Argument Essay-Social Media and Free Speech
Dear Reader,
In the Argument Essay, I will establish my position on ‘Social Media and Free Speech.’ This topic has led to debates in society. One side of the argument elaborates on the adverse effects of free speech on social media platforms, including hate speech, fake news, and online harassment. The other side of the argument elaborates on the benefits of free speech in expression and promoting public agendas. While writing this paper, I employed brainstorming by jotting down ideas, drafting my essay based on my outline, and revising and proofreading by reading my work after drafting. I learned that as a writer, I enjoy elaborating my ideas. My draft strengths include argument arrangement and establishment of my position. My draft’s weakness involves the weak counterargument that can be improved upon. As my readers review this paper, I would like them to pose any questions they may have on the topic.
Introduction
Today, technology continues to evolve with numerous advancements. These advancements exist simply in people’s lives; for instance, smart devices near us at any given time, including phones and even cars. Further, people are accorded numerous rights, such as the freedom to safeguard them. One such right is free speech as accorded under the First Amendment. Under the First Amendment, people can express their opinions without fear of retribution (Brannon 2). This freedom poses both cons and pros in society, creating a basis for the debate on free speech.
Further, today, there are multiple venues to express ideas and opinions with the ease of access to the internet and the numerous platforms that people worldwide can access. Over these platforms, individuals freely express their views and ideas without censorship, affecting society.
On the one hand, free speech allows people to express themselves freely over public forums while protecting them from government censorship. On the other hand, free speech without censorship results in misinformation, cyberbullying, and hate speech (Hooker 38), all of which severely impact society, resulting in the need for censorship. Therefore, free speech regulations on social media platforms should be implemented because free speech increases fake news, hate speech, and cyberbullying cases.
Free speech regulations should be implemented to reduce the prevalence of fake news. Fake news is information that is not a fact. First, fake news is misinformation or disinformation prevailing in societies (Ashford et al. 1). In many cases, fallacies are the basis for fake news. According to Bullock et al., “Fallacies are arguments that involve faulty reasoning” (370). People can apply their faulty reasoning to interpret and share information, such as appeals to fear and bandwagon appeals. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation spread over social media platforms (Ashford et al. 1). The misinformation stemmed from uncertainties due to fear of the unknown of the virus and the vaccine. Accordingly, fake news or misinformation affects society, such as COVID-19 vaccination rejection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondly, according to Ashford et al., fake news causes an increase in cases of bad intentions or malicious intent (1). Misinformation originates from ideas and opinions an individual shares; the individual might share fake information with bad choices. Thirdly, fake news affects the public, causing torment and distraught (Ashford et al. 2). For instance, “effects of misinformation have taken place in different contexts, with politics being particularly susceptible, as seen in the 2016 US presidential election” (Ashford et al. 2). Politics play a significant role in people’s lives, affecting their socio-economic lives; the consequence of this misinformation is public distraught.
Free speech regulations should be implemented to reduce hate speech cases. According to Udoh-Oshin, “hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits” (9). First, hate speech yields insults, depression, and menace (Udoh-Oshin 8). Hate speech is insulting and offensive, resulting in feelings of depression in the targeted individual. Secondly, according to Udoh-Oshin, hate speech is protected under the First Amendment, which states that “protected speech includes hate speech, symbolic speech, protests, and written or typed speech” (7). In addition, this protection illustrates that individuals can freely relay hate speech without the fear of being reprimanded, as it is protected under the First Amendment. Thirdly, hate speech affects societal equality (Udoh-Oshin 7), as society comprises diverse people of diverse backgrounds. Diversity has been at the center of social division for many reasons; hate speech is a target of a person’s various attributes, leading to inequality as society is divided. This inequality is seen in the case of white supremacists who tend to share their strong opinions, especially on privately owned platforms (Everett 114).
Moreover, free speech regulations should be implemented to reduce incidents of cyberbullying. The multiple social media platforms create venues for people to be harassed. Harassment presents itself in various ways (Hooker 8), and it worsens when censorship is missing, and social media platforms users might keep their identities anonymous while harassing others. Cyberbullying causes depression, and it is one of the factors in the increase in suicide cases. According to Christodoulides et al., cyberbullying causes psychological torture as other social media platforms’ effects do (1686). Psychological torture is a consequence of harassment and cyberbullying, and it may result in cases of depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and suicide.
In contrast, free speech regulations will infringe on people’s rights to free speech. First, people have a right to express their opinions publicly and interact while sharing their ideologies on public platforms such as social media platforms. Thus, it promotes the public agenda (Wihbey et al. 5). Secondly, the First Amendment protects social media platforms (Brannon 3). The First Amendment protects social media platforms from government censorship protecting their contents. Also, social media platforms can create regulations to control their platforms’ content, depending on whether they are publicly or privately owned (Everett 114). This provision is met with multiple setbacks, especially from users; however, this is countered by the stipulations under the First Amendment as privately-owned platforms and Section 230, “which provides immunity to providers of interactive computer services, including social media providers” (Brannon 9). Accordingly, free speech under the First Amendment protects people’s freedom of speech and the platforms people use to exercise their rights. As a result, various methods have been and need to be employed to mitigate the adverse effects of the absence of censorship. These mitigation strategies include implementing free speech regulations to combat some negative aspects of free speech. With the constantly advancing technology, it is presumable that more developments will arise with more setbacks.
In conclusion, humans have numerous rights to safeguard their lives. Freedom of speech is one essential aspect of human life that poses many advantages, such as allowing people to express themselves, pushing public agendas, and protecting public platforms. On the other hand, freedom of speech allows individuals to express their opinions without fearing being reprimanded. Consequently, cases of hate speech, cyberbullying, and fake news have been on the rise. Their impacts are severe in society, and therefore, implementing restrictions on free speech on social media will reduce this rise.
References
Ashford, James R. et al. “Understanding the Characteristics of COVID-19 Misinformation Communities through Graphlet Analysis”. Online Social Networks and Media, vol 27, 2022, pp. 100 – 178. Elsevier BV, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.osnem.2021.100178. It was accessed on 21 Jan 2022.
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.
Bullock, Richard H et al. The Norton Field Guide to Writing. 4th ed., W. W. Norton & Company, 2016, pp. 370.
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.
Wihbey, John et al. “Divergent Global Views on Social Media, Free Speech, and Platform Regulation: Findings from the United Kingdom, South Korea, Mexico, and the United States.” pp. 3- 34. Deliverypdf.Ssrn.Com, 2022, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3999454
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Argument Essay
Write a 1,000-1,500 word complete draft of your Argument Essay. Include your 100-150 word “Dear Reader” letter as the first page of your draft.