Reference no: EM131633519

Respond to Peers: Respond to at least three of your classmates' posts. In your responses to your peers of at least 200 words, extend the conversation by examining their claims or arguments in more depth or by responding to the posts that they make to you.

Keep the discussion on target and try to analyze things in as much detail as you can. For instance, analyze your classmate's response and the real-world examples they provide for support. Is the support they provide reliable and credible? Also, support your analysis with examples from the required material(s) and other scholarly resources, and properly cite any references.

Student 1:

Is virtual freedom of speech the same as freedom of speech in other media outlets (i.e., freedom of the press)? Why or why not?

As citizens of America we are entitled to certain rights - freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to vote, etc. Rights like this cannot be taken away. However, there is much conflict in recent years on which many cases have been focus. With social media becoming the forefront of communication in society, many people have concerns over whether or not press coverage and displays of things is Constitutionally covered as freedom of speech and press. I do not believe that the freedom of speech in media outlets is the same as verbal freedom of speech.

There are restrictions to the limits that the First Amendment protects and allows. "The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." This language restricts government's ability to constrain the speech of citizens. The prohibition on abridgment of the freedom of speech is not absolute. Certain types of speech may be prohibited outright. Some types of speech may be more easily constrained than others" (Ruane, 2014). Ruane goes on to state that some speech is prohibited - fighting words or hatred, advocating of illegal activities.

Accordingly, some speech is just limited - commercial speech, obscenity, profanity, copyrights or trademarked items. Virtual speech is limited and certain content is restricted - thus it is different than verbal freedom of speech. Media outlets for common citizens, such as FaceBook, SnapChat, Instagram, Kik, etc...all of these are subject to restrictions. Not all speech is. It is in effect now the real-life examples of how some speech is not limited, and some is. Thus, I find it difficult to believe that these two speech freedoms are similar.

Ruane, K.L. (2014). Freedom of speech and press: Exceptions to the first amendment. Congressional Research Service.

Student 2:

Is virtual freedom of speech the same as freedom of speech in other media outlets (i.e., freedom of the press)? Why or why not?

In my opinion freedom of speech is the same as virtual freedom of speech. However, they are different in ways. I feel people are more likely to say what they think and will voice their feelings more when saying it virtually. Just look at how this election year went. There were several things written online that weren't true about both candidates.

A lot of personal fact checking had to be done. "The core business functions of Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms turn on expression - no less than the New York Times's" (Ammori, 2014, para. 2). Between all the back and forth between both candidates and then what was written online it was difficult to find the truth.

Yes, we have the First Amendment that gives us the freedom of speech, but that does not always seem to be the case. There are defamation laws that fall under Tort Law. Tort Laws are described as, "false statements about a person, communicated as fact to one or more other persons by an individual or entity (such as a person, newspaper, magazine, or political organization), which causes damage and does harm to the target's reputation and/or standing in the community" (Legal Resources, para. 1). So, if a statement is characterized as a fact then it is libel, but if a statement is meant to cause harm and is not true, then it is malice.

So, I will say it again yes, I do think freedom of speech is the same as virtual freedom of speech, but they are just performed differently. We should all do our best to fact check and find the real truth.

References

Ammori, M. (2014). Freedom of the Press: The ‘New' New York Times: Free Speech Lawyering in the Age of Google and Twitter.

HG.org Legal Resources, (n.d.). Defamation Law- Guide to Libel and Slander Law

Student 3:

Is virtual freedom of speech the same as freedom of speech in other media outlets (i.e., freedom of the press)? Why or why not?

Per the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" but this does not mean that the government cannot limit or restrict what can and cannot be published. Even though when the constitution was written, Madison could not imagine how far speech would come since the 1700s. Initially it was meant to protect those who had any written or verbal dialogue, over the years, freedom of speech has had to be adapted to cover the numerous ways of communicating and informing.

I personally believe that virtual freedom of speech is the same as freedom of speech in other media outlets because it is all regulated to government and social standards. News stations, newspapers, and social media all have their regulations and those who violate those regulations are punished. Take Facebook for example.

Facebook has a series of terms that you agree to when you initially create your account which include limiting what you can and cannot post or share ranging from spam to bullying or hate speech. Even though everyone is entitled to their own opinion it must be watered down and diluted to suit other individuals.