Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Technology and modern society
Technology and modern society
The impact social media has on society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Technology and modern society
The use of technology has increased tremendously in too days’ society, especially when using social media, it lets you Interact with people, state your own opinion on certain topics, even reply instantly to people but that comes with pro’s and con’s because you will encounter people that will use angry words. Which is all you see now in the comment sections, but that leaves us the “people” a question to ask, should we stop voicing our opinions just because some choose to use angry words? Or should we voice what we want to say instead of keeping it lingering in our heads, authors Maria Konnikova and Greg Lukianoff both talk about what they think, Lukianoff believes in voicing our opinion even if we have to use angry words. On the other hand, Konnikova, believes voicing angry words is not the way to go. Even though both have valid points, I believe Lukianoff is …show more content…
However, in “Twitter, Hate speech, and the cost of keeping quiet” Lukianoff, believes that our opinions shouldn’t be censored, and we have a right to use angry words, “Hate Speech” “is constitutionally protected in the United States” (Lukianoff, 388)
Even though, Konnikova has reasonable points, I feel that we have a right to say what we want and also, whichever way we want to say it, it was written in the 1st Amendment for us because of a reason to share what we want and whatever is on our mind, it’s better to say what we want rather than sugar coating it. People think that we should just share the good news rather than the bad news and if the bad news should be shared some of society thinks it should be censored and prohibit angry words. “But it is especially important for a free society to learn not just the good news but the bad as well.” (Lukianoff,
Creating a safe space is more important for some rather than others. In “The Hell You Say” by Kelefa Sanneh for The New Yorker, he provides an interesting look at the views of Americans who support censorship of speech and those who are completely against it. Another issue I gathered from his article was that people use their right to free speech in wrong ways and end up harassing people. Providing two sides of a controversial debate, his article makes us think of which side we are on. So, whether or not censorship should be enforced; and how the argument for free speech is not always for the right reason, Sanneh explores this with us.
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
This source supplies my paper with more evidence of how freedom of speech is in a dangerous place. American has always stood by freedom of speech, and to see how social media platforms try to manipulate and take off as the choose to increase slight bias is unpleasant. The article establishes a worry to the fellow readers that hold freedom of speech so high and that it is at risk. The article manages to explain why freedom of speech is in danger, and why there should be no limits to free speech.
When the individual gets attacked verbally because of their controversial statements, they claim that they had the right to speak their mind no matter how disturbing their words were. They use the First Amendment as a cover for their wrong-doings, and that is never okay. They need to be educated on what they can and cannot say. Just because the First Amendment guarantees a person the freedom of speech, does not mean that they are entitled to say whatever they please. The article “Freedom of Speech” explains if an individual were to use “fighting words” then they are automatically not covered under their First Amendment. The Supreme Court decided in the case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that “fighting words” were not constitutional, so they would not be protected under the First Amendment (2). Many people misunderstand that much of their opinions that they speak consists of words that are unclear. More than half of the time the words they use in their statements are considered to be fighting words, for they are rude and ignorant. There is no need for the obscene words that they use to be protected under the First Amendment. They must become aware of their lack of knowledge for what “fighting words” are; furthermore, they
Today, the world is connected digitally through the internet. Here, we can see many cases of anger and or racism daily. The Internet helps us see the severity of the issue with anger and “symbolic racism”, for it is widely understood that it does not matter what race or gender you are to experience or express the emotion anger in a racist way towards others. (Redlawsk. et al. pg. 681). Many racist acts are displayed daily on social media, yet no solid understanding is presented as to why it happens in its totality. It is more common to see these types of acts nowadays, even though we are more educated on the matter. It may be that “people use the internet as an artificial platform to express their emotions” including anger and racism. In an article published in the UK, Shakuntala Banaji claims Social Media is a “potentially therapeutic resource, for those needing the validation of their racist or anti-racist views”. (Shakuntala n.p.) Based on Shakuntala’s observation, technology is playing an instigative role in this phenomenon. Some use the internet to release, and more times than less fuel their anger. Even so, social media isn’t necessarily just a negative factor on the issue of anger and racism, for it also exposes other factors that may help understand the subject in a broader spectrum. The internet allows us to view these acts of anger being portrayed by
Alongside diminishing harm, hate speech codes produce other benefits. Higher education institutions are the ideal forum for views to be debated using logical argument. A major portion of a student’s education is in learning how to derive and rationally support an opinion. The realm of speech that these codes target is not portrayed rationally or used to rouse discussion. In fact, hate speech is usually used to prompt
Instead, Bok suggests that we address the problem by communicating with those who are causing these disturbances and understand . Also in the essay, “Freedom of Speech Means Freedom to Hate”, Christopher Hitchens explains why banning those hate speeches may be an unwise decision for society as a whole as freedom of speech does sometimes prevent the tyranny of majority from happening. While the essay, “Why Women Aren’t Welcome on the Internet”, Amanda Hess makes for the argument that the internet have become a new and terrifying way for people to bully women who uses it. The last article, “The Case for Censoring Hate Speech,” Sean McElwee argues that censoring is required to help protect the minorities and to foster a better society. Freedom of expression should not be limited for limiting speech does not help solve the root problem and it would be near impossible for any person to regulate what people are allowed to say and not allowed to say without having any sort of bias against anyone in
Critics believe that American citizens take advantage of civil liberties supporting limits on freedom of speech. They believe that degradation of humanity is inherent in unregulated speech. For example, according to Delgado and Stefancic, a larger or more authoritative person can use hate speech to physically threaten and intimidate those who are less significant (qtd. in Martin 49). Freedom of speech can also be used to demoralize ethnic and religious minorities. Author Liam Martin, points out that if one wants to state that a minority is inferior, one must prove it scientifically (45-46). Discouraging minorities can lead to retaliation, possibly resulting in crimes or threatening situations. "Then, the response is internalized, as it must be, for talking back will be futile or even dangerous. In fact, many hate crimes have taken place when the victim did just that-spoke back to the aggressor and paid with his or her life" (qtd. in Martin 49). Therefore, critics believe that Americans do not take into account the harm they may cause people and support limits on freedom of speech.
Since these issues have caused negative diversity, social network accounts like Twitter has put up a campaign to stop the abuse of free speech that is spoken or written on social networks. In the article of Fox 12 Oregon, Twitter states that “The company said Tuesday that it has begun identifying people who have been banned for abusive behavior and it will stop them from creating new accounts” (Ortutay). The purpose to create the new idea is to keep a safe environment for Twitter is to minimize all the social negative abuse that goes on the internet to the real world. Like it says in the reading, “being able to connect with anyone in the world who has similar interests may mean that one’s own community becomes less important” (Giddens el al. 2017: 198). The quote answers the question of growing existing inequalities, the more the hatred on social networks, the more it goes viral
In 1517, a man named Martin Luther wrote and posted his 95 theses on the walls of a church. The 95 theses protested the Church’s selling of indulgences. At the time, many people viewed this as hate speech, and it brought conflict amongst the Catholic Church. Additionally, Luther was threatened to be burned at the stake by Indulgence Priest Tetzel. Despite the fact that this historical example wasn’t via the internet, it is a valid connection of how hate speech can be extremely harmful to both individuals and greater society. In modern day society, the internet is one of the most powerful and influential tools to spread ideas, videos and pictures. However, when people use it to spread hate speech, it must be regulated in order to help prevent adolescent suicide, hate crimes, and danger for
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Does this mean that freedom of speech cannot be prohibited in any way? Are there any reasonable arguments for limiting speech? In this paper, these questions will be examined along with a discussion of where the basic right of free speech originated. Today, society or government can attempt to regulate speech, but it cannot prevent it if a person is within the parameters of his or her constitutional rights.
Freedom of speech cannot be considered an absolute freedom, and even society and the legal system recognize the boundaries or general situations where the speech should not be protected. Along with rights comes civil responsib...
First of all, freedom of speech on social media. Social media is strongly developing nowadays. On social media, free speech is everywhere. Noel Diem demonstrates “it is a way for some people to vent their anger without feeling self-conscious, nervous, or upset without resorting to violent actions” (3). Americans feel free to speak out their opinions and feelings at everywhere, even on social media. Everyone can acknowledge that people might
Freedom of speech has been the core principle we have fought long and hard for centuries to achieve. It is the fundamental reason why the founders seperated from England and started their own colonies on the idea of becoming free. In recent times the idea of freedom of speech has been put into question as there has been incidents for years of racism, religious differences and discriminatory abuse. What comes into question is what exactly is your freedom of speech rights and what should be and should not be said in the public eye. The problems that we see arising in today’s society is discrimination and abuse against one another for opposing views and what exactly should your freedom of speech rights entail to as many hate crimes have occurred
Banks, James. Regulating Hate Speech Online. (2010) International Review of Law, Computers & Technology. 2Vol. 24, No. 3, November 2010, 233−239