ipl-logo

What Does It Mean To Say That People Should Speak Freely On Social Media

486 Words2 Pages

There is no question that free speech issued from social media platforms have spurred controversy. Many believe that people shouldn’t have the opportunity to speak freely via their social accounts. While others believe that goes against people’s constitutional rights and people deserve to speak freely. I happen to agree solemnly with the people against limiting their constitutional rights of free speech. As the 1st amendment grants every citizen the right to speak their mind, social media outlets count just as much and should not be prohibited. Twitter (a social media platform) serves as a global center where anyone with internet access can make an account and begin channeling their thoughts as tweets. Out of all the other social media platforms, …show more content…

Twitter does a fine job of creating that outlet for us to exercise that right. While I do agree that people should speak freely on social media, I do believe that just like our laws, there should be limits to how a person speaks freely. There is a point to where one’s exercise of their right is limited. If a person is speaking in a way that severely impacts another person or community, then that is hate speech and not free speech. In my eyes, free speech is only when a person can say what they want if it doesn’t abundantly cause grieve for others. For example, a person can go on Twitter and tweet “LeBron James new shoes are super-duper ugly.” This tweet is a hasty critic, but it doesn’t affect anyone on a personal level. If someone one was to tweet something like “I hate LeBron James because he is a black…” then this would be considered hate speech because it displays a strong disapproval that would affect the directed person and others significantly. Now the great thing about Twitter and many other social media outlets is that they have policies to prohibit speech that is considered “hate” and not “free. “ In conclusion, social media platforms should not limit people from free speech because it would be unconstitutional. Rather restrict people from hate speech because the constitution does not abide to

Show More
Related
1091 Words | 5 Pages

Whether laws intend to limit the offensive power of a minority or protect a minority from attacks, either way rights are lost. In the words of Roger Baldwin, founder of the civil liberties union, “In order to defend the people you like, you have to defend the people you hate.” Roger Baldwin’s statement indicates that if we limit the free speech of one group we ultimately limit our own freedoms. The first Amendment clearly states the limiting of any groups right is unconstitutional, “make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” The basis behind not allowing the government to define free speech allows Americans to create their own social order and among themselves determine what is acceptable.

Read More
839 Words | 4 Pages

These days, everyone has heard of or used one of the contentious social media platforms, such as Twitter. Twitter is the go-to news media source where you can find information about precisely everything that is going on in the world. Users of the platform broadcast short posts called tweets, which are available for users to read, like, and even retweet. In recent years, Twitter has received a lot of controversy due to its distribution of misinformation, fake news, hate speech, and bullying. Despite this, people still believe in the app.

Read More
566 Words | 3 Pages

The first amendment states that “Congress cannot enact laws limiting ”the freedom of speech or press.”’ (Kentucky Resolutions) Again, in short, this amendment is saying that the federal government is not able to pass a law that takes away someone’s right to speak their opinion. Contrary to this amendment, the Federal government did exactly the opposite of what the amendment said was allowed. The acts, passed by John Adams, take away the human right of speaking what is on the mind and using what they say to show them off as a threat.

Read More
447 Words | 2 Pages

However, It is important to note that while individuals have the right to free speech, this right is not absolute. Source 2 states, “... First amendment should be treated not as a right but as a privilege...” This means that even though we have freedom of speech, it doesn’t mean we should take advantage of that. Additionally, those who take advantage of freedom of speech should have consequences given to them.

Read More
410 Words | 2 Pages

While having free speech can be a problem and anger many, it IS one of our basic freedoms. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution as the first ten amendments on December 15, 1791 and the fact that American’s rights were not protected and added to the Constitution any earlier heated up numerous debates! The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, religion, and petition. It is very well one of America’s special aspects and for some American’s, it is their most cherished personal freedoms. With that being said, I do not see a problem with one having the ability to speak their own opinion, I just think their should be a few limitations.

Read More
507 Words | 3 Pages

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. There are many ideas expressed in times where it would be inappropriate or unnecessary to use one’s freedom of speech. These circumstances would be where something is inappropriate or misidentified as hate speech. There are many situations where someone may want to say something, yet there are times where some things should not be said.

Read More
166 Words | 1 Pages

Some ways they are different is back then children weren’t exposed to new and advanced technology like children are now. Back then the kids weren’t able to get as much education as it is available now. In the 60s there were different ways of communicating than the way we communicate to one another today in the 2000s. The types of transportations are different now you can travel by plane, train, subway, boat, and car/taxi. But back then there weren 't any subways.

Read More
54 Words | 1 Pages

Thank you Samantha! Yes first amendment is taken too far. There is a thin line that people have to consider when referring to the first amendment and social media is not the place to express everything. Businesses have to watch what they express on social media, especially about their opinions on the upcoming

Read More
770 Words | 4 Pages

Borders of the First Amendment are at the center of the legal debates about free speech and hate speech. While free speech is considered to be a basic right, as the Supreme Court has given the right to free speech. However, when such "free speech" crosses the line and becomes a threat, the courts have stepped in and punished the speaker. First Amendment does not protect free speech that has the intention of doing harm or damage.

Read More
490 Words | 2 Pages

Free Speech is a human right and technically the only circumstance in which you do not have this right is if it is causing harm to others. Unfortunately, I would say the right to free speech depends on who you are, what you are saying and where you are saying it, I don’t feel this is fair, but it is reality. We all have different point of views and different ways of life and while we all have freedom of speech, so does everyone else. People who are willing to express how they feel need to be prepared for some form of retaliation because not everyone is going to see eye to eye and someone will have an opinion that is different from theirs, and will more than likely exercise their right to freedom of speech. C.

Read More
991 Words | 4 Pages

The first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the

Read More
285 Words | 2 Pages

Although hate speech is bigoted, hate-mongering, and can potentially lead to hate crimes, it should still be considered free speech. If citizens of the United States are not allowed to be verbal about their beliefs, whether or not they are offensive and hateful, then there is no use in allowing free speech. Placing limitations on free speech contradicts the First Amendment, therefore making it inaccurate and useless.

Read More
1434 Words | 6 Pages

Our own country is basically threatening ourselves from the freedom of speech and should encourage everyone to express themselves without punishment. This is not necessarily an issue that can be resolved, but it needs to be made publicized and be made aware of. Too much of society are triggered by a simple few words they may come across when scrolling a timeline. Social media is an influential and high powered tool that’s forced a new lifestyle. We must make ourselves and others comfortable with expressing themselves while handling criticism to ensure protection of our freedom of

Read More
612 Words | 3 Pages

Daniele Manville was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 4 ½ to 15 years incarceration. Daniele had decided at a very young age he wanted to work in law; he wanted to be a lawyer. In 1972 at a college campus he got into a heated scuffle and killed a guy with chloroform; the heated scuffle was over drugs. When Daniele was released in 1976 and thirteen years later applied to enrol to be a lawyer. When it came to one question ‘Have you ever been convicted of a criminal charge’ he answered appropriately to what he had done.

Read More
817 Words | 4 Pages

We can’t misuse the freedom of speech, saying words that can cause serious harm (bullying). This form of speech will cause depression, suicide, and stunted social development. When freedom of speech hurts others, then it is not just an opinion anymore; it is a form of hate

Read More

More about What Does It Mean To Say That People Should Speak Freely On Social Media

Related Topics

Open Document