Social media comments should be protected by Free Speech?........................

Definition of terms:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Social Media - forms of electronic communication (such as websites for social

networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share
information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (such as videos).
–Merriam Webster……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Free Speech - speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
also : the right to such speech an unconstitutional restraint on free speech
— Nat'l Law Jour…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

List of Disadvantages of Freedom of Speech:…………………………………………………….

1. Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to have “all” speech…………………………….
The concept behind the freedom of speech is that you should be able to express anything in
a way that does not create legal consequences for you. Even if your opinion is unsavory,
rude, or unpopular, this right gives you the option to express it.

2. Freedom of speech can spread false information……………………………………………………………

Thanks to the rise of the Internet, the freedom of speech makes it easier for individuals to
spread false information and outright lies, but then still pretend that this data is true.
Research does not prove that vaccinations increase the risk of autism in children, but you
will find “information” online that says this is true. Even though it is protected speech when
this right is present, it could also lead to people getting or transmitting a preventable
disease. In 2019, over 60 people in Washington and Oregon contracted the measles, with
almost all of the cases being unvaccinated children.

3. Freedom of speech can incite violence against other people…………………………………………

People must be held responsible for the personal choices that they make. When someone
commits an act of violence against another because they were incited by hate speech to do
so, then they made the choice to break the law. The person who created the outcome
through the encouragement of their language holds some responsibility here as well. If
online radicalization causes people to join ISIS, then shouldn’t political radicalization that
causes individuals to attack journalists be treated in the same way?

4. Freedom of speech creates a paradox……………………………………………………………………………

When we look at the modern idea that creates the foundation for freedom of speech, it
really isn’t free. The government is still dictating some of the things that we can or cannot
say. This freedom, and this writer, cannot exist if people are not allowed to make assertions
that are distasteful to the majority, even if the statements are hurtful to other people.

5. Freedom of speech can create a mob mentality………………………………………………………………

In 2012, Oatmeal and FunnyJunk had a dust-up over the use of images that author Matthew
Inman did not authorize for distribution. Charles Carreon made a public splash as the
attorney for FunnyJunk, which created a back-and-forth which eventually led the Internet to
turn against him. In return for those actions, Carreon labeled everyone he thought of as an
“instigator” as a “rapeutationist.” When one person offers an opinion that others find to be
believable, it creates a mob mentality on both sides of the equation. When this happens, it
can destroy a person’s livelihood quickly.

6. Freedom of speech can cause people to endure verbal abuse. ………………………………………

Voltaire’s biographer summed up the views of the philosopher like this: “I don’t agree with
what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” When freedom of speech is
treated this way, then it creates a situation where people must endure sexist or racist verbal
abuse. Is it really beneficial for society to allow individuals to use derogatory terms for the
purpose of causing discomfort?
We already know that there can be poor health outcomes associated with the fear of
violence and crime. Dr. Erin Grinshteyn of UCSF conduced an online survey platform that
asked students to rate their fear of experiencing 11 different crimes that included physical
assault, hate speech, vandalism, and microaggressions among others. Her findings showed
that students in racial minority groups feared violence more than Caucasians. Ongoing fear
is a risk factor for mental health declines as well.

7. Freedom of speech will eventually polarize society…………………………………………………………

When people are allowed to express their opinions freely, then it creates three primary
outcomes. Some people will agree with the statement, others will disagree, and a middle
group won’t care one way or the other. People tend to hang out in circles where others
think and feel in similar ways, which means they will gather around like-minded individuals
to spend most of their time.
Pew Research found as early as 2014 that 92% of Republicans are to the political right of the
median Democrat, while 94% of Democrats were to the left of the median Republican. 36%
of GOP supporters even felt that members of the opposite party were a threat to the
wellbeing of the country. When there are ideological silos created from free speech, it
eventually polarizes society into groups that struggle to get along with each other.

28% of people say that it is important to them to live in a place where most others share
their political views. For people who label themselves as “consistently conservative,” that
figure rises to 50%, and 63% of that same group says that most of their close friends share
their political views.
8. Freedom of speech reduces the desire to compromise……………………………………………………
Pew Research also discovered that when people are consistently liberal or conservative with
their freedom of speech, their idea of what compromise entails begins to shift. Instead of
believing that both sides must have a give-and-take to create an outcome, the definition
becomes one in which their side gets what they want while the other side gets as little as
possible. This perspective makes it a challenge for society to function because those on each
extreme are consistently battling the other extreme because each views themselves as
being the superior contributor to society.

A Final Thought on the Pros and Cons of Freedom of Speech……………………………………………..

The pros and cons of freedom of speech suggest that there should be some limits in place
for the general good of society. Allowing people to say or do whatever they want at any
time increases the risk for harm. Do we really want to live in a world where the creation and
distribution of child pornography is a protected right?

Once we start deciding “good” and “bad” speech, it opens the door for abuses to occur.
That is why the Supreme Court in the United States has worked hard for over 200 years to
create rigid definitions of what is helpful and what is harmful. The goal is to allow people to
express contrary opinions without the threat of legal reprisal. This structure promotes an
exchange of ideas, which then encourages the learning processes for everyone.

- Crystal Ayres - editor-in-chief of this Blog.

Lizzy Huang

Nowadays, people can comment on any issue freely, and the Internet is regarded as the
most important thing in their daily life, because they can post any words they want to say
on the Internet conveniently, and even insult others by typing offensive words. Although
most people in modern society emphasize freedom of speech, there’re still a lot of serious
problems caused by it, including harmful speech, irreparable events, misuse of this freedom.

First, freedom of speech can harm people. Because of the convenience of the Internet,
even a word can greatly inflict many people. Netizens leave various kinds of negative
messages on the Internet, and some are anonymous. They don’t consider these insulting
words immoral. Sometimes these comments aim at a person, and it may be for no reason.
The phenomenon is called, “Cyberbully.” However, Netizens have no idea that they should
be responsible for the consequences, but their comments may lead to the victims’
permanent psychological harm.
 Second, humiliating comments can result in a suicide. When more and more people
attack a person with negative words, he or she will be very upset, and when the person is
not able to cope with the situation, he or she may hopelessly resort to committing suicide.
By the time, the consequence is irrevocable, and it’s too late to regret.

Third, people readily comment on every event and anyone, but it may be illegal.
Sometimes people use bad language to convey their emotions, but they may be sued by
others, and the Internet is no exception. Police can find Netizens’ location and punish them,
even if they are anonymous

To sum up, in spite of freedom for our speech, we still have to strike a balance between
law and freedom. We not only need to be concerned about others’ feelings, but also need
to treasure this freedom and use it well.………………………………………………………………………………

Freedom of Speech in Philippines

Article III Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines specifies that no law shall be
passed abridging the freedom of speech or of expression. However, some laws limit this
freedom, for example:

 Certain sections of the Flag and Heraldic Code require particular expressions and
prohibit other expressions.
 Title thirteen of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines criminalizes libel and slander
by act or deed (slander by deed is defined as "any act ... which shall cast dishonor,
discredit or contempt upon another person."), providing penalties of fine or
imprisonment. In 2012, acting on a complaint by an imprisoned broadcaster who
dramatised a newspaper account reporting that a particular politician was seen running
naked in a hotel when caught in bed by the husband of the woman with whom he was
said to have spent the night, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights ruled
that the criminalization of libel violates freedom of expression and is inconsistent with
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, commenting that
"Defamations laws should not ... stifle freedom of expression" and that "Penal
defamation laws should include defense of truth."
 Blasphemy against decency and good customs is an offense which is punishable by a
prison term, a fine, or both. Other offenses against decency and good customs include:
public displays or exhibitions which glorify criminals or condone crimes, serve no other
purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography, offend any race or
religion, tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs, and are contrary to law,
public order, morals, and good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and
edicts; publishing or selling obscene literature; selling, giving away, or exhibiting films,
prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals; publicly
 expounding or proclaiming doctrines openly contrary to public morals; and highly
scandalous conduct not expressly falling within any other article of the code.

“Not all speech is protected. There are limits to free speech.”

This slogan is true, but rarely helpful. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to
the 1st Amendment "well-defined and narrowly limited." They include obscenity,
defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct.
First Amendment exceptions are not an open-ended category, and the Supreme Court has
repeatedly declined to add to them, especially in the last generation. Merely observing that
some exceptions exist does not help anyone determine whether particular speech falls into
one of those exceptions. It's a non sequitur.
Imagine you're bitten by a snake on a hike, and you want to know rather urgently whether
the snake is venomous. You describe the snake to your doctor. "Well, not all snakes are
venomous," your doctor responds. Not very helpful, it is?
“You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”
Almost 100 years ago, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr. coined a version of
this now-familiar metaphor. Holmes used it to explain why the Supreme Court was
upholding the criminal conviction of Charles Shenck, who was jailed merely for distributing
materials urging peaceful resistance to the draft in World War I. Fortunately, the Supreme
Court — often led by Holmes himself — retreated from this terrible precedent, eventually
ruling that speech can't be punished as "incitement" unless it is intended and likely to
provoke imminent lawless action. In other words, this favorite rhetorical apologia for
censorship was used in the course of a decision now universally recognized as bad law.
Holmes' usually misquoted slogan (he said that the law allows us to punish someone
for falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater) is really just another way to observe that not
all speech is protected and there are limits to 1st Amendment protections. As I said before
that's not in dispute, but invoking the truism does nothing to resolve whether
any particularspeech falls within the well-defined and narrow exceptions to the 1st
Amendment.
“Hate speech is not free speech.”
This popular saying reflects our contempt for bigotry, but it's not a correct statement of law.
There is no general 1st Amendment exception allowing the government to punish "hate
speech" that denigrates people based on their identity. Things we call "hate speech" might
occasionally fall into an existing 1st Amendment exception: a racist speech might seek to
incite imminent violence against a group, or might be reasonably interpreted as an
immediate threat to do harm. But "hate speech," like other ugly types of speech we despise,
is broadly protected.
“We must balance free speech and other interests.”
Censorship advocates often tell us we need to balance the freedom of speak with the harm
that speech does. This is arguable philosophically, but it is wrong legally. American courts
don't decide whether to protect speech by balancing its harm against its benefit; they ask
only if it falls into a specific 1st Amendment exception. As the Supreme Court recently put it,
"[t]he First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of
speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First
Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its
restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs."
“‘Fighting words’ are not protected under the First Amendment.”
Years ago the Supreme Court recognized a very narrow 1st Amendment exception for
"fighting words." If the exception still survives, it's limited to in-person face-to-face insults
directed at a particular person and likely to provoke a violent response from that person. It
doesn't apply broadly to offensive speech, even though it's often invoked to justify
censoring such speech.
“Maybe this speech is protected now, but the law is always changing.”
The Supreme Court's approach to constitutional rights can change very quickly. For instance,
it took less than a generation for the court to reverse course on whether the government
could punish gay sex. But for decades the court has been moving towards more vigorous
protection of free speech, not less. Some of the most controversial and unpopular speech to
come before the court — like videos of animals being tortured, or incendiary Westboro
Baptist Church protests at funerals — have yielded solid 8-to-1 majorities in favor of
protecting speech. There's no sign of a growing appetite for censorship on the court.
Even as a free speech advocate and critic of censorship, I'm happy to see a public debate
about the limits of free speech. Any debate that raises consciousness about our rights can
be productive. But the free speech debate should proceed based on facts and well-
established law, not empty rhetoric. Familiarity with our rights and how they work is a civic
obligation.
Ken White is a 1st Amendment litigator and criminal defense attorney at
Brown White & Osborn LLP in Los Angeles.