" The internet acts as a platform for people to spread their ideas. Unfortunately, with the ability to spread ideas many people use the internet in order to spread inappropriate content such as hate speech and pornography. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) consistently acts in defense of freedom of speech, even going so far as not condemning hate speech. However, in the court case Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, about whether or not a school can censor journalism, SCOTUS decided on a five to three vote that censorship of student journalism does not violate First Amendment Rights. SCOTUS decided on this ruling because they think prohibition of publishing articles deemed inappropriate does not violate First Amendment Rights. The …show more content…
Firstly, plenty of hostile ideas spread from places that claim to inform such as Info Wars, Alt Right, Breitbart, and The Daily Stormer. The Daily Stormer has a whole set of articles referring to “the Jewish problemâ€. “Menorahs are Symbols of Triumph Over the Subjugated Goyim†and calling Jewish people “kikes†show the bigotry of The Daily Stormer through only their titles. Moreover, Chimpmania.com serves as a prime example of bigotry online. Chimpmania describes itself as a “hate speech forum†devoted to dehumanizing people of color. Furthermore, another website, Feminismiscancer.ca, hosts a variety of misogynistic messages such as calling feminists “brain deadâ€, constantly attempting to assert mens’ false superiority over women, and posting an article titled “Teenage Female Suicide Rates Soar!â€. In summary, the internet clearly carries hateful messages that can easily spread as evidenced by having these hateful messages available in order to write this essay. The fact that someone can go onto any of these websites and see such hateful rhetoric getting updated and endorsed daily by thousands of people seems simply disgraceful and needs
In the majority opinion, Justice White wrote “Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were” The court also noted that the paper was a sponsored newspaper by the school which was not intended to be seen by the public, but rather for journalism students to write articles based off of the requirements for journalism 2 class, and all subjects must be appropriate for the school and all its
In the Supreme Court case of the New York Times Co. vs. United States there is a power struggle. This struggle includes the entities of the individual freedoms against the interests of federal government. It is well known that the first amendment protects the freedom of speech, but to what extent does this freedom exist. There have been instances in which speech has been limited; Schenck vs. United States(1919) was the landmark case which instituted such limitations due to circumstances of “clear and present danger”. Many have noted that the press serves as an overseer which both apprehends and guides national agenda. However, if the federal government possessed the ability to censor the press would the government restrain itself? In the case of the Pentagon Papers the necessities of individual freedoms supersedes the scope of the national government.
The case that I chose to analyze is Reno v. ACLU. It is the first Internet related U.S. Supreme Court case ever to be decided. Seven of the justices found the argued provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) were unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court found that the Internet is similar to a shopping mall or library not a broadcast medium as the government refered to it. The majority opinion for this case was that the Internet is a unique marketplace for ideas. The ruling states that while there is a large amount of pornographic material out there, it normally isn’t come across on accident. They stated that the CDA already holds back a good amount of speech that is alright for adult to adult conversations, which they do have a constitutional right to receive. While they recognize the CDA efforts to protect children from harmful speech and pornographic material, it still does not justify the unnecessarily broad suspension of speech. The final outcome was that they found that what the CDA was trying to do would violate speakers messages who are rightfully protected under the First Amendment.
First Amendment protections were upheld in the case of Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (Reno, 1997). The Communications Decency Act of 1996 was found to violate the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech. In appealing the CDA, appellees were hoping that the court would determine that the CDA violated both First and Fifth Amendment rights. While the court agreed that the CDA violated First Amendment rights, they did not rule on the issue of Fifth Amendment rights violations. Both constitutional and criminal issues were being addressed in this appeal.
The author provides many facts that support his argument and makes sure to explain how other solutions would not work to solve this problem effectively. The article provides a plethora of facts discussing how the use of censorship is not the way to go due to its negative connotation and how the law cannot do anything, because technically nothing wrong is really happening the law viewpoint. The author finally concluded his essay by discussing how the solution he proposed maybe the best one they can use at the moment and how the solution has been used and been proven successful. The weaknesses of the essay include lack of information regarding the Supreme Court readings and the fact that he did not cite any sources to show ethos, but he himself was the president of Harvard University so that might have been
...ause it could give children wrong stereotypical information, which could lead to development of a wrong idea about their culture and society later in their adulthood. These effects could be reduced by making strict laws that prevents hateful articles from publication, or at least a law that requires editors of blogs and magazine to carefully approve only accurate and appropriate information for the general public.
Instead, Bok suggests that we address the problem by communicating with those who are causing these disturbances and understand . Also in the essay, “Freedom of Speech Means Freedom to Hate”, Christopher Hitchens explains why banning those hate speeches may be an unwise decision for society as a whole as freedom of speech does sometimes prevent the tyranny of majority from happening. While the essay, “Why Women Aren’t Welcome on the Internet”, Amanda Hess makes for the argument that the internet have become a new and terrifying way for people to bully women who uses it. The last article, “The Case for Censoring Hate Speech,” Sean McElwee argues that censoring is required to help protect the minorities and to foster a better society. Freedom of expression should not be limited for limiting speech does not help solve the root problem and it would be near impossible for any person to regulate what people are allowed to say and not allowed to say without having any sort of bias against anyone in
This paper will examine the first amendment’s right to free speech based on three different Supreme Court cases and how there are varying examples of free speech. In the case of Snyder v. Phelps, Snyder sued Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, and conspiracy because the church set-up protest outside of his military son’s funeral service (Chen et al., 2010). Another side of free speech involves a case which allow schools to restrict speech that is promoting illegal drug use. To examine this view this paper will look at the case of Morse v. Frederick. Lastly, this paper will look into the case of Texas v. Johnson. At the end of a protesting march Johnson burned an American flag. The research for this paper will allow the reader to examine some of the different ways that free speech can be expressed, to what extent it may or may not be expressed and possibly where free speech may or may not be prohibited.
In this world today, hate is becoming increasingly more abundant, especially as it concerns race. Whether it be an unarmed black man shot by a white police officer or the use of racial slurs towards someone, it seems like racism is all around us. In the book To Kill A Mockingbird, it shows a little girl named Scout using racial slurs. Racism is so culturally accepted in the town that it’s okay to use racial slurs such as the N-Word that even Atticus, a lawyer representing a black man falsely accused of rape, uses it a couple of times. Earlier this year, the Ku Klux Klan, a group of white supremacists, held a violent rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and proved that racism isn’t a thing of the past.
Technology has provided our society with numerous innovations that have been created to improve the quality of life on a daily basis. One such innovation is the Internet. The access to a wide variety of information is perhaps the most valuable tool, as well as the most important tool, that we have entering the twenty-first century. There are virtually no limits on how much can be achieved through the use of the Internet. This is not, however, necessarily a good thing. Most people find that offensive material such as child pornography and hate-related propaganda can be viewed by people too easily via the Internet. While child pornography is a detestable subject, it does not have the sort of appeal that a hate group website does in that there are stricter guidelines preventing individuals from attaining child pornography material from the Internet. These stricter guidelines include the Communications Decency Act (1995), which forbids the use of the Internet for such purposes as attaining material of a child pornographic nature (Wolf, 2000). This law can also be used to monitor the hate group websites, but since the law is too broad, it is rarely held up in court. The hate group websites do, however, have a large enough following that there is legislation being formed to specifically target the material on the sites. Despite the highly offensive nature of hate group websites, the sites should not be censored because the right to free speech must be preserved. In this paper we will define what is considered to be hateful content; why this hateful content should be protected; what else can be done to monitor this material on the Internet; and when are the people cr...
McCarthy, M. (2005). THE CONTINUING SAGA OF INTERNET CENSORSHIP: THE CHILD ONLINE PROTECTION ACT. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, (2), 83-101.
The civil liberties that the American people have are inalienable rights. The most important of these is the freedom of speech. Yet freedom of speech is not entirely protected; using hurtful, false, or damaging speech is not allowed. But how can the American government control something as basic as speech? There are laws against libel and slander but how are they perpetrated? This essay will explain how the court cases and laws have evolved and been clarified throughout America’s history up to present day.
Since the foundation of the United States after a harsh split from Britain, almost 200 years later, an issue that could claim the founding grounds for the country is now being challenged by educators, high-ranking officials, and other countries. Though it is being challenged, many libertarians, democrats, and free-speech thinkers hold the claim that censorship violates our so-called unalienable rights, as it has been proven throughout many court cases. Censorship in the United States is detrimental because it has drastically and negatively altered many significant events.
There are two real issues at stake when looking at this controversial topic. The first issue is finding a way to protect our children from potentially damaging material. There are advocates to censoring the Internet and removing this type of material because it will help shelter our children from this type of content. On the other hand, Free Speech advocates believe that it is the individual citizens right to have access to this typ...
to the first amendment, the expression of free speech is applied to the internet. With all the