sort of regulation but I am not sure if the government should be the one to make that call. I just think that if media outlets intentionally spread false news, they can be held accountable in court without having to create laws that go against our rights and the constitution.
Sydney Stribling -M/W 3:30 pm
After watching the video and reflecting further, I believe it’s essential to uphold the freedom of speech, allowing people to express their thoughts, opinions, and engage in open conversations. Although I strongly support free speech, I also think there should be some form of regulation to detect and address harmful, violent, or otherwise unproductive speech, as well as speech that is falsely presented as fact. However, I don’t believe we need new bills or laws to enforce this, as that would interfere too much with the right to free speech. Instead, I think more focus should be on responsible communication and self-regulation to maintain a space for healthy and truthful discourse.
Cassie King- 11am class
After watching the video and reading the article I think it is essential that we uphold our first amendment. While it can be uncomfortable to hear views we don’t agree with, or things that may feel are rude to us specifically or a group if people, at the end of the day it is our right to say those things . I think when deciding these laws it’s important to think how you would feel if your party was saying things that were being censored. I also think that while we have this first amendment right, it does bot mean there are no social and personal consequences for the things you say.
Colton Winters (11AM class)
My thoughts after watching this video and reading this article I think that every American has the right for free speech and it is impotent as a community and a country to have this. Even if people do disagree with other it brings more discussion about certain topics and allows us as a community to somewhat be more together. I don’t believe censorship through these media outlets should be allowed because that takes away the purpose of media entirely. You’re supposed to voice how you feel, however I do feel some regulations can be put on them without taking it all away.
Hi I'm Rubi G from the online version of this class. After watching the video and reading the article, I understand why these regulations were proposed: hate speech, misinformation, and harmful content are rampant on the internet. Many people agree that social media platforms aren't doing enough to address these issues, which has led the U.S. government to propose new laws aimed at encouraging "responsible" moderation to protect the digital space. At first glance, these proposals may seem like a reasonable attempt to regulate online information. However, I believe they pose a serious threat to free speech. While private companies like Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook are often criticized for their own speech restrictions, the greater danger lies in government-imposed regulations. When the government controls speech, rather than private companies, it wields the full force of law and enforcement. This amplifies the risks to personal freedom and democratic values. Government regulation of speech is a slippery slope: what is deemed "acceptable" speech becomes shaped by the prevailing political and social climate, potentially leading to censorship and increased control.
Hi this is Jackson Brown from the 11:00 am class and I watched the video on limiting free speech on social media. I hated all the proposals and I hate all social media. That said, social media companies are privately owned businesses so that means they can do whatever they want under some sort of regulation. I think it’s hilarious that people get offended on what is being posted online by random people. Politicians have always been criticized publicly but now because it’s online they think it’s okay to restrict our first amendment right. Thats hypocritical to me. Obviously hate speech and violent threats are not okay but what do you expect when the platform is open to literally everyone. If the government were able to restrict/regulate everyone’s post then what even is the point. I don’t agree with the proposals and I think very minimal regulations should be set but if drastically changed I pray on social medias downfall.
Alexis Thames (11am) M-W
The proposals initially seem like a good idea, blocking out hate speech and regulating specific apps more; however, the government is overstepping. These proposals are wanted by politicians so they can be benefited, in the way individuals of power can punish someone for speaking freely online. I believe censoring the media is not a good idea. Even though individuals may not agree, seeing different viewpoints and other opinions an opportunity so we can all stay more open minded. Censoring conversations because you don't like them?? Not everyone will have similar opinions on things, and that's the great thing about free speech, it sparks discussion, curiosity, and opens a place for you to learn or teach others about topics. Censoring different opinions and what politicians may see as "unacceptable" violates our first amendment.
The "immunity to police officers" is scary. Especially considering over the past years police brutality has been a popular headline for many devastating occurrences across America. Although this was established to protect police officers while doing their job, police officers need to hold accountability for their actions. Their job is to protect the people and keep areas safe; unfortunately, some of these officers abuse their power and walk away with no consequences. Considering this, immunity to police officers can be a dangerous opportunity.
Jasmine Lozoya (11a.m. M/W)
I personally do not think these proposals are a good idea because they bring a major threat to the first amendment. I think using legislation to hinder what we can and cannot say legally is a major harm to one of the most foundational freedoms we are granted. For example, the Kentucky one where it would be illegal to insult a cop. This would silence the people and as a democracy it is our job to stand up and use our voice individually. In a way, these proposals remind me of the Alien and Sedition Act where the government limited free speech and talking badly about the French War. History is about learning from past mistakes and not making them again. The people cannot lose their voice, it’s often times all they have.
Hi, this is Lucia Roquebert Martinez from your 11 AM class. I don't think these proposals are a good idea to implement because it is critical to keep the constitutional citizen's right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment. For example, the law in Kentucky about not being able to insult a cop would be a direct limitation to citizen's rights because people have a right to express how they feel, even to someone in law enforcement. It's scary to think that an insult to a cop could land you in jail and make you pay a fine of $250.
This is Kendall Casanova from your M/W 3:30 class
I do not believe that the proposals are a good idea, it is very important to keep our right to freedom of speech. I also believe it is unnecessary for Kentucky to not be able to express or insult anything towards their officers, people have the right to their words no matter who the person is, and limiting this for officers is removing our right to express how we feel. Though it seems like a good idea at first, removing hate speech and blocking it from the public view, overall this just limits our rights and even makes me nervous to know that the government can control what I see and am aware of.
Hanna Prince. Online Class.
I (and many Americans) believe true speech is just what it is: free. There shouldn't be any laws that restrict this right simply because it could be damaging. many peaceful activists will tell you that sometimes things need to be said in a bold way In order to enact the change that is needed. I also completely understand and agree with private companies choose to limit what content goes through their platforms, but i draw the line at government control over speech. Yes, hate speech is not enjoyable and needs management, but without free speech, we wouldn't be able to believe and speak what we want as humans. These laws often are also under rules that are oddly specific, and sometimes allow authority figures to allow what they see fit, which may be even more problematic than straighter laws that limit free speech. Because of this, I believe these proposals are a bad idea.
Hannah Schwartz 11 am class M/W
I do not agree with these proposals. I don't think there should ever be any laws that limit our free speech. While it is frustrating to see stuff we do not agree with, we can not allow some speech to be free and not all. While removing hate speech sounds nice, I do not feel comfortable with the government having that much control over our media.
Ximena Garcia (11A.M. class)
These are not good proposals because they go against what the First Amendment is all about. Not having the right to say whatever you want, even if it may be offensive goes against the right to freedom of speech. It is up to companies to run their social media. The government wants to control what is being said and what will work in their favor. I also find it absurd how insulting a police officer can get you in trouble when we have the right to free expression free from government restrictions.
Kobe A (online class)
I have always been a huge advocate for protections of our First Amendment freedoms, and I truly believe that the S.B. 12 bill is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. This is something that I personally can't get behind because any limitations on our freedom of speech is just something that I don't feel that I'll ever agree with, given the fact that I study and pursue a career in journalism and throughout that process I've realized just how important these protections are. On top of that, it seems clear to me that this bill would only put more power in the hands of our state government and less freedom for our Texas citizens, which honestly just sounds outrageous to me.
Katherine Andrews, MW 3:30
I really enjoyed the article's assertion that we can criticize social media companies' decisions to ban certain individuals while still recognizing that they have a constitutional right to do so. I definitely oppose any legislation that seeks to limit individuals' right to free speech, even if I strongly disagree with what they are saying. I also liked the article's analysis of the way politicians use the concept of free speech to crack down on speech they disagree with. Free speech can be uncomfortable, but it's worth the struggle.
Giuliana Fantry (11AM class)
In my opinion there should not be any laws going against our right of free speech. Free speech is free speech, no matter if we agree with what is said or not. The proposals mentioned, do not align with the definition of true free speech. In the Kentucky proposal, they are wanting to criminalize insulting cops, which is not free speech. Insult or not, cop or not, we should have our rights protected under the first amendment.
Ana Castillo MW 3:30
After watching the video and reading the proposals, I can’t help but be amused by all these unconstitutional proposals. All of these very obviously violate free speech and freedom from the press and these politicians need to realize the law can’t be altered to fit their agenda because people are protected by law. In my opinion, social platforms should not be subject to gag laws or censorship because it provides a lot of relevant information as well as a space for open discussion as Nick Gillespie says.
Alexis Orr - Online Class
After watching the video, I don’t think that these bills are a good idea and really, I believe the bills that were being proposed are unconstitutional. The one regarding insulting police officers is simply just a way for them to have more power of the people and it’s just wrong. Cops themselves don’t always have the nicest words to say, so this type of bill would only instill fear to the public of being able to even criticize cops because they may be seen as insulting. By passing these types of bills we would be moving backwards when it comes to free speech and the First Amendment, we should be able to criticize public servants without fear of being silenced or punished.
Malyn Barnes
Online Class
The bills proposed in this video infringe upon free speech. Shutting down social media apps is a way to censor conversation. I also am not fond of the police officer law. Citizens can verbally criticize police officers and it shouldnt be illegal. Attempting to silence the public through a social media app ban or telling them what they can and cant say about law enforcement is clearly an insult to the first amendment.
Jessica G, 11 am class
After seeing the video and reading the article, I believe that these laws/bills being put in place are NOT good and are a threat to free speech. When it came to the Kentucky Bill, that definitely is against free speech. Doing certain hand gestures towards police officers can lead someone to huge legal trouble, which is outrageous. People shouldn't have to worry about going to jail or getting sued for just doing a hand gesture, that is apart of their body.
Even though those that are putting these bills in place believe that these bills can protect individuals and prevent misinformation, these is still against the first amendment right for Americans. I believe that when it comes to the "hate speech" on social media and banning it, it also against the first amendment right. To have government officials control that is whole other thing. They should not be interfering with social media, especially since that is a place for people to express not only themselves, but their feelings/emotions/thoughts
Hello, I am Makenzie Gifford and I am in your 3:30 p.m. lecture.
After watching the video and reviewing the proposal that was highlighted for me was the one regarding loudly criticizing things that limit free speech. I think that they are a good idea because it think that it will help American citizens feel less restricted. When places like X, Amazon, and Facebook limit the things that people have to say, read, and purchase it limits free speech. I believe that we have the right to vocalize when we are feeling restricted when it comes to free speech. By loudly criticizing people and places that limit free speech it will allow us to all work together for things that we so passionately believe in.
Reagan R., MC 4301 Online
After watching the video and reading about these proposals, I don’t think they’re a good idea. Limiting free speech like this goes against the First Amendment, which is meant to protect our right to openly express our thoughts and opinions. For example, making it illegal to criticize certain public figures or banning certain topics on social media feels like a way to control people’s voices. These kinds of laws could make people afraid to speak out, especially if they disagree with those in power. I believe we should protect free speech fully so people can express themselves without fear of punishment.
Devin Shanon 4301.006 11am
Devin Shanon 4301.006 11am
The ideas proposed by these videos contradict freedom of speech and the First Amendment by limiting free speech on social media is unconstitutional and will severely affect citizens who want to speak out on their own beliefs or hold online debates. This makes people feel uneasy speaking out against things they think are wrong. This bill should not pass and more social platforms should follow what Elon has done with X and allow less censorship on their platforms.
Victoria Gomez 3:30 m/w
I disagree with the proposals or ideas made in the video. Like others I would say this contradicts our first amendment rights. Social media is also just people behind a screen, so there Is never really getting to the bottom of what is said via social media.
Jaynily Rodriguez Garrastazu Mondays and Wednesdays 11:00am-12:20pm
After watching the video, I’ve concluded that I don’t agree with any of the proposals. To me, they seem unfair and more focused on serving the interests of government officials rather than the public. The idea of regulating social media, in particular, raises serious concerns about free speech. Our country was founded on the principle of free speech, and these proposals threaten that core right. The government shouldn’t have the authority to control what we say or how we express ourselves. Free speech is a fundamental part of our democracy, and it should never be compromised by those who are supposed to represent us.
I strongly believe that free speech is a right that must be protected. If these proposals move forward, we risk moving away from what the First Amendment stands for. Trying to control what people say, especially online, will only lead to more anger and frustration. We’re already seeing this on platforms like Facebook, where political opinions are being censored. Everyone should have the right to express their views on political issues or any other topics that matter to them.
Kelsy Trejo 11:00am In person
I don't agree with the proposals given within the article and video as they strip away of the freedom and liberties we have a constitutional right too. These bills follow the interest of government officials and those of higher rank, giving into the hierarchy of power within the citizens and the centralized power. For example, S.B 211; the bill that makes it a crime to insult or taunt cops can easily be added to any person that makes police officers upset in any way. It restricts in a way that can be easily to charged to anyone, if its worded properly.
I think the restriction of any speech, good or bad, is to be left alone unless the people or common law is to be excise. If no one is getting hurt, or it's difficult to pin point that a specific social media post is influencing this bad event then we should allow the expression and opinion of all. Congress should not have the power to silence the people, as the 1st Amendment is the most sacred to the American people.
Nasira Gaskins (MW 11-12:20pm)
In my opinion after reading the article I feel as though there shouldn't be any law that goes against our right of free speech. All in all free speech is free speech no matter the circumstance of if it's right or wrong. That's like stripping away our voice when it comes to situations unable to hear out our opinions whether individuals agree with what's said or not. Then The Kentucky proposal about how they want to make insulting a cop a crime which in all isn't free speech that restrict us from saying anything we feel is wrong in the situation just because they are cops insult or not we have the right to be protected as well under the first amendment not limited.
D'Aaron C. M/W 11:00 AM
I do not agree with the proposals. I feel that the right to express yourself as a citizen is necessary within our system. Platforms having the ability to censor and or restrict what you say inhibits our ability to express ourselves. This leads to biased opinions being spread online without the ability for it to be checked. This can lead to many people being misinformed on topics. The proposals that were pitched do not seem to benefit citizens. Just like the article stated, laws seeking to control individuals and platforms are blatantly unconstitutional.
Analysa Torres
11am class
After watching the video, I believe that the proposals go against the first amendment of free speech. In Kentucky, where a person could face consequences for just flipping off a cop is absurd, no matter what the reason is. For example, if I flipped some one off during traffic, would I then face consequence for expressing my frustration? As for social media, I believe that even though that the owners of the platform can control who they want to deactivate, I don't believe that they should deactivate people in a way that censors or limits their freedom of speech.
Josseline Castro Mondragon (Online)
I disagree with all the proposals mentioned. While well-intentioned attempts to curb harmful speech exist, I think government control over speech content threatens First Amendment freedoms and disproportionally shifts power. Ultimately, censorship only worsens the spread of misinformation as now everyone has the ability to express themselves online.
Marisol C. - 11am class
I think that these proposals are not a good idea. Freedom of speech is our constitutional right and we should not be afraid of saying something that people might not like and ban us from speaking our thoughts on public platforms or in public spaces. The Constitution should not be manipulated in a way that favors some and punishes others because it was written with the purpose of giving the same rights to all citizens. If speech begins to be prohibited from crossing certain lines it no longer is free speech.
Amelia Briones - MW 11am
I definitely react to the proposals in Florida as censorship. I find it extreme to want to ban an entire platform completely. It is just too similar to what other countries with dictatorships do. Yes each state has the right to govern itself but it makes me ask, what do the people in Florida really want? Not, what do the politicians in any particular state want? I believe as a U.S. citizen no matter which state you live in people should continue to have the legal right to free speech in all its forms. I also believe that it would be a waste of time and resources ($$) to criminalize free speech the way Kentucky is talking about for flipping off police officers.
Leslie L. Online Class
just like the title says SB 211 is the biggest threat to free speech, social media platforms would not be the same, and it violates our First Amendment. Lawmakers don't like how they are seen in the media, so they want to change the entire platform as we know it, and social media is seen as an "act of intimidation." Government officials don't want to hear those criticize their policies and would rather shut them out. This bill represents an attempt to limit private companies’ rights to moderate content as they see fit. Ironically, many supporting this legislation historically advocated against government regulation, underscoring how free speech has become a politicized battleground.
Emma Johnson*
Tyshon Joseph
M/W 3:30 class
I highly disagree with the proposals made in the video because free speech is an essential thing and if we take that right away, it will cause corruption and overreaching policies that restrict the things we do and say. It's very disappointing seeing different mediums being overly strict on things that are being said, especially recently with politicians trying to enforce personal beliefs on others and restricting people's rights and education.
Hi I am Sophia G. and I am in the M/W 3:30 class. After watching this I do not think these proposals are a good idea. I do not agree because they strip away the freedom and liberties we have constitutional rights to. They violate free speech and that is something they should not be able to take away.
Kevin Montiel-Rivera. 11am class. I think these proposals are slowly going to allow the government to limit free speech more and more as time goes by. It starts off small and eventually develops into something bigger. These proposals go against the first amendment and are unconstitutional. It's not right that these politicians want to censor certain agendas that doesn't favor them. Overall, these proposals are not a good idea because free speech becomes endangered.
Jake Perdue (3:30 p.m.)
I believe that there should be not be any laws that prohibit or censor free speech in any way, as it is the very first thing listed in our Bill Of Rights. The law that was passed in Kentucky that prohibits insults towards police officers are concerning, as offenders can face fines or jail time, but I'm hoping that it's only targeted towards people that are being extremely disorderly, but regardless this law opens the door for censorship. Moderation/censorship in social media is also concerning, while these social media companies are "Private", they play a big role in people's everyday lives. Many political figures and well-known people use these apps to promote themselves and talk about social issues, and if only one side is being censored, that leads to a less informed public and an uneven playing field in political discussions.
Gabriel Dyer
M/W 3:30pm Class
After watching the video I can confidently say that I disagree with the proposals made in the video. I disagree because free speech is a a right to every American citizen including myself, and is also in the constitution and protected by it. These proposals made in the video would take away peoples voices and freedom of speech, controlling peoples speech via laws. These laws would scare people into not speaking their minds and opinions on political and controversial topics, further limiting our rights as American citizens. Without our voices as citizens we aren't as powerful, which further could lead to a imbalance of power between the American government and American citizens. All of these proposals are unconstitutional and would destroy our rights of speech as citizens of America. Ultimately, leading me to disagree with the proposals made in the video.
Hi I am Mason Lusk, I am in your M/W 3:30. After watching the video, I have decided that I believe that free speech is an inalienable right and I oppose the ideas. I believe that it is our right as Americans, given that it is in the first amendment, and I believe that should not be infringed upon.
Christopher Mullins
M/W 3:30 Class
I personally disagree with the proposals that were made in the video we watched. Free speech is the basis of America. Take that away, and that is just the first step in becoming what America used to be before we were free. Nowadays, things like social media are also a part of this, which only allow certain things to be said on the sight. Yes, technically, they are private companies, so they can enable what they want, but this is just the overall agenda that many social media outlets have. Free speech is and always will be one of the most important constitutional rights that the American people will have.
Amanda McCoy— M/W 11am
Some of these proposals go too far on both the democratic and republican arguments. I don't think free speech should be prohibited in these ways because then it pushes the boundaries further and further on what's allowed and what's restricted.
Zach H. - 3:30 pm
I think that these proposals are kind of authoritarian. Its a slippery slope because right now they target things that people can get behind. I don't think that its the government's job to regulate what people say on social media, I do think that they should regulate other things about social media, but not the content on the platform. This would restrict social media companies' ability to moderate their environments based on their standards of conduct. At that point, why stop at social media? there are plenty of websites and databases out there chock full with the sorts of things that the government would want to restrict with these bills. This scares me a little bit honestly.
(Mason J - Online)
It's overwhelming and chaotic seeing both side parties try and sensor each other. The power that social media has an immense impact on social media because it gives everyone a platform to discuss their viewpoint. Regardless if it's a solid take or a very outlandish conspiracy theory. I feel like cancel culture has definitely had an impact on free speech. It’s the internet’s way of trying to silence people. The story about a Mumford & Sons band member canceling himself over a book is just crazy. To me, free speech should be free speech—just because you don’t like what you hear doesn’t mean anyone should be silenced. We need to accept that we all have different perspectives, and it's okay to hear another point of view. Even if something sounds insane at first, we should process it and try to find a middle ground. It doesn't mean you have to agree, but understanding where each other is coming from is key.
And on another note, why are we focusing on making laws about disrespecting police officers when there are much bigger issues to tackle right now?
Candice G (M/W 11 a.m.)
After reviewing the sources, I disagree with the proposals raised. It is impossible to appease every individual due to the fact that we all share different values, beliefs, morals and ideas that are also- ever changing. I disagree with patrolling things said in general, however the making of laws for communications towards police officers, the vague and unnecessary communication proposal in Colorado and the Texas proposal just reeks of extremist policy makers attempting to make their agenda more protected.
Chris Skladal - Mon/Wed - 11AM
I’m concerned that these new state proposals, like those in Texas, could let the government control what we can say, especially online. While they claim to address bias, I think they risk violating our First Amendment rights. To me, encouraging open discussion without censorship would be a better solution than adding more speech regulations.
John Taper Mon/Wed -3:30
This was a very interesting video which taught me about how the government is trying to regulate free speech, with proposals in Texas and other states aimed at limiting social media censorship or addressing harmful content. While these laws may seem like a solution, they could actually harm free speech by letting the government control what people can say. I think this is concerning because it could lead to too much control over what we say online, and it might allow political opinions to influence decisions about free expression. It’s important to find a balance.
Hello, I’m Kylie Adams from the MW 11:00 class! After watching the video, I believe the government should not implement any bills that limit freedom of speech, as this goes against the First Amendment. U.S. citizens should be allowed to voice their opinions on politicians and the government without fear of censorship. It’s ironic that people in positions of authority are the ones pressing for these limitations. While we should respect the police, that respect should be mutual; it shouldn’t only be citizens who are held accountable. Passing such a bill could lead to even more restrictions on our freedoms in the future.
Genesis N. - 11 am
After reading the article, I don't agree with these proposals because they go against our constitutional rights. They violate free speech, and that's something they can't take away. It's not fair that there are some places like Kentucky where "freedom of speech" is granted by the First Amendment and other areas that aren't.
Danielle Ferguson MW 3:30p
After watching the video, I believe that these proposals should not be accepted because they violate free speech. By officials of big companies deciding what materials they will and will not sell based on the basis of the material, it is producing a bias to its’ consumers and not allowing them to think freely. If more and more proposals like this started to happen, everyone would be forced to think the same because there would be a big lack of information for them to think otherwise.
Peyton Bragg
MW 3:30-4:50
In my opinion I do not think that it is productive to censor certain apps and media content. As Americans we are given the right to free speech and I feel strongly that our representatives whether that be Democrat or Republican should strive to protect those. While I am not a fan of there proposals I do think that there should be some form of age restriction with media to help protect younger people from some of the speech and explicit content that can be found on media sites.
Ella Starke
Online asynchronous class
It's my opinion that these bills pose a threat to free speech. While this has always seemed to be an issue, I feel that in recent years we have seen politicians seek to censor audiences that may have differing views than them to further their agenda. This goes against what our democracy exists for and I believe it's vital that we encourage discourse regarding varied topics and ensure we have diverse voices being shared. I was also appalled to see that Kentucky had a proposed law against individuals who flipped off cops as this creates an unnecessary and dangerous power play between the people and cops.
Chris Mills (3:30)
After watching this video I don’t think that it is ideal to enforce some of these laws. Some regulations aren’t harmful, but to have control over what the platform can allow is wrong. If anything, it should be the apps sole responsibility to monitor content. Freedom of speech should be respected as long as you’re not willingly posting misinformation that aren’t credible. It contradicts being a democracy and isn’t that productive or beneficial for the citizens.
Madison Hanraads (M-W 11am). After watching the short video, my first thought was, what a mess. It absolutely violates free speech to ban talking back to a cop. Such a law could put civilians in harms way if confronted by an unruly officer. Honestly, I should be able to talk to a cop the way I would to anyone else and if that happens to be angrily, the government has no right to censor me. I also feel that the law is just blatant bias toward officers.
(Charity Cobbs MW 11am)
Watching that video made me think about the predicaments that would put people in if free speech were banned. People should be able to say what they please within reason of course but the video sheds light on how it would be in instances like the Breonna Taylor case if it were taken away. Trying to ban free speech is their way of attempting to control everything citizens do. They are trying to stop citizens from "taunting" cops, but what bout the cops that taunt the citizens first? Some cops look for a reaction out of people, then try to flip it as if it was the citizen's fault. I do not think these proposals are a good idea because I believe that not being able to exercise free speech will cause more issues than the few hiccups that people run into from exercising their rights.
Crystal R - 3:30pm
I believe that there should be no censorship laws in our country even on social media. I think it is a huge threat to the first amendment, which I believe is one of the most important amendments that directly relates to the freedom of the people in America. There, I don't agree because if we allow the government to limit us in any way that impedes any of our constitutional rights I feel as if it would start a slippery slope where the government may feel they can limit the people of America in other ways as which will result in more freedoms being taken away.
Alice Myers, M/W 3:30
In my opinion, I do not think social media and news outlets should be as restricted as many politicians are proposing. Hate speech and content that can is seen as a legitimate threat to a person or people should be the only things restricted. Social media platforms and literature are important mediums for people to express their personal and political opinions and taking this away would create a more polarizing society than what we are currently living in.
Houston Tackett
M/W 11:00am class
As far as censorship is concerned, I believe that there should be not direct governmental censorship on social media platforms. As mentioned in the video, the bills will almost certainly be struck down as they infringe on the first amendment right to free speech. However, I do believe that social media platforms have the right to remove and censor content that they do not want on their platform as they are individual services seperate from the government.
Lauren Ma. 11:00 a.m. - It was interesting to see the two parties' hypocrisies. These new laws reminded me of the incitement test, until I looked back at the definition. Assuming those voicing their choice words to police are only doing so to express their opinions and not incite violence, I think that the proposed censorship law is unconstitutional. Moreover, I agree that these censorship laws appear to be unconstitutional, no matter how much people wish they weren't (like censoring government and public safety misinformation). Causing a chilling effect is a serious concern. However, although it is good a reminder that social platforms are businesses and set their own terms for their customers, can they demand absolutely anything? I wonder if there should be some sort of regulation on what can/can't be said without consequences.
Quint Nevitt M/W 3:30
I do not think that social media should be censored, as that is a violation of free speech. Maybe there could be some sort of regulation, such as an age limit, so that certain things don't get shown to young children. But overall, it is our right to say and post what we want on social media (even if it is controversial of some sort), and it would be wrong and a violation of the First Amendment to censor these things
Post a Comment