Month: February 2018

Defamation: misrepresenting something as the truth, when that something is in fact false. It is true we live in a society where defamation cases happen all the time. Especially in light of all social media. There is no uniform law for defamation, but there are numerous guidelines to decide if defamation has occurred. Very recently, our own president desires to change the laws and guidelines of defamation in regards to the media and make them stricter. I believe he wants to do this because he is defamed on a daily basis via prominent platforms such as Twitter. When someone defames another, several things must be proven, but like any other process of the government, it is blurry who is right and who is wrong.

 President Trump has recently been accused of sexual assault allegations, he openly expresses these accusations as completely false. When trump eagerly responded to these claims, he immediately said they were lying. The women however, do not agree, therefore accussing him of defmation: mispresenting something as the truth, when that something is false. So, the women clearly see another side of the story than Trump does. Obviously, tweets, soon after came and they read, “a woman I don’t know and, to the best of my knowledge, never met, is on the FRONT PAGE of the Fake News Washington Post saying I kissed her (for two minutes yet) in the lobby of Trump Tower 12 years ago. Never happened! Who would do this in a public space with live security……” and “….cameras running. Another False Accusation. Why doesn’t @washingtonpost report the story of the women taking money to make up stories about me? One had her home mortgage paid off. Only @FoxNews so reported…doesn’t fit the Mainstream Media narrative.” It is clear to see that Trump is upset with media, afterall, he is being defamed, that is never a good feeling. Whether these allegations are true or not, it needs to be proven. Presdient Trump wants to change libel/defamation/slander laws in the United States, can he do it? Probably not.

In his favor, Trump wants to make it easier to sue the media. He believes that these laws already in place are a “sham and a disgrace.” In my opinion, he says this because they do not work in his favor. Again… he claims fake news is taking over, but who really knows what is real and what is “fake” in this day and age, it is hard to determine. While Trump may want to fix these laws, I really do not think this will ever happen, there is this little something called the First Amendment. However, is it obscure, it is true that a person does have the right to say what they want but what if what they say is false and causes harm to another, especially if it causes harm to their reputation, like President Trump’s?

Speech such as defamation, libel, and slander can either discover the truth or have the totally reverse affect. We as Americans do value honestly, but are we willing to go to any extent to reach 100% truth?

Source: Grynbaum, Michael. “Trump Renews Pledge to ‘Take a Strong Look’ at Libel Laws.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Jan. 2018.

 

Have you ever wanted to express your opinion via social media but stopped because you knew the whole world would see? Have you ever wanted to express your opinion in public but stopped because you knew people would stare and judge you? Have you ever wanted to just simply express how you feel, when you feel it, but stopped because it was illegal? It is quite possible that the answer to the first two questions is yes. As for the last question, there is a slim chance you ever stopped expressing your opinion due to governmental regulation, well… that you are aware of.

There is a reason you cannot always express what you want when you want to, but do you think that infringes upon our First Amendment rights? When what you post gets blocked, why is that? And is that reason good enough?  Its controversial and is definitely a grey area. It gets even greyer when technology now emerges as most people’s information/news source and an opinion expressing medium. Living in society that relies on technology to relay expression and speech widens our ability to exercise our First Amendment rights, but it also limits those same rights.

Have you ever been scrolling through Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or even Snapchat and it reads, “content blocked?” When those words appear, your right to obtain information, and the right of the person who posted that, is now taken away, simply without your permission or even knowing. Censoring information is seen through all mediums, even ones in the Internet Cloud. It is somewhat crazy to think about: intangible things are censored and ultimately blocked, such as posts, made up of your own thoughts. Social media is a very different way to get your message across, then let’s say, a newspaper. However, they are blocked for your protection and safety, same reason why you cannot scream “fire!” in a crowded theater.

Does protection and safety trump the right to express what you want when you want? In this world yes, even if one may argue that is does violate freedom of speech and expression. What you say can quickly affect others and so can what you do. Our government attempts to protect us from other individual’s choices of expression. Whether you agree or disagree, it’s important to think about your values. When you think about this topic, it is hard to come to a decision as to what should be done. In reality, our society and our individual choice truly contradicts itself. Society should be protected but this cuts into the rights of the individual. Or, should the individual be more protected than the interest of society? We do value freedom of expression, religion, speech, and so forth, but to what extent? There is a lot of ambiguity when it comes to the First Amendment, what is best for society may not be the best for each individual. You have a First Amendment right to be biased, the manner in which you decide to exercise your rights is in fact regulated by the government, whether this is right or wrong is entirely up to your discretion. 

Works Cited: 

“Content Blocking.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, 10 Feb. 2015.

To what extent are we, as American citizens allowed to exercise our First Amendment right of free speech and exercise? Your first reaction may be, we can truly say whatever we want, right? Especially in this day and age with social media platforms making expressing our opinions even easier, saying what we want, when we want, seems easier than ever. However, have you ever thought about why some things posted are in fact blocked or censored? Or why you cannot scream “fire,” not a derogatory word, in a crowded theater and get arrested? While you do have First Amendment rights, whether you know it or not, you only obtain them to an extent.

All mediums in which you can express your opinions are limited in some way; print, radio, broadcast like radio, television, and social media platforms all have regulations on what can or cannot be said. While yes you can technically say what you want, when you want it, but it may not always be the greatest idea and may actually get you in a lot of trouble. Symbolic speech, pure speech, and commercial speech are some examples of what is absolutely protected under the first amendment. However, other forms of speech are not protected. For example, did you know you that government does not protect speech that leads to an “imminent” response. So, if you scream “bomb” in Times Square, when there is no bomb, you can be arrested. Similarly, if you post something false via social media and it results in a chaotic/violent response, it is illegal and is not protected under the Constitution. As free as this country is, have you ever thought about why certain language is prohibited?

Flag burning is another extremely controversial issue, however this form of speech is protected under the First Amendment. How is burning this patriotic symbol of the United States legal and allowed but screaming “fire” even as a joke in a public space, not a form of protected speech? Recently, President Trump has been claiming that if an individual burns the flag, his or her citizenship should be revoked. After thinking about this, I believe that punishment may be too harsh, but based on your opinion and beliefs, is burning the flag too harsh?

Your First Amendment rights are nonetheless extremely important in order to freely live in this country but whether you knew this or not, what you can and cannot say are very much regulated. In these days, social media is a facilitator in disseminating information to the public, without problem. How as a country should we address the future regarding public and constitutional/unconstitutional speech? What we publish via the internet, for all to see, has a profound effect on our society. What we say face to face may not have the same effect but both mediums have the potential to get your message across. As a nation, we should be grateful that freedom of speech and expression is so valued, it allows us to publish blogs like these. However, it is equally as important to recognize what our true freedoms are.

Works Cited:

Epps, Garrett. “Free Speech Isnt Free.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 7 Feb. 2014.