Brandon B.
Favreau
Communication Arts
23 May 2013
Speech Limitations in Online Media
Should there be limitations on speech and are they against the first amendment? Should people be able to say whatever they want whenever? Is it right for employers to research people on online social media sites and go against them on things they may post or do? This has been an ongoing issue for employees all around.The first amendment states people have the right to free speech, which means that people are allowed to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. And yet there are still limitations in media everywhere. There are many limitations of speech in online media.
Freedom of speech in the United States is limited, but we still have the fewer limitations than other countries. According to Middleton and Lee, “The categorical language of the first amendment, prohibiting government interference with freedom of expression, gives Americans a broad right to speak, publish, broadcast, blog and demonstrations on matters of conscience and consequence-and on trivial matters, too-without fear of government reprisal. Freedom of expression is in a large measure a negative freedom: freedom from government interferences.” This is telling us that we have the right to speak and give our opinion freely without having to fear the government saying anything about it. “The first amendment does not establish an absolute freedom for citizens to speak and publish” Middleton and Lee. This is explaining that we don’t have the right to say whatever we want, there are limitations on certain subjects but yet we can say more than most other countries. Fighting words are prohibited and people can not start riots.
There should only be certain limitations of speech in the digital world. As said before we have the right to free speech. Should they be limiting what we can and can’t say in our social media sites? “And while that seems very broad, the U.S. Supreme Court has been involved in this debate for nearly a century and has determined that the government can limit both the content of speech and the ability to engage in speech as long as the government has a “substantial justification”(Hawkins). Is there more times where there are more limitations on what we can say. Online social media is sometimes private for only the people they want to see, but most the time it is out there for whoever wants to see it. So what people say and do everyone hears and sees. (Hawkins). Many sites such as Facebook and twitter organizations encourage their online community to engage in speech freely. The government has stated that posts on twitter and Facebook are protected speech. They say there are people that filter what people post, like go through it and make sure it is clean and under the regulations. But on the other hand there is not enough people or time to filter everything everyone posts online no matter what people say. (Fishbein and Hawkins)
Employers should not be able to use their social media site against workers, where it is their private life. Employers should stay out of the private life. Employers in the past have been using Facebook and Twitter against the employees by basically stocking them and watching what they post. In the past people have been fired for posting something about work life like we should have better benefits. What people post is private and shouldn’t be held against them in anyway when they're not doing anything wrong but using the first amendment, the right to speak freely. National works institute has argued that people shouldn’t be fired for what they post online when it is legal. “It is illegal for employers to employ overly broad policies stopping online conversations between employees talking about improving their wages, benefits and quality of life at the workplace”. (Fishbein) Work is where free speech goes to die, once people are at work they are basically limited on everything they say. “On September 15, 2001, three black firefighters were suspended from duty at a Miami firehouse. One of them removed a large flag from a fire truck he was driving because it was blocking his view, but all three were suspended because they made remarks expressing reservations about what the flag represented to them as blacks.” (Branam) These three guys did nothing wrong but move a flag that was in there way of vision. They also said something about what the flag meant to them as blacks. Which is totally legal. Firefighters being apart of the government have the most freedom of speech than any other workplace. “The First Amendment does not apply to employees in the private sector. Employees do not even have the right to discuss non-work related issues at all. Most employers allow it, but it is important to realize that it is a privilege that the employer can revoke at any time.” (Branam). On the other hand should it be legal for employers to take something of someone that's private, like post off their Facebook page and use it against them. Should they get in trouble for their private life and what they do. Employers shouldn’t be able to control people in their private life what so ever. Thats there time to do whatever they wish. Yes they can limit them in the workplace but then again there should only be a certain limitations. (Kuznicki and Hawkins)
Social media sites have limitations of sorts on what people can and can’t say. When people are on Facebook and or twitter they can basically post whatever they want, people never really hear of people getting in trouble for what they post on these sites. These sites are run pretty open and allows people to communicate freely, which in ways is good and some not so good. These sites have what is called “terms of use”. In which every member of Facebook and twitter have to agree to before making a account on the site. This states in it somewhere the regulations and limitations of speech they want everyone to follow. But like said earlier there is not enough time or people to regulate what people say on these sites. They can’t go through and filter everything everyone says. Tweets on twitter and Facebook is protected speech, and they're starting to crack down on the unfair company policies connecting to social media. Jud Hoffman is Facebook’s global policy manager. Him and his team are suppose to police everything post and uploaded to Facebook. There are more than 300 million photos, millions of video links and 2.5 billion messages of one kind or another uploaded to Facebook every day. Imagine policing it all in one day. Does it sound like it can all happen? Sounds like a lot more that anyone can handle and do in that day. This is why they made the “flag” button. Because they can’t police everything everyday they have their billion plus members use the flag button to bring things to the Jud Hoffman and workers attention. It digitally makes groups of these post that get flagged and these workers sift through it. Therefore they aren’t really going through everything that is posted, just what is flagged. (Henn and Sengupta)
Free speech is different for all different types of media such as television, radio and online. Speech limitations for these 3 subjects is a bit different because they are different types of media. In my opinion people are only gonna see it if they look for it. In television there are 68 words people can not say, I’m not gonna list them all but lets just say they all are dirty. children and everyone sees what is on it, so the limitations are stricter. Also when people watch movies and such they will see there is a age restriction or an idea of what age people should be to watch it. Like at movie theaters they don’t let people in the movie unless they are the right age to insure that they are old enough to understand the words they might use and things they will see. Most the time it is because the language people use in the movies or in others it is “dirty”, like a lot of sexual stuff. News wise parents watch news not so much kids, but the kids see it most the time when the parents watch it so they see and hear it as well. people don’t hear so much swear on television, there are a few but they're limited to words that aren’t so bad. They never really hear anything that has to go with bullying. Online on the other hand, Only the people that look it up see it. Children won’t see it unless they look it up. So limitations aren’t as strict. They are aloud to use words that they won’t see like on television. If they are looking it up they are old enough to understand and take what they hear and see. If people are old enough to have a Facebook or twitter then they should be able to understand the words people might say and learn to ignore other things some people say. People would see a lot more swears and bad talk online then they would hear or see in television. A lot of people listen to the radio of all ages. There's some stations like the hard rock stuff that usually they don’t listen to unless they are older. People hear on these stations there are swears and talk of things that children shouldn’t hear. Now when they listen to stations such as pop or hip-hop, these are a lot more common for the younger ages. On these stations they don’t hear swears or bad talk. (Stopera and Halbrooks)
There are too much limitations of speech in online media. The first amendment should protect our speech while it says, people have the right to speak freely. We are able to say most of what we want but most websites and social media sites and television and radio have limitations in their terms of use document. And on the other hand it is not right at all for the employers to research employees social media sites and stalk them to see what they do. They are cracking down on that more and more now. Therefore the first amendment should protect our speech enough so that we can say what we want with very little limitations.
Favreau
Communication Arts
23 May 2013
Speech Limitations in Online Media
Should there be limitations on speech and are they against the first amendment? Should people be able to say whatever they want whenever? Is it right for employers to research people on online social media sites and go against them on things they may post or do? This has been an ongoing issue for employees all around.The first amendment states people have the right to free speech, which means that people are allowed to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. And yet there are still limitations in media everywhere. There are many limitations of speech in online media.
Freedom of speech in the United States is limited, but we still have the fewer limitations than other countries. According to Middleton and Lee, “The categorical language of the first amendment, prohibiting government interference with freedom of expression, gives Americans a broad right to speak, publish, broadcast, blog and demonstrations on matters of conscience and consequence-and on trivial matters, too-without fear of government reprisal. Freedom of expression is in a large measure a negative freedom: freedom from government interferences.” This is telling us that we have the right to speak and give our opinion freely without having to fear the government saying anything about it. “The first amendment does not establish an absolute freedom for citizens to speak and publish” Middleton and Lee. This is explaining that we don’t have the right to say whatever we want, there are limitations on certain subjects but yet we can say more than most other countries. Fighting words are prohibited and people can not start riots.
There should only be certain limitations of speech in the digital world. As said before we have the right to free speech. Should they be limiting what we can and can’t say in our social media sites? “And while that seems very broad, the U.S. Supreme Court has been involved in this debate for nearly a century and has determined that the government can limit both the content of speech and the ability to engage in speech as long as the government has a “substantial justification”(Hawkins). Is there more times where there are more limitations on what we can say. Online social media is sometimes private for only the people they want to see, but most the time it is out there for whoever wants to see it. So what people say and do everyone hears and sees. (Hawkins). Many sites such as Facebook and twitter organizations encourage their online community to engage in speech freely. The government has stated that posts on twitter and Facebook are protected speech. They say there are people that filter what people post, like go through it and make sure it is clean and under the regulations. But on the other hand there is not enough people or time to filter everything everyone posts online no matter what people say. (Fishbein and Hawkins)
Employers should not be able to use their social media site against workers, where it is their private life. Employers should stay out of the private life. Employers in the past have been using Facebook and Twitter against the employees by basically stocking them and watching what they post. In the past people have been fired for posting something about work life like we should have better benefits. What people post is private and shouldn’t be held against them in anyway when they're not doing anything wrong but using the first amendment, the right to speak freely. National works institute has argued that people shouldn’t be fired for what they post online when it is legal. “It is illegal for employers to employ overly broad policies stopping online conversations between employees talking about improving their wages, benefits and quality of life at the workplace”. (Fishbein) Work is where free speech goes to die, once people are at work they are basically limited on everything they say. “On September 15, 2001, three black firefighters were suspended from duty at a Miami firehouse. One of them removed a large flag from a fire truck he was driving because it was blocking his view, but all three were suspended because they made remarks expressing reservations about what the flag represented to them as blacks.” (Branam) These three guys did nothing wrong but move a flag that was in there way of vision. They also said something about what the flag meant to them as blacks. Which is totally legal. Firefighters being apart of the government have the most freedom of speech than any other workplace. “The First Amendment does not apply to employees in the private sector. Employees do not even have the right to discuss non-work related issues at all. Most employers allow it, but it is important to realize that it is a privilege that the employer can revoke at any time.” (Branam). On the other hand should it be legal for employers to take something of someone that's private, like post off their Facebook page and use it against them. Should they get in trouble for their private life and what they do. Employers shouldn’t be able to control people in their private life what so ever. Thats there time to do whatever they wish. Yes they can limit them in the workplace but then again there should only be a certain limitations. (Kuznicki and Hawkins)
Social media sites have limitations of sorts on what people can and can’t say. When people are on Facebook and or twitter they can basically post whatever they want, people never really hear of people getting in trouble for what they post on these sites. These sites are run pretty open and allows people to communicate freely, which in ways is good and some not so good. These sites have what is called “terms of use”. In which every member of Facebook and twitter have to agree to before making a account on the site. This states in it somewhere the regulations and limitations of speech they want everyone to follow. But like said earlier there is not enough time or people to regulate what people say on these sites. They can’t go through and filter everything everyone says. Tweets on twitter and Facebook is protected speech, and they're starting to crack down on the unfair company policies connecting to social media. Jud Hoffman is Facebook’s global policy manager. Him and his team are suppose to police everything post and uploaded to Facebook. There are more than 300 million photos, millions of video links and 2.5 billion messages of one kind or another uploaded to Facebook every day. Imagine policing it all in one day. Does it sound like it can all happen? Sounds like a lot more that anyone can handle and do in that day. This is why they made the “flag” button. Because they can’t police everything everyday they have their billion plus members use the flag button to bring things to the Jud Hoffman and workers attention. It digitally makes groups of these post that get flagged and these workers sift through it. Therefore they aren’t really going through everything that is posted, just what is flagged. (Henn and Sengupta)
Free speech is different for all different types of media such as television, radio and online. Speech limitations for these 3 subjects is a bit different because they are different types of media. In my opinion people are only gonna see it if they look for it. In television there are 68 words people can not say, I’m not gonna list them all but lets just say they all are dirty. children and everyone sees what is on it, so the limitations are stricter. Also when people watch movies and such they will see there is a age restriction or an idea of what age people should be to watch it. Like at movie theaters they don’t let people in the movie unless they are the right age to insure that they are old enough to understand the words they might use and things they will see. Most the time it is because the language people use in the movies or in others it is “dirty”, like a lot of sexual stuff. News wise parents watch news not so much kids, but the kids see it most the time when the parents watch it so they see and hear it as well. people don’t hear so much swear on television, there are a few but they're limited to words that aren’t so bad. They never really hear anything that has to go with bullying. Online on the other hand, Only the people that look it up see it. Children won’t see it unless they look it up. So limitations aren’t as strict. They are aloud to use words that they won’t see like on television. If they are looking it up they are old enough to understand and take what they hear and see. If people are old enough to have a Facebook or twitter then they should be able to understand the words people might say and learn to ignore other things some people say. People would see a lot more swears and bad talk online then they would hear or see in television. A lot of people listen to the radio of all ages. There's some stations like the hard rock stuff that usually they don’t listen to unless they are older. People hear on these stations there are swears and talk of things that children shouldn’t hear. Now when they listen to stations such as pop or hip-hop, these are a lot more common for the younger ages. On these stations they don’t hear swears or bad talk. (Stopera and Halbrooks)
There are too much limitations of speech in online media. The first amendment should protect our speech while it says, people have the right to speak freely. We are able to say most of what we want but most websites and social media sites and television and radio have limitations in their terms of use document. And on the other hand it is not right at all for the employers to research employees social media sites and stalk them to see what they do. They are cracking down on that more and more now. Therefore the first amendment should protect our speech enough so that we can say what we want with very little limitations.
Bibliography
Hawkins, Sara. "How Free Speech and Social Media Fit Together." Social Media Examiner RSS. N/A, 8 Mar. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
Kuznicki, Jason. "Attack of the Utility Monsters: The New Threats to Free Speech." Cato Institute. N/A, 16 Nov. 2009. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
O'Neill, Megan. "Morning Social Media Newsfeed." Free Speech & Social Media: How Far Is Too Far? N/A, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
Sengupta, Somini. "On Web, a Fine Line on Free Speech Across the Globe." The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
Rebecca Fishbein, Government Intervenes To Protect Workers' Free Speech On Social Media. Published. January 22, 2013. Web. 30 Apr. 2013
Images
http://samsonblinded.org/images/freedom-of-expression-against-free-speech.gif
http://im.tech2.in.com/images/2012/nov/coverimagefreespeech_640x360.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-N_d_AHIjwwk/T0ceObx4E_I/AAAAAAAAAms/oUNEZNfg_kQ/s1600/url.jpeg
Hawkins, Sara. "How Free Speech and Social Media Fit Together." Social Media Examiner RSS. N/A, 8 Mar. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
Kuznicki, Jason. "Attack of the Utility Monsters: The New Threats to Free Speech." Cato Institute. N/A, 16 Nov. 2009. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
O'Neill, Megan. "Morning Social Media Newsfeed." Free Speech & Social Media: How Far Is Too Far? N/A, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
Sengupta, Somini. "On Web, a Fine Line on Free Speech Across the Globe." The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
Rebecca Fishbein, Government Intervenes To Protect Workers' Free Speech On Social Media. Published. January 22, 2013. Web. 30 Apr. 2013
Images
http://samsonblinded.org/images/freedom-of-expression-against-free-speech.gif
http://im.tech2.in.com/images/2012/nov/coverimagefreespeech_640x360.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-N_d_AHIjwwk/T0ceObx4E_I/AAAAAAAAAms/oUNEZNfg_kQ/s1600/url.jpeg