Annotated Bibliography-Social Media and Free Speech

Annotated Bibliography-Social Media and Free Speech

Dear Reader,

In this Annotated Bibliography, I will be addressing the topic of social media and free speech. I chose this topic because it addresses an aspect of society that negatively affects individuals following fake news, hate, and bullying. While writing this draft, I used various strategies, including brainstorming by writing down diverse topic perspectives. After brainstorming, I researched using several databases to locate reliable articles on my topic. After the research, I began drafting, which was followed by revising. After revising, I proofread it to ensure it lacked errors. I learned that researching is essential to establish arguments, and writing is more straightforward once several perspectives are identified. My draft’s strengths and weaknesses include its detail; the articles contain valuable case information. As readers review my draft, I encourage them to point out any errors or questions they may have about it.

Brannon, Valerie C. “Free Speech And The Regulation Of Social Media Content” (2019). Congressional Research Service. p 1 – 40. https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20190327_R45650_9f272501744325782e5a706e2aa76781307abb64.pdf.

In this report, Brannon analyzes the connection between laws and the Supreme Court and social media and free speech. Social media platforms provide public forums for individuals to express their ideas and thoughts. Expressing ideas and thoughts via these social media platforms is a right to free speech as stipulated under the First Amendment (p 2). Following the diversity of social media platforms, with some being privately owned while others are publicly owned, content users post and the regulations in place vary. This variance has been seen in filing of multiple cases against private social media companies by users and other organizations. Consequently, Bannon points out that lawsuits against social media platforms are mainly unsuccessful for two main reasons; “(1) doctrines that prevent the First Amendment from being applied to private social media companies, and (2) Section 230 of the CDA” (p 3). Accordingly, Bannon elaborates on the protection of social media platforms by law, the various reasons for this protection, and the implications of implementing regulations on these platforms.

This source is relevant and appropriate to my topic, which entails implementing free speech regulations on social media platforms. In this article, Bannon establishes links between social media and free speech, free speech and the First Amendment, and the First Amendment and Communications Decency Act’s (CDA’s) Section 230 (3). I plan to use these links in my argument essay to establish my argument on implementing regulations on social media platforms.

Christodoulides, George, et al. “Don’t Be Rude! The Effect Of Content Moderation On Consumer‐Brand Forgiveness”. Psychology & Marketing, vol 38, no. 10, 2021, pp. 1686-1699. Wiley, https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21458.

In this article, Christodoulides et al. establish a link between free speech and the psychological states of individuals. The variety of social media platforms creates venues and forums for various activities. These activities include trading on websites like Amazon and platforms like Instagram. As traders and consumers interact on these platforms, there are regulations on content by consumers who are the users in some instances. According to Christodoulides et al., these regulations and policies impact consumers (p 1686). On social media platforms, users are greatly affected by harmful content rather than positive content; for instance, while making a purchase, a consumer can opt not to shop due to a single harmful content from other users (p 1689). This idea illustrates the basis of spreading fake news and misinformation regarding harmful content on social media platforms. Moreover, Christodoulides et al. argue that negativity affects an individual psychologically, resulting in negative attitudes and emotions (p 1695). The remedy to the psychological effects of mandated regulation is self-censorship.

This article is relevant and appropriate for my topic because it introduces self-censorship regarding free speech implementation. Enforced regulations and policies for censorship evoke adverse reactions from social media platform users, while self-censorship evokes positive reactions. Accordingly, I plan to use this source to argue that self-enforced regulations will significantly impact more than platform-enforced laws.

Everett, Colby M. “FREE SPEECH ON PRIVATELY-OWNED FORA: A DISCUSSION ON SPEECH FREEDOMS AND POLICY FOR SOCIAL MEDIA” Lawjournal.Ku.Edu, 2018. P 114 – 145. https://lawjournal.ku.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/V28_I1_04_Everett_Web.pdf.

In this article, Everett details the implementation of free speech actualization and social media platform policies on privately owned outlets. There are various social media platforms, the majority of which are privately held, with many users. These users may share different kinds of content and create a need for regulations through policies to regulate what users can post (p 115). Additionally, Everett elaborates on the power social media platforms have over free speech through their policies, as government bodies would on social media platforms without the First Amendment (p 116). Everett points out the use of congressional actions to remedy all shortcomings of approaches implementation on social media platforms (p 116). Accordingly, Everett elaborates on censorship, its remedies, and its consequences by considering public and private social media platforms.

This source is appropriate and relevant to my topic because it details censorship on social media platforms. This article will contribute to my case on free speech regulations on social media platforms because rules enforce censorship. I plan to use this article to elaborate my argument on censorship by pointing out its necessity and consequences and potential remedies to censorship on social media platforms.

Hooker, Matthew. “Censorship, Free Speech & Facebook: Applying The First Amendment To Social Media Platforms Via The Public Function Exception.” UW Law Digital Commons, 2019. P 37 – 73. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wjlta/vol15/iss1/3?utm_source=digitalcommons.law.uw.edu%2Fwjlta%2Fvol15%2Fiss1%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages.

            Hooker elaborates on state action doctrine by analyzing the First Amendment in this article. In this case, the Supreme Court protects social media platforms and can enforce content regulations on their platforms (p 39). Privately owned social media companies can sieve through and decide what is proper and improper regarding users’ content. This opportunity infringes on Free speech; thus, Hooker presents the idea of categorizing social media platforms under public function to ensure that social media platforms can implement free speech on their platforms without filtering content that they deem unfit (p 39). Further, the need for censorship, including fake news and hate speech, illustrates the need for regulations and censorship.

This article is relevant and appropriate to my topic because it elaborates on the need for regulation by stipulating all the challenges of free speech on social media. Secondly, it details why some social media platforms regulate free speech on their platforms and consequently provide a method of limiting their power over free speech. All these aspects will be vital in my argument essay because I plan to use them to emphasize the need for regulations.

Udoh-Oshin, Grace. “Hate Speech On The Internet: Crime Or Free Speech?”. Digital Commons @ LIU, 2017,. P 1 – 62. https://digitalcommons.liu.edu/post_honors_theses/9

            In this paper, Udoh-Oshin expounds on hate speech, discussing it in detail. Following the increase in social media platforms, individuals globally express their opinions on topics. Some of the views shared might be negative, such as hate speech or cyberbullying, while others might be misinformation and fallacies (p 8). Accordingly, Udoh-Oshin elaborates on hate speech, providing some examples and stipulating its shortcomings being protected under the First Amendment (p 13). Additionally, with the protection under the First Amendment, it is essential to elaborate on which aspects are not protected under the First Amendment. Udoh-Oshin delves into court rulings on hate speech-associated lawsuits and asks for an extensive definition of hate speech to justify protection under the First Amendment.

This paper is significant to my topic because it addresses one aspect of free speech: hate speech. Additionally, the stipulation of First Amendment protection contributes to my case. I plan to use it to emphasize the First Amendment stipulation to illustrate the extent of Free Speech regulations.

Synthesis

Technological advancements continue to influence people’s daily lives. One aspect influenced is communication with the recent variety of social media platforms. Social media platforms provide public forums where individuals can interact and share ideas. During these moments, misinformation, fallacies, and cyberbullying occur. Consistently, the need for regulations and policies on free speech arises to curb the extent of such negative aspects of social media. Subsequently, debates concerning social media and free speech regulation arise in society.

On the one hand, implementing rules and policies will reduce cases of misinformation, fake news, and hate speech. On the other hand, enforcing regulations and guidelines on social media platforms infringe on the First Amendment protection of free speech. My sources provide multiple points of view on my topic by describing the various aspects of social media and free speech, including factors favoring the need for regulations and censorship, the First Amendment, and the extent of restrictions on Free Speech.

I will enter this conversation by introducing social media, free speech, and the need for regulations. Gaps exist in the research, with the articles addressing different aspects of social media and free speech; I will fill these gaps with my views on the topic and more research to support them. This addition will create a flow in my research, filling in gaps. My argument on this topic is that regulations need to be implemented on social media platforms to reduce the damage resulting from free speech. Based on the research, I am finding answers to my question. First, my question is, “Should restrictions on free speech be implemented on social media platforms?” I found answers to already existing policies and more strategies for new regulations. I do not need to modify my research question because it provides various perspectives I can address in my argument essay.

References

Brannon, Valerie C. “Free Speech And The Regulation Of Social Media Content.” Everycrsreport.Com, 2019. p 1 – 40. https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20190327_R45650_9f272501744325782e5a706e2aa76781307abb64.pdf.

Christodoulides, George, et al. “Don’t Be Rude! The Effect Of Content Moderation On Consumer‐Brand Forgiveness”. Psychology & Marketing, vol 38, no. 10, 2021, pp. 1686-1699. Wiley, https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21458.

Everett, Colby M. “FREE SPEECH ON PRIVATELY-OWNED FORA: A DISCUSSION ON SPEECH FREEDOMS AND POLICY FOR SOCIAL MEDIA” Lawjournal.Ku.Edu, 2018. p 114 – 145. https://lawjournal.ku.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/V28_I1_04_Everett_Web.pdf.

Hooker, Matthew. “Censorship, Free Speech & Facebook: Applying The First Amendment To Social Media Platforms Via The Public Function Exception.” UW Law Digital Commons, 2019. p 37 – 73. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wjlta/vol15/iss1/3?utm_source=digitalcommons.law.uw.edu%2Fwjlta%2Fvol15%2Fiss1%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages.

Udoh-Oshin, Grace. “Hate Speech On The Internet: Crime Or Free Speech?”. Digital Commons @ LIU, 2017. Pp 1 – 62http://digitalcommons.liu.edu/post_honors_theses/9?utm_source=digitalcommons.liu.edu%2Fpost_honors_theses%2F9&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Write a 1,000-1,500 word draft of your Annotated Bibliography, following the Annotated Bibliography Instructions [PDF]. Click for more options. Annotated Bibliography Instructions [PDF]. – Alternative Formats Include your 100-175 word “Dear Reader” letter on the first page of your draft