People express their thoughts online on social media and read other’s thoughts anytime. This includes hate speech, offending people by their race, gender, etc. Social media platforms are censoring these writings, however, there is a problem with this. The freedom of speech, which is assured by the first amendment. Those who agree with censorship claim that hate speech encroaches other’s rights, so it should be censored in order to protect those rights. On the other hand, those who disagree with censorship suggest that the first amendment protects every speech, and the censorship may go too much that the freedom of speech cannot be assured anymore.
The issue was, Simon Tam was trying to make a band, however, the U.S. trademark office denied the application because of its name would likely be disparaging towards “persons of Asian descent.”.Simon claimed that this is a violation if the first amendment. The supreme court ruled that this is against to the freedom of speech because the name will not apply to “fraud, defamation, and incitement” that regulates trademark names. They also determined that any asserted interest of avoiding offense clearly contravened the purpose of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. This ruling had a tremendous effect because the U.S.supreme court stated that even hate speech is protected by the first amendment. This will have an effect on the issue in social media, because censorship may be against the first amendment.
The author question about freedom of speech on social media: does "freedom of speech" apply online? While the freedom of expressing one's opinion is assured by the first amendment, there are limitations to it. People are not allowed to express any opinion offending people about race, religion, etc. Exceptions and where to make the line is a problem. This is a source of Loyola University Maryland, and this explanatory article helps us understand what the problem of social media and free speech is by listing examples. "these actions would be distributive during the election although it was clear that some of his content could be considered hate speech" might be biased because there is an opinion in it.
The author suggests that freedom of speech should be protected on social media, too. He claims that social media platforms are violating the first amendment by monitoring hate speech. He quotes the words from an article by EEF: “We do it because we believe that no one — not the government and not private commercial enterprises — should decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t.” He strongly wants the first amendment to be protected by any organization and the government. This is a credible source of "The Campanile", and it is important to know the opinion of those who want the amendment to be protected strictly. As the first amendment is assuring the freedom of speech, they think that it should not be violated. "Its message was clear: anything can be said, as long as it is done professionally."
The author suggests that censorship in social media is necessary. There should be a clear rule. She introduces that the U.S. Supreme Court 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". This determination is the evidence for social media platforms to censor. This is a reliable source of Sara Hawkins, and it helps us understand the debate on the first amendment by referring to it and explaining what is protected and what is not. The line is whether the words are encroaching other’s rights. "Freedom of speech. Three words that get thrown around and written about so often that what the expression means is more about misinformation than truth."