First Amendment rights are certainly a touchy subject here in the United States. Many citizens are extremely defensive of these rights scribed in this piece of legislation, as they represent the free and democratic state that America strives to embody. In our ever-changing world, how will we adapt to align one of our founding principles, free speech, with the rest of society? This question is even now coming into play with the prevalence of speech and political discourse found on the Internet and on social media. Should speech be monitored and potentially restricted on these sites, or should this now town square allow for free rein when pertaining to discussion? Through research, I have discovered various news articles and stories that continue to push this debate forward. Whether it be sex offenders on Facebook or Donald Trump on Twitter, the controversy is consistent with this topic.

The article, “A Constitutional Right to Facebook and Twitter? Supreme Court Weighs In,” introduced an issue that I was completely unfamiliar with. Found in the New York Times, it describes a recent Supreme Court case with North Carolina legislators on banning registered sex offenders from using Twitter, Facebook, and alike social media platforms. Remarks by justices on the Supreme Court suggested that the law proposed in this state would be struck down. Justice Elena Kagan noted that many extremely important political figures use social media as a main mode of communicating information nowadays. She is quoted as saying, “So this has become a crucially important channel of political communication, and a person couldn’t go onto those sites and find out what these members of our government are thinking or saying or doing.” Justice Kagan puts forth a good argument, and many of the other justices seem to follow suit on the issue. However, some North Carolina representatives see the problem differently. Robert C. Montgomery, a lawyer for the state, argued that the North Carolina was entitled to limit a sex offender’s speech on these websites. The law was specifically challenged by Lester Packingham, an individual who pleaded guilty of taking indecent liberties with a minor when he was a 21-year-old college student. He started trouble with the authorities after posting, “God is good,” on Facebook due to a dodged traffic ticket. The post seems quite harmless and honestly just silly, but Lester was in for some serious punishment. The Supreme Court justices ruled in his favor, however, and Mr. Montgomery seemed to be alone in his logic. Montgomery clearly disagreed with the ruling, still arguing that “It’s not the entire internet that is being taken away from these offenders. They can still have their own blog. They can read blogs. They can do podcasts. They can go to nytimes.com.” Overall, the consensus was that the legislation in place was a clear infringement upon First Amendment rights. The intended effect seemed to only further isolate offenders trying to turn their lives around. The law was too broad and generalized, resulting in some harmful unintended consequences.

Additionally, social media platform Twitter has endured criticism in the news relating to censorship and free speech. As a hub for communication, news, and discourse, people hope and expect that Twitter will respect the right to voice opinions and hear differing perspectives. However, Twitter is not legally required to abide by any free speech regulations. As a private company, it can set its own rules and boundaries. It can also prevent any specific customer from using a service. Discussion even set in on whether current President Donald Trump should be banned from Twitter. Trump has taken on this infamous social media persona associated with hate and constant judgement. He is setting a precedent as a leader of our nation who avidly posts information through social media. Being in this type of limelight comes with great responsibility, and Trump has not done a terrific job of keeping his nose down. As mentioned above, the tweets are most often obnoxious and provoking; however, he seems to remain within the bounds of Twitter’s outlined policy.

There is still question as to whether the President could receive suspension for his bullying tweets and no doubt that Trump is walking a fine line. But should he be? Although Twitter can technically control who uses their product and how, does the company have a duty to serve under our nation’s guiding values? Even last month, Twitter was under fire for announcing a new Trust and Safety Council. According to an article in Huffington Post, “Members of the council include organizations such as Anti-Bullying Pro and Feminist Frequency,” and outsiders assert that there is a hidden agenda favoring liberals. Regardless of such claims or truly biased media sites, you cannot argue that these websites are private businesses with their own rights. They can take a certain political slant just as Fox News or CSNBC does. The danger is that these sites are populated by a much wider variety of users; people like to think that social media is independent of political biases. Although this may be ideal, I do agree with some regulatory policies in place. I just hope that a balance can be struck between protecting users/fostering respect and maintaining First Amendment rights.

Picture Sources:

Social media podium by Jason Doiy

Trump Tweet via IJR