Free speech is fundamental to constitutional democracy because without constitutional democracy, the public has no proper representation within the government. Anthony Lewis, author of the book Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, argues that judges in the past have decided how we interpret the constitution. He describes judges as being not within vacuum, and therefore their decisions regarding the constitution are impacted by the worldviews, and the society around them. Because of this, there is an emphasis of importance on who we decide should be in these positions of power as Supreme Court judges. That is, if we are assuming that judges in the past and the way they interpret the constitution have made the amendments, what they are and what
…show more content…
Lewis states that voters are the ultimate sovereigns of a republic. Speech on the internet should be limited, to a certain extent. The regulation of speech within social media is highly debated, and for good reason. McElwee argues that “Facebook and other social networking websites should not tolerate hate speech and, in the absence of a government mandate, should adopt a European model of expunging offensive material” (McElwee 2). Social media platforms should consider themselves to be a democratic space, where all civil norms and values should be respected, and free to public debate. However, as McElwee states later, “Free speech isn’t an absolute right”, as no right can be weighed “in a vacuum” (2). There are restrictions when it comes to freedom of speech in America. For example, the First Amendment does not protect the use of fighting words, libel, or child pornography. The real question becomes, then, why hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. If we consider social media platforms to be a democratic space that values public norms, then hate speech should not be …show more content…
But if X follows the First Amendment, shouldn’t it be against policy to restrict speech in terms of fighting words, libel, etc.? McElwee. If the First Amendment does not protect all forms of speech, where does hate speech fall under that? McElwee and Ingram’s arguments are two sides of the same coin. They agree that online spaces are democratic and subject to civil norms. Social media companies should monitor the types of speech on their platforms. While platforms like Facebook and Google have stricter policies than the First Amendment, Twitter (or X) follows it to a tee, and does not extend any further than the First Amendment in terms of disallowing certain types of speech. This is controversial because it allows hate speech and other incendiary speech to run free throughout the platform. However, offensive speech should be allowed. This is so long as speech calling for, or inciting violence, is disallowed, as McElwee supports. Social media, whether the majority would like to admit it or not, has a great sway on public
Lewis states that voters are the ultimate sovereigns of a republic. Speech on the internet should be limited, to a certain extent. The regulation of speech within social media is highly debated, and for good reason. McElwee argues that “Facebook and other social networking websites should not tolerate hate speech and, in the absence of a government mandate, should adopt a European model of expunging offensive material” (McElwee 2). Social media platforms should consider themselves to be a democratic space, where all civil norms and values should be respected, and free to public debate. However, as McElwee states later, “Free speech isn’t an absolute right”, as no right can be weighed “in a vacuum” (2). There are restrictions when it comes to freedom of speech in America. For example, the First Amendment does not protect the use of fighting words, libel, or child pornography. The real question becomes, then, why hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. If we consider social media platforms to be a democratic space that values public norms, then hate speech should not be …show more content…
But if X follows the First Amendment, shouldn’t it be against policy to restrict speech in terms of fighting words, libel, etc.? McElwee. If the First Amendment does not protect all forms of speech, where does hate speech fall under that? McElwee and Ingram’s arguments are two sides of the same coin. They agree that online spaces are democratic and subject to civil norms. Social media companies should monitor the types of speech on their platforms. While platforms like Facebook and Google have stricter policies than the First Amendment, Twitter (or X) follows it to a tee, and does not extend any further than the First Amendment in terms of disallowing certain types of speech. This is controversial because it allows hate speech and other incendiary speech to run free throughout the platform. However, offensive speech should be allowed. This is so long as speech calling for, or inciting violence, is disallowed, as McElwee supports. Social media, whether the majority would like to admit it or not, has a great sway on public