Summary Of The Internet's War On Free Speech

the article the proceeds to explain what should be banned from cites such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. It is later explained where the line they draw as to what should be banned and what they think is okay, such as

The internet became a very popular and huge way of getting millions of different kinds of materials and information for everyday use in the later 80's early 90's. It became easy for anyone to access millions of different kinds of materials ninety nine percent of which is decent according to our governments standards and one or less percent which is considered to be material the is indecent or harmful to minors.(ABC) These facts maybe deceiving however because there are millions of internet sites so the internet may only be one percent indecent but that means there are thousands upon thousands of sites that are indecent.(ABC) The biggest question is how can we protect our children from these indecent sites? The government believed that

Several years after the end of the American Revolution the United States Constitution was being drafted by some of the nations most important historical figures. Politicians such as Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, and George Washington were just three of the thirty-nine who eventually signed the Constitution on September 17, 1787 (“United States Constitution,” 2015, “1787 Drafting,” para. 7). With the birth of the constitution, came the fear that our newly created nation might slip back under control of a monarchy once again. Therefore, on June 8, 1789, in order to combat such a situation, a group of anti-federalists headed by James Madison proposed a series of thirty-nine amendments to be added to the Constitution. These amendments were designed to guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government’s power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public (“United States Bill of Rights,” 2015, “Introduction,” para. 1). The first ten of the new amendments, arguably the most important of the thirty-nine, were thus labeled the Bill of Rights. Amendments in the Bill of Rights protect freedoms such as the right to bear arms, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, right to due process, right to trail by jury, protection from quartering troops, and finally the First Amendment, the right to freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government (“United States

The Book written by Laura Weinrib is provocatively titled “The Taming of Free Speech: America’s Civil Liberties Compromise”, where the word taming is used to highlight the ACLU’s goal of protecting workers’ rights to defending the rights of everyone, regardless of their social, economic and political status. By using the word “taming”, the author characterizes the ACLU’s change in intension to protect the speech of all perspectives, even if it’s against the interest of the labor unions. The author also exemplifies an event in 1940, where the ACLU objected to a National Labor Relations Board order to prohibit employers from distributing anti-union leaflets to workers, an event which she finds as “taming of free speech”. David Cole, the critic of the two books agrees with the authors on most cases, however, refuses to arrive at a common conclusion.

    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?

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 queries regarding blocking of websites were in the wake of the government's recent directions to block twitter handles of prominent journalists and commentators who were critical of the government's policies. Under the Constitution, the Government cannot muzzle free speech except if a reasonable restriction is imposed in order to preserve the sovereignty and integrity of the country, national security, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence (Article 19(2) of the Constitution).

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

Free speech is a fundamental American right. Free speech keeps us informed and connected, and it lets us hold our government accountable. An uncensored Internet is a critical indicator of a nation’s commitment to free speech and a tool to keep that freedom alive. There are some things the government or a company have the right to do and not do which is not telling the public what to watch and what not to. But in this case, I would say Google made the right decision in initiating a “page-down” of the video but what I really don’t understand is why Google only decided to block the video in some countries and not in the rest of the world. A video of a minister seen burning the Koran would have caused a lot of religious conflict, and instead of

In addition to supporter shaming being abundant in daily face-to-face interactions, social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, become a breeding ground for supporter shaming. On Twitter, Kevin Allred, a professor at Rutgers University, wrote, “If you’re white & claiming being called racist for supporting Trump is a ‘bias incident,’ you 've lived the most privileged life ever! Ever!” The supporter shaming on social media, however, did not stop at the individual level; it grew to a systematic banning of vocal and enthusiastic Trump supporters on Twitter. Charlie Nash wrote in a Breitbart article, “…It appears that Twitter’s war on free speech is directed at a specific generation of libertarians and alternative conservative voices, many of whom are…supporters of Donald Trump…they’re going after the social network’s most influential Trump supporters…” While vocal Trump supporters were being banned on Twitter, there did not seem to be an issue with death threats being posed toward Donald Trump and his supporters, seeing as composers of such tweets were not banned. This type of behavior, engaged in by social media platforms, made political discourse hostile, but the opposite should be the goal of such media platforms. It should be a duty of the media to encourage political discourse and to encourage people to actively participate in politics, since it affects everyone, not to punish those who have opposing beliefs.

When your favorite celebrity posts a controversial photo, can they get banned from that social media platform? Or how about when you share your own beliefs on social media, can your content get flagged as inappropriate? The answer to both of these questions is yes, and it is blatant censorship. Censorship by definition is “the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security” (Oxford University Press). Censorship regularly imposes certain beliefs on the masses. The practices of suppressing free speech and hindering public communication is extremely prevalent in American culture and it is even common among other cultures. Tom Head, an author

Today’s major media platforms are defining and developing what constitutes the Internet’s version of free speech. As a new form of expression emerges through the use of social media platforms, policymakers must regulate the censorship of posted content while still protecting the integrity of the user’s First Amendment rights. Authors Marvin Ammori, Marjorie Heins, and Jonathan Zittrain engage in synergistic conversation of censorship by mega media platforms’ evolving terms and conditions and their effects on Internet users through the use of real-world examples, differing tones of voice, and individual angles of vision. Ammori’s article “The ‘New’ New York Times: Free Speech Lawyering in the Age of Google and Twitter” serves as the anchor

Rome, which was one of the strongest ancient empires, had worshipped a god named Janus. Romans believed that Janus protected their beginnings, gates and time; in particular, the god was depicted as a male with two faces (Martin 38). Similarly, freedom of speech is two-faced Janus with freedom and limit. According to Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians are free to think their own thoughts, speak their own minds, to gather peacefully into groups and to associate with whomever they wish, as long as they do not infringe valid regulations which protect the right and interests of others (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, 1982). In a democratic society, the freedom of speech should be properly regulated to prevent yellow journalism, to protect sensitive state secrets from abuse and to promote a high quality of speech based on responsibility.

For example, Twitter has recently started to block certain replies that they consider “abusive” or “low-quality”. What is consider abusive or low quality? A reply that may seem offensive or abusive may be just a joke that the both parties understand when read. This system can be abused to suppress ideas Twitter does not want on their system. Yes, they are a private company and can run the site how they see fit, but Twitter should not become an echo chamber of ideas. Contexts matters when looking at a chain of conversation online. A company that is working with Google called Jigsaw has created an API called Perspective. This is a tool that rates any sort of online post if it is toxic in nature. As much as technology has grown, machines cannot understand context, or what someone is really trying to say. This may promote mass censorship if put in the hands of the wrong people. People will find ways to outsmart the API if it is used if it gets out of hand eventually.

Internet intermediaries refer to numbers of social platforms help in the information transmission process of Internet (OECD, 2011). It is indubitable that Internet intermediaries play an essential role in the free flow of information vie Internet, because those platforms enables users to access, share and create information which implicate the right of freedom of expression. Under the economic motivations, policy principles for Internet intermediary platforms are not just take account of expression of freedom on the Internet, which also be influenced by related laws and local police. In general, Internet intermediary platforms appropriate uses’ involvement and collaboration, but they also tend to fully control the products generated by users (David, 2014). Thus, Internet intermediary platforms are facing the dilemma between the protection free expression and the control free expression of Internet.