U.S. Policy Final Presentation

1. Final Presentation, Group 1:Protecting Free
Speech and First Amendment on Social
Media
Blake Bastin, Blake Dicken, Noah Mendel,
Reese Nordeen, Jack Reed, Jack Walker

2. Introduction
“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.”
- U.S. Constitution
1st Amendment Rights
● Free speech is a cornerstone of American
democracy
● First amendment ensures Americans can speak
freely
● Social media as a public forum
Social Media in Courts
● Robinson v. Hunt County, Texas
● Government censorship of Facebook comments
is unconstitutional

3. Background
Information :
Freedom of Speech
on Social Media

4. Court Cases
Regarding the 1st
Amendment
- Terminiello vs Chicago 1949
- Brandenburg vs Ohio 1969
Although both cases took place before the age of
social media, they still directly apply today. Terminello
first appeared in radio shows and newspaper columns
speaking his beliefs, just like today people can
express their views on Twitter, Facebook etc.
Brandenburg used local TV stations to broadcast his
message, just like people can use social media
streaming platforms, like Youtube, today.

5. Overview of Policy
Problem
Problematic Conditions
1. Protecting Americans’ First Amendment Rights
a. Censoring free speech in social media could
cause problems with Americans and their
beliefs with their first amendment rights
b. “The ACLU believes in an uncensored Internet, a
vast free-speech zone deserving at least as
much First Amendment protection as that
afforded to traditional media such as books,
newspapers, and magazines,” (“Internet
Speech,” n.d.).
2. Increase of Hate Speech on Social Media
a. Uncensored speech in social media could result
in violent acts towards groups and individuals
b. We must find the in-between: keep hate speech
limited, while not taking away Americans’ free
speech rights

6. Overview of Policy
Problem
The Problem
1. Four types of speech that cause
issues(Freedom Forum)
a. Hate - offends or attacks race, ethnicity, religion,
gender, sexual orientation, etc. (Only
unprotected form is an incitement to imminent,
lawless action or true threats)
b. Obscenity - offends the morality of time.
Obscenity and child pornography are obviously
not protected, while nudity technically is
protected
c. Misinformation - false rumors, insults, pranks,
hoaxes, and propaganda (EX: false information
that may reach the media)
d. Harassment - unwanted behavior that makes
someone feel degraded, humiliated, or
offended. Protected speech unless a legit threat
has been stated (EX: “I am going to kill you” or
threatening to bomb a plane or building)

7. Overview of Policy
Problem
Impact of Problem
1. Protects good guys from
punishment, but allows bad guys
to get away with things
2. Real vs. Fake News
3. Impact on the Youth

8. Potential Solutions
and Supporting
Information
● Government regulation with specific guidelines
○ 79% of Americans believe social media
platforms should be regulated by
government(Yaraghi)
○ Can control what can and cannot be said
on social media, without totally restricting
rights
■ Ex. Government would block posts
related to sex trafficking or
terrorism
● Political parties set aside differences
○ Not a direct policy alternative
○ More policy will get passed if both sides
cooperate and come to an agreement

9. Summary and
Conclusion
● Free speech on social media is under attack
○ Threatens our freedom and rights
○ Need protections on public forums
● Free speech has traditionally been
supported
○ Robinson v. Hunt County, Texas
○ Terminiello vs Chicago 1949
○ Brandenburg vs Ohio 1969
● Solution
○ Clearly defined strict guidelines on
what is acceptable
○ Protects freedoms while limiting
intrusion on right of free speech

10. Works Cited
921 F.3d 440 - ROBINSON v. HUNT COUNTY, TEXAS (2019), United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
U.S. Constitution. Amend. I, Sec. 1.
Head, Tom. “6 Major U.S. Supreme Court Hate Speech Cases.” ThoughtCo, ThoughtCo, 18 July 2019,
www.thoughtco.com/hate-speech-cases-721215.
Yaraghi, N. (2018, September 24). Regulating free speech on social media is dangerous and futile. Retrieved March 8, 2020,
from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2018/09/21/regulating-free-speech-on-social-media-is-dangerous-and-
futile/