Social Media and the First Amendment

Social Media and the First Amendment

Dear Reader,

In this text analysis essay, I changed a couple of things. The first thing I changed was the text I used for the analysis based on the feedback I had received. This text analysis essay will analyze the article Social Media Companies Want to Co-opt the First Amendment. Courts Shouldn’t Let Them” written by Jaffer, J., and Scott Wilkens. Another change I made was in my analysis and writing process. I relied on the professor’s feedback and additional resources, including textbook readings, for a successful analysis and writing process. Accordingly, various factors are responsible for this revision. Resources and feedback guided my writing process by providing a text analysis procedure and definitions, enabling a successful analysis.

Introduction

The article “Social Media Companies Want to Co-opt the First Amendment. Courts Shouldn’t Let Them” is written by Jaffer, J., and Wilkens, S.; it is posted on the New York Times website. In this article, Jaffer & Wilkens illustrate the threats brought about by implementing given laws that limit the First Amendment on given social media platforms, focusing on two states: Florida and Texas. Freedom of speech is a right that every individual is accorded, allowing them to express their opinions without fearing retribution. Accordingly, individuals can express their opinions on various social media platforms. Social media platforms are also protected by the First Amendment, which protects them from potential manipulations by governments. It is apparent that social media platforms and free speech are protected by the First Amendment, which is occasionally threatened. Jaffer & Wilkens point out these threats by indicating using the laws in Texas and Florida that limit the protection on social media platforms and the threats posed by social media platforms’ arguments in court that challenge the First Amendment. Thus, they argue that courts “should strike down the Florida and Texas laws but reject the social media companies’ broader arguments” (Jaffer & Wilkens). Subsequently, Jaffer & Wilkens indicate that the courts should protect the First Amendment from governments and social media platform owners’ companies through rhetorical strategies, examples, repetition, and logical fallacies.

General Article Detail Analysis

The authors achieve their purpose in their article by considering their context, audience, language, and website. First, the context of the article is maintained throughout the piece as the authors elaborate on social media, free speech, and the First Amendment. Context is vital in keeping the readers engaged in an article and convincing readers of an argument. Jaffer & Wilkens maintain their content throughout their article, keeping readers engaged. Secondly, the audience is considered throughout the article. Jaffer & Wilkens show their audience consideration by providing their argument in detail. For instance, when addressing the laws in Texas and Florida, they provide links to the laws that readers may not have encountered before reading the article.

Additionally, their rhetorical strategies imply that the authors are trying to persuade their readers of their arguments. Thirdly, the language used in the article is comprehendible, allowing readers to understand the argument made by Jaffer & Wilkens. The two authors might have used complex legal terms due to their legal background, but instead, they used terminologies that their readers could understand. Fourthly, the article was posted on a New York Times website. The prevalence of fake news contributes to the increase in fake news websites such as Fox News; if Fox News posted the article, it would be deemed fake news. However, the article was posted on the New York Times website. The New York Times is one of the trusted news outlets people use globally. All these factors contribute to the reliability of the article.

Rhetorical Strategies

Rhetorical strategies are essential in texts to convince readers of an author’s argument. Various rhetoric strategies include hyperboles, ethos, logos, and pathos. Hyperboles are used by Jaffer & Wilkens in their article; Moore and Parker define hyperbole as an exaggeration or an overstatement (142). In Jaffer & Wilkens’s case, hyperboles are used to elaborate on the significance of the court’s decisions on the First Amendment. Jaffer & Wilkens argue that “if the courts accept the companies’ arguments, however, many legislative proposals worth considering will be dead on arrival.” This phrase exaggerates the severity of the potential consequences of the courts conceding to all the arguments the social media platform owners’ companies brought forth. Additionally, this rhetorical appeal is used positively to indicate the vitality of the First Amendment in people’s daily lives.

Another rhetorical strategy used is the rhetoric appeal to ethos. Ethos is defined as ethical proof based on the merits of the authors, including their background and accomplishments (Moore & Parker 44). Jaffer and Wilkens point out the legal aspects of social media platforms and free speech, addressing the First Amendment and the laws passed in states such as Texas and Florida. For flowing elaboration on their take on the same, they must possess a background to compel the readers of their arguments. According to the New York Times, Jameel Jaffer was not only the American Civil Liberties Union’s deputy legal director but also the Knight First Amendment Institute’s executive director at Columbia University. Furthermore, Scott Wilkens was a Jenner & Block law firm partner and a Knight Institute attorney. With this in mind, it is apparent that the authors have a background in law and legal matters, strengthening their argument.

Another rhetorical appeal used is the rhetorical appeal to pathos. Pathos is the emotional proof whereby an author persuades readers by appealing to their emotions (Moore & Parker, 44). The use of pathos is evident by Jaffer & Wilkens, who appeal to their readers on the potential consequences of threats to the First Amendment. Jaffer & Wilkens argue that “it would be terrible if the First Amendment were allowed to become an obstacle to carefully drawn legislation meant to strengthen democratic values online.” This argument appeals to the fear of the limitation of the rights accorded in the First Amendment. The consequence would help convince readers of the author’s argument.

Finally, another rhetorical appeal used is the rhetorical appeal to logos. Logos is defined as the logical proof whereby an author uses reason and logic to make arguments to persuade readers (Moore & Parker 44). Logos is used by Jaffer & Wilkens when they provide links to the laws passed in Texas and Florida that limit the First Amendment. Consequently, readers can access the laws the authors criticize, enabling them to understand their arguments.

Logical Fallacies

Fallacies are misinformation strategies used to persuade individuals of a given argument. Fallacies stem from faulty reasoning; thus, logical fallacies are faulty reasoning arguments that seem authentic until logic is applied (Bullock et al. 370). In this case, logical forms point out the different fallacies. Jaffer & Wilkens point out the fallacies that led to the laws restricting social media platforms in Texas and Florida. A false analogy is one of the fallacies used; this fallacy is used when the similarities established while comparing two different entities are not fundamentally enough to argue that they share more characteristics (Bullock et al. 371). Jaffer & Wilkens indicate that one of the arguments for restricting social media platforms is their similarity to newspapers; the restrictions imposed on newspapers by the First Amendment should be extended to social media platforms because they are similar. Jaffer & Wilkens point out the evident differences between social media platforms and newspapers, nullifying this argument. Subsequently, with logic, fallacies can be corrected.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this text is essential in establishing the link between social media, free speech, and the First Amendment. The article has an essential message that individuals should be aware of to safeguard their rights; this includes other legal professionals. Accordingly, the argument is significant in the social media and free speech argument.

References

Bullock, Richard H et al. The Norton Field Guide To Writing. 4th ed., W. W. Norton & Company, 2016, P. 370 – 371.

Jaffer, Jameel, and Scott Wilkens. “Opinion | Social Media Companies Want To Co-Opt The First Amendment. Courts Shouldn’t Let Them.”. Nytimes.Com, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/09/opinion/social-media-first-amendment.html.

Moore, Brooke Noel, and Richard Parker. Critical Thinking. 12th ed., McGraw-Hill Education, 2016, p. 44, 223.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Social Media and the First Amendment

In this paper, you must choose an opinion article (something in a newspaper, not an academic article like this). You need to analyze the author’s argument, not just summarize what the article is saying.
Revise your Text Analysis Essay. Consider the feedback you have received and your goals for the essay. Sometimes, the best work comes during the revision stage, so do not be afraid to make substantial changes.
Revise the “Dear Reader” letter. Answer the following:
What did you change between this draft and the previous draft?
Why did you make these changes?
What feedback and resources helped you during the revision process?