Social Media for Free Speech

Does Freedom of Oral communication Exist on Social Media

When the first Amendment was put into place freedom of speech was born, nosotros were all given the right to express any stance without censorship or restraint. Existence able to let

 words roll off of your tongue without having to second guess your thoughts could possibly be one of the greatest perks of living in America. Although nosotros are free to say what nosotros want, we are not immune to express whatever opinion that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, faith, national orientation, or inability (detest spoken language). Does freedom of speech apply online if we are given limitations? Is at that place a mode to compromise? Has the line of protecting users with censorship and still allowing individuals to limited themselves freely become smudged?

Social media has become a 1 cease shop for many; keeping up with electric current events, celebrity gossip, a journal, a tool to abound business organization and virtually chiefly a sanctuary where the offset subpoena could be utilized as a shield protecting them from the consequences of their words. Sites such as Facebook and Twitter have made a more conscious effort to regulate the content posted on their platform. According to an CBS News article, this summer Facebook released a list of guidelines that go into how something qualifies as a Trending Topic causing a few eyebrows to exist raised due to the notion that their tactics are biased toward controversial stories and posts. After Facebook also received backlash for banning a Vietnam war image due their regulations on pornography, later having to backtrack their determination stating: "Considering of its status as an iconic image of historical importance, the value of permitting sharing outweighs the value of protecting the community past removal, then we have decided to reinstate the image on Facebook where we are aware it has been removed" (The Verge). Facebook has the potential to become one of the earth's biggest source for news and their strong stance of censorship could affect what users have access to. Concluding month Facebook wanted to ban Donald Trump from their network due to violation but Marc Zuckerberg stepped in with the fear that these actions would be distributive during the election although it was articulate that some of his content could be considered detest speech. Does being an electoral candidate hold you to different standards on social media? Is it upwardly to social media applications to control what ideas are censored? How do administrators create polices that practice non impose on others rights while still maintaining an overall positive user experience?

Of course it is important for platforms to monitor for child pornography, harassment, online bullying, and overall detest speech but how do they create a perfect residuum. It is important for users to be able to utilize social media every bit a rubber oasis and non feel every bit if they volition exist demonized for expressing their views as long equally it does not make another feel threatened. Easier said than washed? In order for this to be done properly social media sites must find a reasonable compromise, giving users a platform to safely limited their views without fear of punishment.

Twitter might have constitute the recipe. In October users came across a "muted words" feature on Twitter (The Side by side Spider web) This pick allowed users to create a list of unwanted words and phrases that they did not want to meet on their timeline nevertheless leaving them available for others to see. Sources expressed that this characteristic was released prematurely and would be released in the future with an update. After doing my inquiry it has not exist fully explained how this will work only it seems that this add-on to Twitter could exist what all social media needs to go along the peace.

Gabrielle Byrd

Emerging Media Graduate Student

Loyola University

Share this post