This document discusses the issue of regulating free speech in the age of social media. It argues that while the First Amendment protects free speech, more regulation may be needed to prevent hate speech, threats, and bullying online. It notes that unregulated speech on social media allows monitoring by governments and can have serious real-world consequences if used to attack or incite violence against others. While democracy relies on free speech, some restrictions may be reasonable to uphold social norms and prevent harm, especially as technology enables speech to reach wider audiences than ever before.

1. 1
Taylor Hall
Debate Research Paper
January 25, 2015
Regulation on Free Speech
In the First amendment of the United States Constitution, it gives us the right to
free speech. To speak our minds, express our feelings, and entitle other people to our
opinion. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world, so I believe more regulations must be
made on free speech. This is a very controversial subject, but past evidence shows that
many problems have been caused just from people stating what they believe in an
unprofessional way.
With the big boom of social media, it has been made easier for people to post
hateful posts, hurtful articles, and sending out threats to foreign countries. Social-media
sites such as Twitter and Facebook are used by activists both as organizing tools and as a
means of communication with the outside world. (Greenblatt. “Free Speech at Risk.”)
Before the twenty-first century, it was hard to even get your opinion published in a
newspaper, but today we have open access to the Internet to say exactly what we want to
say, and it has the power to go viral within seconds. Even free-speech advocates readily
admit that, in a broader sense, technology can be a two-edged sword. “Suddenly, you
have the ability to reach people all over the world and communicate in ways that you
never could before, and that's wonderful,” says Eva Galperin, global policy analyst with
the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a San Francisco-based group that promotes an
unrestricted Internet. “But it also allows government surveillance on a scale that was
never before possible.” (Greenblatt. “Free Speech at Risk.”) With this being said, it has

2. 2
the power for the government to take a look at everything you are doing, and act within in
anyway they want, which is a very large-scale issue. Anything you say or do can be
monitored, and if they find something they do not like, you could be instantly fined,
imprisoned or even killed in certain countries. With the incline of social media, it has
made our every day lives into surveillance cameras for the entire world to see. Another
issue that has been proposed is should the United States use free speech for those abroad?
In the article, “Free Speech at Risk,” they enlighten me in a very interesting thought. The
U.S. does take our freedom of speech for granted; we see it as something that we just are
given. “The right to express one's views, practice one's faith, peacefully assemble with
others to pursue political or social change — these are all rights to which all human
beings are entitled, whether they choose to exercise them in a city square or an Internet
chat room,” Clinton said. “And just as we have worked together since the last century to
secure these rights in the material world, we must work together in this century to secure
them in cyberspace.” (Greenblatt. “Free Speech at Risk.”) There are some countries over
seas that banned social media such as YouTube, and have high regulations on what they
say. But in America, we use this great freedom of speech to attack and bring down others.
It is said that freedom of speech is very important in such a democracy such as ours, but
is it fair that freedom of speech is used to hurt people?
Evidence shows, there are many benefits of regulations free speech. First, the
biggest benefit of all is protection. The first amendment allows the freedom to speak ones
mind, but unfortunately we do not use this freedom to express ones creativity, it is
usually used to express ones hatred or racism. Just as Steven Barnett says, Professor of
Communications, University of Westminster, London, England, “It is, I repeat, a

3. 3
voluntary incentive-based system, which is needed to protect ordinary people from
amoral and sometimes vindictive practices that have no place in journalism.” (Barnett.
“Free Speech at Risk.”) It is not okay for the press to down someone else just because
they think they can. Next, other countries have already stepped up to secure their
regulations on the freedom of speech. Finland, Germany, and Scandinavia all have
required acts upon how the standards should be sat. In Finland, a Freedom of Expression
Act mandates, among other things, that aggrieved parties have a right of reply or
correction without undue delay. In Germany, newspapers are required to print corrections
with the same prominence as the original report. Scandinavian countries have passed
legislation on press ethics. (Barnett. “Free Speech at Risk.”)
Next, the effects of unregulated speech are enormously coming along as social
media continues to grow. Which can be clearly seen by the time line in the article, “Free
Speech at Risk.” In other countries, they would not think twice about arresting you or
even kill you for some of the things that you publish. Take Russia for example, “ While
some countries try to crack down on independent media outlets through intimidation,
Russia for the most part controls communications directly, with the state or its friends
owning most of the major newspapers and broadcasters.” (Greenblatt. “Free Speech at
Risk.”) If the hate/threat publishing’s continue in the United States, controlling all forms
of social media could be something that we might have to turn to. Since we don’t have
regulations, they government could just completely block anything they wanted to just
because of a certain things that are being said. Another effect is on a much smaller scale,
rather than the involving the government, but just involving the people of society. Words
that people say can result in serious harm, in a sense; this can be a form of bullying.

4. 4
Individuals who are attacked through hate speech can react in a violent way to themselves
or to others. Since our government’s role is to protect us, they should be putting in
regulations to stop the hate speech and when a person oversteps their boundaries.
With the democratic societies in mind, you can draw a conclusion of what will
happen with the regulation of free speech. The democracy we withhold tells us that it is
key to have freedom of speech to uphold a well balances government. But with the new
age of technology it is starting to make more sense to use certain censorship with what is
being put online. However, “In terms of changing the political discourse, the jury is out,”
Kampfner says. “Every new technology, by its nature, is open to both use and abuse.”
(Greenblatt. “Free Speech at Risk.”) Which I believe is a very good statement, the
internet is a very valued resource that we were blessed with, but there will always be the
people who abuse this privilege and use it for evil instead of good. In democratic nations,
concerns about security and offending religious believers could lead to more restrictions.
“What you could have over the next 10 years in the U.S. and abroad is a distinction
between rights and norms,” says former Rep. Perriello, at the Center for American
Progress Action Fund. “Having a legal right to say certain things does not actually mean
one should say certain things.” (Greenblatt. “Free Speech at Risk.”)

5. 5
Freedom of speech is something the men and woman fought for us to keep in the
early ages of the United States. Today, this is a privilege that is being taken away from
people all across the world. But to our United State citizens, we no longer see this a right
that had been fought for, we treat it as such a freedom we can just look over and it will
always be there. As time continues, social media and the Internet advances, I believe that
some of the privileges will and should be taken away from us when we use them for evil
instead of good. I believe that the acts of hate speech and violence should have penalties
to bullying that we solemnly look over in our every day lives. The Internet has become
the ‘new frontier’5 for spreading hate, as millions can be reached through an inexpensive
and unencumbered social network that has enabled previously diverse and fragmented
groups to connect, engendering a collective identity and sense of community. The
growth in online hate groups has been mirrored by the rise in web-based hate speech,
harassment, bullying and discrimination, targeted directly and indirectly through forums,
blogs and emails. This rise in hate speech online is compounded by difficulties in
policing such activities, which sees the Internet remain largely unregulated. Criminal
justice agencies are unlikely to proactively dedicate time and money to investigate
offences that are not a significant public priority. Consequently, the police will rarely
respond to online hate speech unless a specific crime is reported. (Banks. "Regulating
Hate Speech Online.") And to me, this seems like a major problem. Someone who
constantly brings down people and sends violent threats should be punished for such
action. The most obvious purpose of ascribing responsibility is to shape people's behavior
in the future. The person held responsible for a bad act will, we hope, reflect and decide
differently the next time. (Williams. 402.) Non-regulated press can cause so much

6. 6
unwanted drama, and it is extremely dangerous in the sense of treating countries abroad.
I personally think we really need to find a balance between what is right and what is
wrong. I very strongly believe that regulations on all types of speech should be placed to
keep people from promoting this unwanted behavior and plastering it all over the
Internet.

7. 7
Works Cited
Greenblatt, Alan. Free Speech at Risk. 23 Vol. Congressional Quarterly, Inc, 2013.
Banks, James. "Regulating Hate Speech Online." International Review Of Law,
Computers & Technology 24.3 (2010): 233-239. Academic Search Premier. Web.
28 Jan. 2015.
Williams, Susan H. "Free Speech And Autonomy: Thinkers, Storytellers, And A
Systemic Approach To Speech." Constitutional Commentary 27.2 (2011): 399-
416. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 Jan. 2015.
Gey, Steven G. "Fear Of Freedom: The New Speech Regulation In Cyberspace." Texas
Journal Of Women & The Law 8.2 (1999): 183. Academic Search Premier. Web.
28 Jan. 2015.