Should Twitter Censor Tweets? Twitter has been a prominent social media platform since its development in 2006. Recently, censoring posts, or “tweets” has been hotly debated around the world as many celebrities and politicians have been attacked by users. Ghostbusters co-star Leslie Jones became the center of the argument over the summer, as she has been subjected to racist and sexist tweets with the premiere of the movie. Shortly after this situation was brought to light, Twitter began taking down tweets and removing the accounts of the offenders. Another high profile example was New York Times editor Jonathan Weisman being bombarded with anti-Semitic tweets by neo-Nazis and white supremacists in June. Twitter should be allowed to censor …show more content…
Twitter is a private company, meaning they do not have to obey the laws of freedom of speech. As I mentioned above, this right is voided when the speech is lewd, obscene or profane anyway. Users such as Milo Yiannopoulos, who are attacking people such as Leslie Jones with racist and sexist remarks, are clearly not within the parameters of the freedom of speech laws. Moreover, no person should be subjected to harassment on these platforms, and it is Twitter’s duty to censor their users from having to deal with these hateful posts. Jonathan Weisman had his life threatened by neo-Nazis for re-tweeting an anti-Donald Trump article, and he was continually the target of anti-Semitic tweets by a certain white supremacy organization. A 2014 survey found that 40 percent of all internet users are forced to deal with cyber abuse, and women, minorities and the LGBT community are harassed far more often. Further, younger kids should not have to see some of the attacks directed at many of the celebrities they follow. Twitter does not ask their user’s ages in their sign up, meaning it is accessible to users of all ages. There are thousands of racist, sexist and homophobic tweets everyday and Twitter must be able to censor these posts in order to make it a safer space for their younger users. Censoring tweets should be permitted because Twitter does not have to oblige with freedom
When considering situations where censorship is necessary, it is important to analyze who might need protection. Often, children need to have the material they watch censored, because they themselves cannot distinguish how raw the material they are watching is. We need to protect our youth, as well as people of all other ages from that kind of raw material. It is possible that the material could be something of the hating nature. I believe that even though hate speech is not a possitive use of free speech, it is a right that is everyone's to practice. It is only when that speech begins to flirt with the idea of doing something about that hate, and possibly putting people in risk, when it should be controlled. There are
Free speech is important. It enables humans to openly express any thoughts, opinions, or ideas one may have without the risk of government oppression or censorship. Social media act as platforms that promote free speech, as social media allow any person’s thoughts, opinions, or ideas to be shared with the world at the simple click of an “enter” key. However, there do exist limitations to free speech when threats or hate speech become involved. In these instances, ramifications and legal actions can be taken as a means of combating verbal threats and hateful statements. With this in mind, the Elonis v. United States sase is of particular notoriety due to its exemplification of both the role in which social media play in free speech, as well
The use of twitter by both the viewers and the candidates are geared toward one particular goal: to try to change the mind of voters. By candidates operating on Twitter they possess the ability to make instant rebuttals to something that another candidate has said without having to release an official statement or waiting until the next debate. Also in an age of social media candidates and their campaigns believe that it is one of the most effective ways to broadcast information and connect with voters. Twitter users also use this median as a way to make fun at a candidate’s position or simply try to convince others to change the way they have chosen to vote. Many twitter users from the Republican party took to the social media website to bash the democratic candidates and their policy positions. One user slammed a comment made by Governor Martin O’Malley that the greatest threat facing the United States was climate change. This made for a twitter field day with other users implying that the democratic candidates do not take the threat of terrorism and ISIS seriously which disqualifies them from the presidency. These type of instances can have negative effects for either party because of how quickly a retweet can make a statement viral and could end up severely hurting a campaign. However, this reaction did not alter my impression of the candidates or the debate at
The freedom of speech is a part of the bill of rights-obviously important enough to be one of the first things mentioned. Just as it was important in 1771, our freedoms are well established today in 2015. Here in the age of technology, the internet is where the crime takes place and all could be victims. The founding fathers didn’t write the bill of rights concerned with our Facebook rants and who they can be directed to. So finding a solution to fit a 1771 document in today’s problems can be difficult.
Hate speech is taking over our lives we get separated into groups defining what we believe in. Imagine yourself in a crowd of people fighting for your rights but in never ends. America should limit hate speech because hate speeches caused divisions in our cultures, Hate speech conducted into riots and violence it also relates to fights and citizens getting in deep trouble on social media.
Censorship is not necessary. People in this society get offended easily. Free thoughts are repressed through censorship even though it is made to protect the society by restraining obscenities or to restrict political views.
A reoccurring issue that has been detrimental in today’s society is racism. Today, many people have used social media to speak out against this troublesome topic. The article “Black Tweets Matter” tries to explain how social media has been used in the fight against racism. The text talks about multiple hashtags that have been used on social media to bring these racist events to light. “Black Tweets Matter” is a very short article that can be at times hard to read. However, Jenna Worthin was ineffective in parts of “Black Tweets Matter” by her unprofessional word choice, misused quotes, and inability to stay on topic.
In June of 1998 the country was horrified to learn of the death of James Byrd Jr. He was a 49-year-old black man who had been found horribly mutilated after being dragged to death. Authorities have charged three men with murder and violation of civil rights ("A Fatal Ride in the Night" 33). Obviously, if convicted, these men are guilty of a horrible crime, but what if this crime had been committed after viewing a racist website? If a person reads an emotionally charged, hate-filled website and then commits an act of violence, can the creator and owner of the website also be found guilty?
After a long day of classes, I find myself scrolling through twitter to update myself on the happenings of the day. The familiar red logo on CNN appears along with a hyperlinked tweet titled “Market Strategist Marc Faber under fire for racist remarks.”
Social media censorship has a big impact on American society where there's been a lot of control over what someone can post on the internet. The companies have created strict policies towards what people can post and a lot of the users are not happy.The big problem is that social media companies have too much power with censoring what people say and read, which is limiting people's freedom of speech and I don’t believe that companies should censor a lot of the things people post in social media unless is something bad that can harm someone. Companies find ways to censor people's media post either because they believe it can hurt a country's image or they believe others wouldn't like it.
We could agree that social media should be regulated to avoid trolling incidents like the ones mentioned. However, the Leveson report, a hotly debated topic at present, is trying to introduce regulations on the press, with no guidelines on how to deal with social media. Daily Mail online editor Martin Clarke says it has “destroyed the ability of governments, companies and individuals to control the flow of information to the
A bureaucracy as large and complex as a national (or even state) government can never effectively handle such a task because no government, no matter how close to its constituents it is or how well-constructed it may be, is free from corruption. It is estimated that in one year -- 2010 -- the United States federal government wasted in excess of $100 billion dollars. Not counting discretionary spending, pork-barrel spending, or the general bloat of unnecessary and inherently wasteful programs, the federal level alone lost $300 for every citizen in America. To enforce laws banning hate speech would be a logistical nightmare. Collecting all communications from virtually infinite sources is a tall order, but to comb through every blog post, every forum comment, every Facebook status and YouTube video looking for violations, let alone track down the offending parties, is an impossibly tall order. But then, most online communities police themselves, and any enforcement agency could rely on these communities to report on their members. And, after all, we now know the National Security Agency has been successfully -- and, I might add, illegally -- keeping records of the emails, phone calls, and text messages of millions of American citizens under the guise of preventing terrorism a la Bush’s Patriot
Social media should not moderate the comments or points of views from society due to the fact that everyone has the right to express what is on their mind. The U.S. created the First Amendment which protects the freedom of expression in essence, giving society the ability to state their opinion without fear of retribution. It is difficult to think of negative, hurtful, and spiteful comments being protected by the freedom of speech. The information and posts on social media has such a great influence over the population of the world, however it is important to remember that trolls as well as their comments should be taken lightly yet respected because it is their own opinion. Nonetheless people have become highly sensitive to trolls or any comments in which they might not agree with. Additionally it seems that trolls have a strong hold in social media yet, who are these trolls? Trolls make heinous comments on social media and are thrilled to keep anonymity as their profile. People who are behind an electronic screen are not always the most transparent and credible commentators. Many will argue that censorship is needed in social media as it could prevent excessive negativity online. Although this may have a case, if people allowed censorship of harsh and hateful believes what else will be censored in the future. Censorship in social media has the potential to create a deceitful view of society.
The freedom of speech that was possible on the Internet could now be subjected to governmental approvals. For example, China is attempting to restrict political expression, in the name of security and social stability. It requires users of the Internet and electronic mail (e-mail) to register, so that it may monitor their activities. In the United Kingdom, state secrets and personal attacks are off limits on the Internet. Laws are strict and the government is extremely interested in regulating the Intern et with respect to these issues.10 Laws intended for other types of communication will not necessarily apply in this medium.
Some people wonder who came up with the idea of internet censorship. Other people want to know which countries use it. Some ponder over the idea of what really is internet censorship. Internet censorship is controlling what can be viewed, and which sites can be used on the internet. Some things about internet censorship are countries that use it, and who started the idea of it.