Social Media and the Law

12. New York Times v Sullivan (502)- First off you need to know that libel is the written defamation of character. A person who believes their name and character have been harmed can sue. In this case, the supreme court declared that freedom of the press takes precedence—at least when the defamed individual is a public official.

Every day millions of people log onto social media platforms. There has been much discussion on whether or not individuals should be prosecuted for statements made on social media platforms. Individuals should be prosecuted for statements made on social media. Although cyberbullying is just a small crime, people should still be punished for harsh or hateful remarks on social media. Having freedom of speech is a privilege not a right, we should focus on the bigger stories on cyberbullying, and individuals affected by cyberbullying are affected in all aspects of their life.

The court case of New York Times vs Sullivan was a case that involved public officials and how they were libeled in the press in the year of nineteen sixty four. L.B. Sullivan was one of three elected commissioners of Alabama. The respondent was L. B. Sullivan was a public official from Alabama and brought a lawsuit against an clergymen, a negro and against a petitioner of the New York Times Company. L.B. Sullivan sued all of these people because he felt that he was libeled in a advertisement of the New York Times. The case had to deal with if the constitutional protections of speech and press limit the states power to award damages for the libel action brought by a public official against the critics of his official conduct.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first major overhaul of United States telecommunications law in nearly 62 years, amending the Communications Act of 1934. This Act was a major stepping stone towards the future of telecommunications, since this was the first time that the Internet was included in broadcasting and spectrum allotment. One of the primary goals of the law (Title III specifically) was to let anyone enter any communications business “to let any communications businesses compete in any market against any other." Also, the new Telecommunications Act allowed the FCC, and Congress, to "update" the old - and outdated - Telecommunications Act of 1934.

In the United States of America, the First Amendment of the Constitution assures individuals such civil liberties as the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Freedom of speech preserves not only an individual’s right to vocally express themselves unabridged, it also allows them the right to burn the American flag, engage in silent protest, and more recently (2016), get a tattoo. In some respects, freedom of speech has come to mean the freedom of communication.

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

New Yorker Magazine it states that there must be clear intent to tarnish one’s reputation in order for libel tort law to come into effect. This case was very similar in regards that there was enough evidence that suggest there was intent to hurt the reputation of those mentioned in the articles. Also in the case Anderson v. Liberty Lobby it states the plaintiff must be able to prove that there was in fact damage done to one’s reputation and be able to proof to judges that there was actual malice. As with this case, the court of appeals must take in consideration if the ruling can be made in favor of the plaintiff and that if the summary judgement would go in favor of the plaintiff. The judges want to make sure that they are not wasting time and that there was actual damage done to the plaintiff which can be awarded for punitive

The conflict began on February 8, 1996, when President Clinton signed the CDA law and ACLU, along with EPIC and eighteen other plaintiffs, immediately filed its legal challenge. ACLU v. Reno represents the first legal challenge to censorship provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The CDA makes it a crime, punishable by up to two years in jail and/or a $250,000 fine, for anyone to engage in speech that is “indecent” or “patently offensive” on computer networks if the speech can be viewed by a minor. The ACLU is a nationwide, non-partisan organization dedicated to defending and preserving the Bill of Rights for all individuals through litigation, legislation and public education. EPIC is a non-profit,

For an instance, we can see one of the case of civil liberties, “Ashcroft Vs American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).” Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) to keep minors from getting to erotic entertainment on the web. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and online distributers sued in government court to counteract implementation of the

Reviewing precedent of New York Times v. Sullivan about the right to make false statements. In this case, the Court ruled that states must prove that he or she had malice whining creating a false statement. This case is related to the United States v. Fields as it explains that speech is restricted for content reasons if and only malice can be proven. Another precedent is Texas v. Johnson as it demonstrates the right to disagreeable speech as he had the right to free speech when he burned his flag. The case related by the person’s speech as it would offends the doings by lying.

Much of the act was struck down in a 1997 Supreme Court decision due to it’s conflict with the First Amendment, although it left standing a section similar to that above but with the “intent to annoy or harass”. The judges indicated that the Internet should have those

This essay explores the different relationships between social media platforms and the government to provide insight into the different ways the government uses media masses to further their agendas and how its good business is used for political gain. This essay also discusses the different ideologies and fallacies individuals have of the media’s role in society. This essay wasn’t written to persuade one either way, but rather to bring the important relationship to light, so with better understanding people can make wiser decisions as voters, consumers or investors.

As always, there are those individuals that oppose the power to censor. There are members of society that believe in the freedom to speak publicly and to publish. This is a basic belief in the freedom of expression and is to be protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. On the eve of the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, the first wave of a nationwide survey, comprising more than 1500 citizens was conducted. Through this survey it was found that American rate free speech as their second most precious First Amendment right and regard a free press highly in the abstract. Although there are strong cases made for and against censorship, the rising trend calling for censorship can threaten our basic rights to free expression and the right to be informed. At the center of the debate is the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees our right to read, speak, write, and communicate freely. The government at the state or federal level cannot

Walk into a library, you have a computer, you are most likely carrying a phone, at home, you most likely have a computer, laptop, tablet, or even all three. This shows that we have social media access at the tip of our fingers, making it so easy to open up the site or app and just type out a phrase or paragraph, letting hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions, of people know what you think. Back then, it was harder to let the nation know what you were thinking, and it took even take months before everyone knew, versus today, where the nation might know by the end of the day, and it’s because of this that companies regulate what their users are posting, attempting at keeping the online world free from threats, hate, harmful words, and more. Rutenberg quotes Jeffrey Goldberg as he says, “At a certain point I’d rather take myself off the platform where speech has become so become so offensive than advocate for the suppression of that speech” (2). Twitter also said that “everyone on Twitter should feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, but behavior that harasses, intimidates or uses fear to silence another person’s voice should have no place on our platform” (Rutenberg 2).

The second major cas in that helped to clarify the meaning of libel was the court case of Crutis Publishing Co. v Butts. The case helped to clarify the meaning of defamation claims brought by private individuals. The case held that news organizations were protected from liability when printing allegations about public officials, although they may still be sued by public figures if the information they printed was recklessly gathered or if it was left unchecked. Again because it is difficult to prove either of theses, the press ended up with more freedom to print political corruption and scandal.