Mrs.+Orloff's+Position+Paper

This is a polished rough draft. I need to take out a lot of the first person so that I have a more academic, formal voice.

Memo 1: The Issue

Censorship of Facebook is increasing, and I am concerned that my freedom of speech is being compromised. Specifically, I read that Facebook might be forced to shut down a page devoted to Palestinian extremists. I understand that hate speech is not protected in this country, but where do we draw the line? I believe in the American core value of free speech, and I worry what an increase in censorship on Facebook says about my right to express myself in the twenty-first century. In the face of potential terrorist threats, are we headed in the direction of more government censorship? There has always been a conflict between an individual’s right to free speech and public safety, but is the government becoming too involved?

I know there is a conflict between Facebook and the government, or at least the government and the people who started the Palestinian page. I know there are limits to free speech, but what exactly are those limits? And has the government crossed the line? I know how to set up a Facebook page; I have one. But I want to research Facebook and find out more about their official policies: Have they ever shut down a site? Under what circumstances would they do so? What is okay to say on Facebook and what is not? I have learned, in my preliminary research, that Facebooks’ influence is far-reaching—it has even swayed elections and sparked political uprisings. But will its power and influence, along with our government’s authority, suppress my individual rights?

This should be more about the problem of free speech on social media sites. Also, consider adding the hate speech/cyberbullying and youth safety idea in here.

Memo 2: The Scope and Nature of the Problem

The problem of what can be said and done freely on the internet is not just a concern on social networking sites, but in other areas as well. The internet is a part of our business and commerce, our politics, and our careers. Because the internet permeates our daily lives, it is susceptible to the harm that people can do. Pirating copyrighted material, gambling, installing computer viruses, and buying and selling of counterfeit goods have all been made easier with the invention of the internet (Mann and Belzley, 2). People can now hide behind their computer screens at home as they commit crimes. Yet these crimes seem obviously wrong; therefore, their punishment is easily justifiable. The issue is not so clear, however, when it comes to our freedom of speech. What happens when "socially unacceptable forms of speech" conflict with a person's First Amendment rights (Mann and Belzley 2)? Americans do not like their basic, Constitutional rights taken away from them. Facebook is perhaps the most popular place on the internet to share what's on one's mind. Since its inception in 2004, Faceboook has grown from a mere one million members in 2005, to over five hundred million in the summer of 2010 ("Social Networking", Clemmitt 1). Social networking is quickly becoming a primary means of communication. According to Marcia Clemmitt, a veteran social-policy reporter for CQ Researcher, "as of June, 22.7 percent of Americans' time online was spent on social media, a 43 percent increase from just a year earlier" (2). The purpose of Facebook has evolved over the years. If you look at the advertisements of many major American corporations, you will find the Facebook icon, or the phrase, "Follow us on Facebook." DO I NEED MORE BUSINESS EVIDENCE HERE? SHOULD I NAME COMPANIES? In addition, the social networking site has been largely responsible for recent political uprisings in countries such as Tunisia and Eqypt. MORE POLITICAL INFORMATION HERE? HOW IT STARTED ON FACEBOOK? Those who operate Facebook are well aware of the site's influence. The chief technology officer for Facebook, Bret Taylor, in an attempt to stifle government regulation of the site, told Congress that " Facebook and other social technologies are increasingly important forums for public communication, speech and debate on a broad range of social and even political matters" (qtd. in "Social Networking," Clemmitt, 10). As Facebook grows in scope and influence, how much control will it exert over its members? How much control will the government have over the site itself?

Memo 3: History Free speech is a core American value and the First Amendment to our Constitution. The 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" (US Const., amend. I). Even with that clear delineation of rights, this amendment has experienced its share of conflict. Through the years clear laws have established free speech boundaries. In the 1919 court case, Schenck v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that a defendant did not have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech against the draft during World War I. According to the court's decision, speech can be prohibited if it presents a "clear and present danger." This is the case where the phrase "falsely crying fire in a crowded theater" originated. Also, there are other forms of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. Some of these are pornography, fighting words (words or phrases that are likely to induce the listener to get in a fight), and speech of falsehoods like libel and slander (Murphy 1). Hate speech has often been protected, and persecuted through other means, like inciting violence (Delgado 2). The United States enjoys laws in place regarding free speech and unprotected speech With the creation of the internet, however, our legal system had to apply free speech laws to a new medium. Our laws did not change, just the medium in which we apply them. In 1996, our legal system made one of the first attempts at regulating speech on the internet. " The Communications Decency Act of 1996 prohibited transmission on the Internet of obscene or indecent messages to any recipient under 18 years of age, and prohibited the sending or displaying of patently offensive messages in a manner that is available to anyone under 18 years of age" (Savage 5). Parts of this act were later found to violate the First Amendment. Have we still not figured out what we can and cannot say on the internet? It is not uncommon to see court cases involving internet speech still today. It seems we're still struggling with the issue of free speech, internet access, and social networking as it applies to individuals as well as countries and governments. A Pennsylvania teacher, Ginger D'Amico, was suspended without pay last year after photos of her with a male stripper surfaced on Facebook. After the American Civil Liberties Union came to her defense, she won a $10,000 settlement from the school district (Clemmitt "Social Networking" 1). Although the ACLU stepped into stop the problem, there are still many individual cases. With respect to countries, many oppressive governments have tried to censor speech. When uprisings occurred in Middle Eastern countries, the governments censored speech by simply blocking access to the internet. In Libya, the government controls the internet; in Egypt, there is limited censorship (Clemmitt "Controlling"). And finally, censoring occurs by the company itself. Facebook censored itself recently. Facebook spokeswoman Debbie Frost says, "We continue to believe that people on Facebook should be able to express their opinions, and we don't typically take down content that speaks out against countries, religions, political entities or ideas. However, we monitor pages that are reported to us and when they degrade to direct calls for violence or expressions of hate -- as occurred in this case -- we have and will continue to take them down" (Winter 2). What is our government and others doing today to protect the problem of controversial speech versus individual rights?

Memo 4: Position and Benefits

Our world is linked electronically now. And in any country, government censorship of Facebook and other social networking sites that encourage free speech such as Twitter and YouTube would only lead to more animosity between citizens and government. Therefore, a new international task force or council should be created that focuses on education and outlines appropriate, acceptable internet use around the world. In the United States, free speech is one of our core values. When we feel our freedoms have been violated, we fight back, as did the Spanish teacher from Pennsylvania. Yet even in other countries, such as those in the Middle East, where speech rights are not so widely enjoyed, and social networking sites are either severely limited or shut down, the people are fighting back. Government intervention does not work. It only provokes conflict. DISCUSS WHY THIS INTERNATIONAL TASK FORCE IS BETTER THAN A GOVERNMENT FORCE. MAYBE LIST COUNTRIES THAT VIOLATE FREE SPEECH ON THE INTERNET (LIST). Of course one cannot say just anything: we need to make sure that extremists groups do not incite violence toward any country, specifically its government. Groups that are commonly targets, especially our youth, need to be protected from online predators. Harassment and cyberbullying is also a problem, but our government is not the institution to fix it. Our current model is not working because there is still a great discrepancy between internet access, safety, and free use among the citizens of the world. And even though the UNited States is a international model of free speech rights, our laws have even failed. The Communications Decency Act, passed in1996, was later deemed unconstitutional because it allowed the government to reduce speech ( citation needed here). The World Summit on the Information Society declared that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression" (citation needed here). Yet the internet is still both an engaging yet dangerous, ubiquitous yet prohibited, place.

Memo 5: Argument One: Governments want to be able to restrict social networking sites. Some might argue that governments need to monitor Facebook and other social networking sites in order to ensure the safety of their citizenry. Large groups of people with access to Twitter, let's say, could organize an uprising or riot that could cause potential danger and destruction to large segments of society. Or perhaps terrorist groups could plan another organized attack like 911. China, for example, has "strictly limited" access to its 111 million users, blocking web sites and blogs that question government actions (Clemmitt, "Controlling the Internet", 4). Other countries, too, censor freely. "R eporters Without Borders, an international organization working to restore the press' right to inform citizens, recently listed …15 countries as 'enemies of the internet ' because of their restrictive internet policies." These countries, which include North Korea, Syria, Libya, and Iran, among others, restrict by filtering web content, arresting and prosecuting cyber dissidents, monitoring cyber cafes, requiring registration of web sites, and using web-filtering software ( Clemmitt, "Controlling the Internet", 26). Although reporters resent the lack of access to information, aren't governments entitled to maintain order? Shouldn't governments be allowed to monitor the actions of its citizenry? Don't we want to ensure that governments remain stable? Although governments, in an effort to ensure stability, have suppressed the internet, this censorship has not stopped uprisings. Recent political uprisings started on the internet. The political uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, for example, started on Twitter and Facebook, and called for desperately-needed economic and social reform. Those who began the would-be revolutions were speaking out against social and economic injustices committed by the government, particularly against workers and youth ("The Revolution Will Now Be…). These uprisings have been just, and the suppression of them has created more instability than anything else. And how did the country's leaders respond? They cut off internet access. The suppression of this political discourse has neither prevented anarchy nor kept the citizenry safe. In fact, in Libya, Gaddafi's troops are responsive for " 400 deaths and an untold number of wounded since police started firing on unarmed demonstrators" ("Syria embraces…). This suppression has created violence by angering those who have been denied a means to express their views. Even if a government decides to enact strict limits on social networking sites, this type of government control is often unsuccessful. Whether or not a government chooses to monitor social networking speech, the people will always find a way to express their opinions. When social networking sites were shut down in the Middle East, for example, users simply turned to other online sites such as gaming worlds and dating services (Villareal, 2). And these users have support. Serious social activists make it their focus to prevent online censorship and keep the free exchange of ideas going. Activists around the world are developing sites such as Freenet, which helps restricted users get around government censorship and communicate freely with people from non-censoring countries (Clemmitt "Controlling the Internet" 25). Instead of monitoring protestors, perhaps the government should be monitoring the social and economic welfare of its people.

Memo 6: Argument Two: Victims of hate speech and cyberbullying want government restriction. They feel governments need to monitor Facebook and other large scale networking sites to prevent hate speech, and the potential dangers that might arise from this type of discourse. "In Congress, bills to provide new funding for online-safety programs have been introduced" (Billitteri 1). Will these safety programs be successful? Many groups hope so. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention last year labeled …cyberbullying 'an emerging health problem" (Billitteri 2). But the Center is not the only group moved by recent stories of cyberbullying-caused suicide and hate speech. Another group is led by Rabbi Marvin Heir, the dean and founder of the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. Heir testified to the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Government Information that there are more than 240 hate groups represented online, many on social networking sites (Platt 55). With so many groups out there, some antisemetic, one can understand Heir's concern. It is easy to agree that government should work to decrease bullying and hate speech. And there have been many examples of cyberbullying, but while bullying does occur on these social networking sites, the vast majority of our youth are using the internet responsibly. According to Justin W. Patchin, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire, 80-90 percent of teens use technology wisely, and parents should put a lot of their fears to rest about their kids doing bad things online (qtd. in Clemmitt, "Social Networking", 8). It seems our government would be wasting its time monitoring the speech of a small percentage of people within an even smaller subgroup--teens. Also, even when a user posts controversial speech, it should remain protected. In other words, we need to differentiate between hate speech and hate crimes. No one should have to bear the consequences of hate crimes; however, hateful or just controversial speech is the price we pay to maintain our first amendment rights. In 2003, a New Jersey eighth-grader, Ryan Dwyer, called his principal a "fat piece of crap" and suggested he should walk "his fat ass into oncoming traffic." He won a $117,500 settlement against the district after it tried to punish him (Billitteri 8). Our government should intervene when a hate crime is committed, but should stay away from our speech. Once again, the government is not the answer. "Hate speech and cyberbullying isn't anything we can "legislate away;" what we need is education and discussion (qtd. in Billitteri 6). The internet does not foster hate speech. Learned hate and racism fosters hate speech. Court precedents on school discipline and students' First Amendment rights provide limited guidance…with the emerging world of cyber communication" (Billitteri 1). The guidance--compassion, tolerance, empathy-- should come from the family.

Memo 7: Argument Three: Parents want government restriction on social networking sites to protect their children from predators. They believe, because social networking is a popular means of communication among youth, the government should monitor what is said and posted on these sites to protect them. After all, according to the book, A Parent's Guide to Facebook, over nine million children between the ages of thirteen and seventeen are registered Facebook users (Rose 12). And we, of course, need to keep them safe. Predators and others intent to do harm can surf social networking sites pretending to be someone they aren't, or searching for personal information like addresses. A young person new to Facebook could inadvertently give out private information. D. Douglass Rehman, a founding member of the FBI's Operation Innocent Images Task Force, has argued for more federal money to support these task forces (59). This is from Opposing Viewpoints book The Internet. These groups would spend time investigating, searching for exploitive speech and images. No one can argue against protecting children. Of course we all want to protect our society's most vulnerable. But is focusing on the internet speech of a few predators really the best way to help children? There are 350,000 cases of interfamily abductions per year, and somewhere between 40,000 and 80,000 of these cases involve abuse. Compare that to 100 to 200 abductions by strangers per year, abductions that include internet predatory behavior (Kincaid 74). So the bigger threat to children is more likely the person sitting next to them on the couch, rather than a stranger in a chat room or Facebook page. Wouldn't our government be better off spending money on social service organizations that would prevent child abuse and improve the lives of children? Whether the government spends money on internet task forces or social programs, it is always the parents' job, not the government's, to monitor their children. As Kathryn Rose, the author of A Parent's Guide to Facebook tells parents, "[navigating social network sites] is something you'll want to manage and not leave to chance (2). Parents can guide their children through the privacy settings on Facebook, for example, and/or draw contracts between them and their children that stipulate what they can share and say, and to whom! The more parents monitor their children's actions on these sites, the less free speech restrictions will be necessary at the government level. Memo 8: Call to Action

When it comes to free speech on social networking sites, we need education, not laws. Guidance, not punishment. Unity, not inequality. Because the internet is becoming our primary means of communication, monitoring speech on Facebook and other social networking sites is important. The problem is not if speech should be monitored, but by whom. Governments around the world should be expected to allow free access and speech among social networking sites, but they can't be expected or allowed to censor. Free speech parameters similar to those that are already a part of the U.S. system, such as those outlined in both our constitution and in our laws, can serve as a model for a broader, more efficient way of deciding who gets to say what on the net, around the world. Hate speech, for example, should be not be restrained or prosecuted as a violent crime until a violent act is committed. Everyone, for example, should have access to any site. In this country, we had problems with free speech issues long before we had social networking sites. And the spirit of our free speech laws has stood the test of time. Even though the spirit has not changed, the medium has. And the medium is global. Therefore, a new international task force or council should be created that outlines appropriate and acceptable internet use around the world. If this department were implemented, not only will there be fewer clashes between private citizens, groups of citizens, and citizens and leaders, but also free speech would be protected. The likelihood of uprisings would decrease. This should be a United Nations initiative. Developing a plan that educates, guides, and unifies our access to the internet and our expressions of free speech is a must. Friedrich von Hayek, an Austrian who fled to England during the Second World War, wrote about technology in his 1944 book, The Road to Serfdom. In it he said, "…inventions have given us tremendous power. It is absurd to suggest that we must use this power to destroy our most precious inheritance, liberty (qtd in Glassman 1). If we allow governments to use the internet as a way to limit free speech, the people of the world will certainly lose their liberty.

Maybe a better quote: As David Eisenberg, a fell at Harvard Law school states, freedom of internet communication is "fundamental to freedom of speech," and "violating it should be anathema to democracy" (qyd. in Clemmitt, "Controlling" 3). Censoring the internet does just that--it takes away our freedom.

Clemmitt, Marcia. "Social networking." CQ Researcher, 20. 2010. Web 14 Apr. 2011.

Marcia Clemmitt is a veteran social policy reporter and staff writer for Congressional Quarterly who has written articles for The Scientist as well as Medicine and Health magazines. In her article "Social Networking," Clemmitt asks is social networking sites are eroding our individual right to privacy. Her secondary source article provided me with important information, including statistics, about the scope and nature of social networking sites.

Clemitt, Marcia. "Controlling

Belzey, Seth R. and Ronald J. Mann. "Government should regulate the internet." Opposing Viewpoints. 2007. Web. 14 Apr. 2011.

Ronald J.Mann is an expert in commercial law and economics, and the founder and codirector of the Center for Law, Business and Economics. Seth R. Belzley is an attorney specializing in corporate finance and regulatory issues, primarily concerning the internet. They have written numerous articles concerning internet regulation. Their secondary source article presents their position on regulating the internet; specifically, it outlines an argument for government intervention. I can use this article to become familiar with issues on "the other side," those who do not agree with my thesis.

Schell, Bernadette. "internet and the media." American Government. ABC-CLIO, 2011. Web. 10 Apr. 2011.

Dr. Bernadette (Bernie) Schell was the Founding Dean of the Faculty of Business and Information Technology at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Oshawa, Ontario, and is currently the President's Advisor on Cybercrime and designer of the Centre for Cybercrime Research (CCR) at UOIT. Her web article, a secondary source, outlines the influence of internet sites such as Facebook on political elections. Using the information from this site will show how important Facebook is communication today. Facebook is how America communicates.

Winter, Michael. “Facebook deletes Palestinian ‘intifada’ page.” __USA Today__. 29, March, 2011. 10 April 2011 __ [] __.

Michael Winter, a reporter for USA Today, one of our nation’s leading newspapers, presents the facts of the Palestinian “intifada” case in this online newspaper article, a secondary source. He interviews a spokesperson from Facebook who explains why the page was erased. I will use this source at the beginning of my research paper, to introduce the conflict among Facebook, governments, and free speech.

Murphy, Paul L. "Schenck and Abrams Cases" The Oxford Companion to American Military History. John Whiteclay Chambers II, ed., Oxford University Press 1999. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Infohio - NOACSC. 4 May 2011 < [|http://www.oxfordreference.com]

Delgado, Richard. "Hate Crimes" The Oxford Companion to American Law. Kermit L. Hall, ed. Oxford University Press 2002. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press Infohio - NOACSC. 4 May 2011 < [|http://www.oxfordreference.com]

David G. Savage, Acts of Congress Held Unconstitutional, 1789-2002, in Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court 1192-204 (4th ed., 2004). 4 may 2011. [|http://library.cqpress.com]