Pros And Cons Of The Internet Free Speech

Did you know that 43% of kids have been bullied online? Many students are very negatively affected by being bullied online. Many people believe that schools should limit students under the age of eighteens online free speech, but others think that they should, not because it would be a violation of the first amendment.

The purposes of schools include protecting and educating its students. Therefore, naturally, when a student is cyberbullying someone else, the school seeks to intervene. However, many argue that a school’s intervention of its students’ online speech is in violation of their First Amendment rights. Should schools be allowed to limit students’ online speech? That is, should schools be allowed to punish the things its students post online, even if they are done outside of school, and from their personal devices? The answer is clearly yes. From the concept, to the precedence, to the data, to a letter from the US Department of Education, evidences everywhere supports limiting students’

On the issue of whether or not schools should be allowed to limit students’ online speech, I firmly believe that they shouldn’t. Doing so directly infringes upon the student’s first amendment rights to the freedom of speech, and for what? Numerous surveys have shown that cyberbullying isn’t a huge problem. Further, one document affirms the conclusion that cyberbullying is just another phase in the long-running evolution of bullying. With this essay, I aim to convince you that schools should not limit their students’ online speech, using my vast knowledge as well as cold hard facts.

In closing, individuals should be prosecuted for statements made on social media, no questions asked! This action should be taken because cyberbullying affects teens more than you think and technology has become an essential and vital part of our society, homes, and lives. Imagine if you were the helpless and scared victim of a cyberbullying attack? What would you want done for you to stop the vicious, endless cycle of

Cyberbullying is defined as, ¨...bullying that takes place using electronic technology¨ by stopbullying.gov. Recently, schools have been taking actions to punish students for what they do or say online. There have been many debates and trails to figure out whether or not schools should have the power to limit and punish students’ speech online. The Supreme Court ruled that if online speech is disruptive, schools can punish students. School districts should not have the power to limit online speech because online speech does not affect most students and teachers, is not very disruptive, and free speech is a precious right.

Although the freedom of speech has had limitations and changes added to it, it should not be changed for cyberbullying. Bullying and cyberbullying are very similar yet they are also very different, cyberbullying is only mental or emotional harm, while regular bullying is usually only physical and emotional. Physically harming someone is illegal but emotionally harming someone is not illegal because no true harm was done. If someone who does have their feelings hurt easily they should avoid the Internet as much as possible, yes it is very difficult to not use the Internet because almost everything today uses the Internet, those people could block other users that are hurting their feelings instead of the “attacker” getting prosecuted. “But then, why don’t kids just ‘unplug’?” according to “The Dangers of Cyberbullying” by Brett Warnke.

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

Technology―it’s the focal point of our lives, from sending a quick text to checking the latest news. But the real debate comes when the conversation switches to cyberbullying, which is customarily described as an act that is “repeated, hostile, and severe with the intent to embarrass, threaten, or harass” (“The Dangers of Cyberbullying” by Warnke, lines 26-27). Bullies in the real world can and do get prosecuted, so what makes this any difference. In some cases, the bullying is so deleterious that the victim commits suicide. If all of this can be prevented, then lives will be saved and children will be able to live without the fear of being bullied. The three sources “The Dangers of Cyberbullying” by Brett Warnke, “Sacrificing the First Amendment

In school, there is bullying and cyberbullying happening all the time. The problem with bullying and cyberbullying are that it can make schools a bad learning environment for the students and the teachers. I believe that many schools should limit online speech, for the sake of learning purposes. Three main reasons that schools should limit free online speech are that many people get hurt by cyberbullying, it disrupts school activities, and bullying can make a good environment a bad learning environment.

“We have freedom of speech, but you got to watch what you say” said the comedian Tracy Morgan. And he was correct. In this modern world today, numerous students abuse the First Amendment. Over the media, students are posting comments, videos, stories, etc. about other students and teachers. These students are cyberbullies. The schools should be allowed to limit students’ online speech because cyber bullying privacy and dignity are important, it hurts feelings, and affects the school.

Furthermore, prosecuting individuals for statements made on the internet would squander taxpayers’ money. As “The Dangers of Cyber bullying” noted, “Congresswoman Linda Sanchez is sponsoring the Megan Meier Cyber Bullying Prevention Act.” Although some may say that financing the court system for the prosecution of “social media bullies” is necessary, it is proven that will also waste money and time. Surely, individuals should not be penalized for statements made on the internet.

Today, everyone has electronic device to go online to use social media or read the news daily. When everyone in the world can communicate with each other anytime they want, there will be the debate that whether government should moderated the language that people use on internet or not. Some people believe that aggressive language that people use on internet may hurt other people feeling, and it could be consider as cyber bully. Hence, they want all of the comment online should be moderated. However, there are three reasons that people should refute the claim that such comments should be moderated: First Amendment, conversation, and fearlessness.

The right to free speech is one of the most precious rights an individual has as a citizen of the United States of America. This right gives people the opportunity to speak their mind and give their opinions of what they think should happen. These rights have been questioned and exercised throughout history, and have produced extremely positive things in a lot of cases. In modern times, people are always protesting something and in the colonial times it was the same. People wanted their voice to be heard and as long as it is done in a peaceful manner it is legal now, but it resulted in punishment for the colonists. People have never questioned whether or not these rights should exist, the questions involve whether there should be limits or not. No matter what side the authorities take, there are only two main points to deal with cyberstalking: free speech is an essential right, but it should not be meant to include hate speech.

Though the First Amendment protects the freedom of expression [1], not all speech is protected by law.  What if material on the Internet advocates illegal conduct or issues threats of violence?  What if information such as bomb-making instructions helps someone carry out a threat of violence?  As stated in the preceding scenario-report, the controversial website Anarchist Fever inspired amateur anarchist Paul Berkowicz, to build a bomb (with instructions found on the internet) and blow up a federal courthouse.  Obviously, he will be punished for his actions, but the issue now is what will become of the websites that helped him etch his name in infamy?  What can be done about digital conspirators who hide behind free expression?  Often, there can be no direct link established between such websites and physical crimes they inspire.  When deciding about these gray areas of free speech on the internet, we must consider issues such as regulation of the Internet, the extent of free speech, and established legal precedent.  These are the real factors that determine whether or not content of the Internet is objectionable enough to be censored or even criminally punished.

The freedom to be able to express your own opinion is an ideology that is supported by many, however the act of promoting harm or hate is where freedom should be restricted. Freedom of speech is a right for citizens of many countries, but these citizens may agree or disagree on what is allowed to be expressed. Many people share the belief that they can say anything they want because their freedom entitles them to express any opinion they would like. In contrast, many people believe that you shouldn’t be able to say anything you want and that there should be restrictions on the type of things that you can say. In the novel On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, Mill argues that freedom of speech should be limited if and when it is harming other people in the process. Mill explains this argument by stating that silencing an unpopular opinion is unjustifiable because in order to successfully express your opinion, you must listen to the criticism. I agree with Mill’s position regarding freedom of speech based on the fact that he doesn’t support hate speech, and that there should be reasonable limits on freedom of speech in order to have an ideal democratic society. This essay will outline the justifications for Mill’s argument surrounding freedom of speech, the limitations that Mill believes should be set on freedom of speech as well as the assumptions that his argument depends on, and finally my personal viewpoint on Mill’s argument. Freedom of speech is a right that should be guaranteed to every citizen around the world, however when this speech negatively affects or harms other humans in the process, it is thereby considered hate speech which must be condemned.