Facebook 's War On Free Speech

“The media may be new, but the punitive messages and appetites remain the same today’s tech simply provides new outlets for the worst behaviour” (Gaskill). For over 19 years, social media sites have changed the way humans communicate. Social media sites have affected individuals in positive and harmful ways. These sites like Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat in some way have used “witch- hunting” to harm others. According to the Merriam Webster, witch-hunting is “the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (such as political opponents) with unpopular views”. The argument is made that the communication among others on social media has drastically increased and has led to thousands of witch-hunts. Social media is similar to the events of the 1692 Salem witch trials and the written play The Crucible by Arthur Miller.

Having demonstrated how the use of technology can influence young generations, Stryker goes on to say that punishing those who make bad and or racist remarks only breeks further hatred. Stryker uses a hypothetical example to support his claim and explain why. He continues to go further and give real world examples of how a New York City EMT was fired because of his racist tweets on his online profile (Stryker 588). This strengthened Stryker’s position on how publicly shaming an individual only causes more harm and problems.

Does Nicolas Carr, author of “How Social Media Is Ruining Politics” provide enough evidence that social media is ruining politics? The answer is a very obvious yes. Overtime, social media has slowly polarized the political perception of the American people. Social Networking is a new, popular medium that has changed the nature of political conversation. Therefore, it has become both a good thing and a bad thing. It has encouraged those who once did not partake in the political process to participate. Social networking is very useful to find out news and information ahead of the news media.. “It has become an easy way for political candidates to connect and communicate with the American people.” (Carr 1) While social media might provide the candidates with a form of convenience because it simplifies and speeds up the communication process, it also provides many ways for their campaigns to be easily and deliberately attacked. Unfortunately, what receives the most attention on social media is outrageous statements. Some candidates like Donald Trump know how to use this to their advantage. The danger in this is that candidates tend to use abrasive soundbites to grab the attention of the social media user. Unfortunately, the abrasive soundbites are often taken out the intended context. Other candidates like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush did not come to this realization as quickly because they did not want to take the chance of hindering their image. They understood that a

When the ink stopped flowing on the Emancipation Proclamation, black men, women, and children breathed a sigh of relief. But did they rejoice? They couldn’t have, not if they still had to deal with the infinite hate that could force them into cages for people to laugh at. Talk is cheap, so it’s easy for people emphasize the numbers in the phrase, “It’s two-thousand-seventeen, why do we still fight for this?,” but it will never be enough to mask the presence of racism in this age. Not only do stereotype reinforcements exist in the real world, but it thrives in the virtual one; it ranges from Twitter to valid news sites, leaving a trail of crumbs behind it. Patriotic citizens of the United States proudly sing that their country is the “land of the free, and home of the brave,” but how is it that groups of “free” citizens can’t get equal representation in the media? It sure is brave of news sources to hide the good actions minorities take to defeat stereotypes and still sit privileged folk on the throne for doing things those minorities have been doing for centuries. On Twitter especially, it is easy to find news articles

Last year, Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter for his role in a campaign of racist, sexist harassment directed at Leslie Jones, a “Saturday Night Live” cast member. When Twitter suspended his account, Yiannopoulos denounced it as “cowardly” and declared himself a martyr for the cause of free speech. Twitter, he said, was “a no-go zone for conservatives.” The tacit admission that Yiannopoulos sees targeted abuse of a female African-American comedian as “conservative” is revealing, if only in that it strips away the fig leaf of euphemism separating the alt-right from the hive of racism and sexism that defined last year’s Presidential election. That it was the Berkeley College Republicans who invited him to campus further supported this association. No chemistry department would extend an invitation to an alchemist; no reputable department of psychology would entertain a lecture espousing phrenology. But amid the student conservatives at Berkeley—and along the lecture circuit where he is a sought-after speaker—Yiannopoulos’s toxic brew of bigotries apparently meets their standard for credibility. And this recognition is as big a problem as anything he has said in his talks or in his erstwhile existence as a Twitter troll.

The use of social media from the left and right are noticeably different. Brooker and Barnett (2017) observed that those who were drawn to social justice politics tended to use insults as opposed to engaging in a serious debate. This itself has created a stigma for socialists who don’t support and even oppose identity politics, but are associated with those using identity politics, similar to how the new and alt-right are often stated to be one of the same. And it is identity politics that’s arguably drawing the forgotten people to these alternative sources of information and humour. The ideology of political correctness is identified by young people as censorship and suppression, comparable to totalitarianism. It is for this reason why the new and alt-right have made significant inroads in the social media space. Traditional media repressed what those on the right call freedom of speech, thus forcing individuals to search other places, predominantly online where their voices, concerns and opinions can be

Throughout Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, he has made sexist, racist, xenophobic, and hateful statements. Trump’s statements have resonated with many right-winged supporters and they have decided to act upon this rhetoric that expresses hatred and violence towards this group that they refer to as the “others.” Now that Trump is president, these alt-right groups, white nationalists, are using demonstrations, riots, and terrorism to promote hate and discriminatory ideals. These white nationalists, who once hide in plain sight, are now able to express themselves freely and gather in public settings. Oftentimes, these public gatherings end in violence and in the case of Charlottesville, even death. In this essay, I argue how the “Unite the Right” rally held in Charlottesville, succeeded in their social performance to draw attention to their identity and communicate to America, specifically those who they view as being politically correct, that they are being assertive and making sure that they are being heard. These white nationalists are showing America that they will do whatever to preserve American history and use the first amendment to say whatever they want to say so that they can invoke a response.

These assumptions raised many questions to research as well. Moody, Cohen, and Fournon (2013) raised the first question of “What types of messages did candidates disseminate utilizing tweets during the 2011-12 Presidential Primaries” (p. 3). The next question brought up by Moody, Cohen, and Fournon (2013) was, “Were runner-up candidates more likely than front-runners to include a negative tone in their tweets” (p. 3). Then the third question stated by Moody, Cohen and Fournon (2013) was, “Were runner-up candidates more likely than front-runners to attack their opponents in their tweets” (p. 3) Finally, the fourth and final question raised by Moody, Cohen, and Fournon (2013) stated, “What interactive units did politicians use within their tweets. To what type of content did they link? What was the tone of candidate hashtags” (p. 3).

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.”

The American debate regarding censorship of hate speech is moving from traditional forms to newer ones found online. In particular, the internet has become a key organizing tool for hate groups. There is a large growing group of Internet members who can access the Internet and can have the opportunity to express an opinion about anything to compose their thoughts to the World Wide Web audience. The Internet allows freedom of expression without any limitations or regulation. Some viewers find the resultant of speech to be exciting and other viewers see speech over the Internet to be insulting, degrading, and offensive. Often when people are interacting on social media they cross over the line. Frequently one person’s right to free

At no other time has a "like," retweet or generally thoughtless online movement been so intelligent of the condition of American politics. For the likeminded people social media acts as a glue which unite them under one roof of open discussion. They not only want to know what is going around but also want to know the opinions of other likeminded people and why their opinion is correct. Despite the fact that online networking permits individuals to be presented to various political perspectives, individuals have a tendency to be a piece of situations where their political assessments are continually fortified.

seeing in a world of shadows, and the true reality is that social media depicts inherently biased

More than 200 college and professional football players kneeled down during the playing of the national anthem. President Donald Trump called on the NFL owners to fire the kneeling football players for disrespecting the national anthem. Moreover, the high school football coach in Texas forced two football players in his team strip down to their underwear before the football game in front of the fans because the football players kneeled down during the playing of the national anthem. Yet when it comes to poll taking about what people think about the protesting of the social injustices during football games hardly anybody wants to express their honest opinions about these social problems in America.

“The 289 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List” is an unambiguous example of how Mr. Trump’s negative affects are transmitted throughout the public. In this document, New York Times reporters stated their mission as follows: “since declaring his candidacy for president last June, Donald Trump has used Twitter to lob insults at presidential candidates, journalists, news organizations, nations, a Neil Young song and even a lectern in the Oval Office. We know this because we’ve read, tagged and quoted them all. Below, a directory of sorts, with links to the original tweets. Insults within the last 60 days are highlighted” (CITATION NEEDED). The premise is clear; this article seeks to undermine Mr. Trump’s credibility by demonstrating the sheer volume and petulance of his insults. However, understanding this simplistic characterization of Mr. Trump through his self-aggrandizing notions of superiority of the subject transmit an affect to the audience that is highly negative. The experiential reality of the readers of this article is one that is inherently filled with a rumination of anger over the sheer volume and uncreative nature of the insults. Therefore, this article gives new life to affects that would have otherwise been forgotten on the twitter pages of yesteryear, and through

“As the use of social media increases and becomes an integral part of nearly every student’s life, problems arise when student expression on these sites turns into threats against the school or other students, implicating both student safety and the speaker’s right to free speech” (Hughes 208). There’s no denying that social media has become a part of most people’s daily life. We have sites like Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, Reddit, YouTube, LinkedIn, etc. These websites, or apps, allow us to express ourselves in any way possible, whether it’s supporting families who lost a member in a mass shooting, trying to impeach the latest president, or donating to those who are victims of natural disasters. It’s not always that social