Dangerous End of Free Speech

While the need for laws are becoming more apparent, the professional danger of slander can be more worse than any laws that are currently on the books. One glaring example that I find fascinating lately is that of Charlie Sheen and the use of Twitter. His increasingly bizarre internet posts on this micro-blogging site have really pushed people to question not only his sobriety but also his sanity. Our media culture is unforgiving and everything you write is there forever. In addition, everything he says is streamed live onto the internet as well. This is the worse part of our social media and free speech. As a direct results of all his slanderous comments about Warner Brother's and the production of his show “Two and a Half Men”, he was subsequently fired. This is a devastating career move as this show was the highest rated prime time show currently running, and he was making 1.8 million dollars and episode. There is danger here for many people. We must realize that the things we post online while angry, upset or even intoxicated are there to stay, especially those of high profile status.

Click here for a Top 10 of Sheen's Most Bizarre Twitter Posts

While the professional losses are not only embarrassing for these celebrities, they can also prove to be illegal. Many people operate under the assumption that our right to free speech means that you can just say whatever you want, which is not the case. One recent example of this is with rocker Courney Love. She recently settled with a small business owner, a designer named Dawn Simorangkir. A dispute over a bill quickly turned into a series of lurid rants by Love, of which included posts on Twitter calling Sinorangkir “ a coke dealer, thief, racist, and 'vile horrible lying bitch' (blackbookmag.com 2010).”

These comments when written, are a form of defamation considered libel. This is described as “untrue declarations about private citizens that might damage their reputations ( Straubhaar, LaRose and Davenport (2010 p474).” While Courtney tried to say she was just using her free speech, the judge did not agree. She ended up settling the case for $480,000. This was far more than the $4,000 bill that started the case. Sinorangkir argued that Love's statements were made as a statement of fact and not opinion and was devastating to her small business when made by a celebrity. This was an expensive lesson to learn, and no doubt professionally damaging to an already embarrassing string of events for Love.

I believe this is an important lesson that everyone needs to learn, especially our youth. Our free speech rights are threatened by these legislation that are placed by the government, because of the way the amendment is being abused. Even potential employers check people's social media sites when considering applicants. What you say and stream can stay online forever, which is something that people are learning is the dangerous end of a privileged freedom.

Word Count: 496

You-Tube, Free Speech or Hypocrisy?

Another type of free-speech media that is circulating the internet now, are videos, that are highly accessible. In particular, the popular site YouTube. This concern of free speech is considerably interesting, when examining the groups terms of service. While they do have standards of service, and will remove videos that violate them, it is called to attention as to what constitutes indecent behavior in their eyes, as well as the government. Certain videos that are censored and removed are often times in opposing views of Google-YouTube's sponsors, which highly threaten net neutrality ((Straubhaar, LaRose and Davenport (2010 p292).

First we examine a couple of the website's guidelines, and how they are not exactly followed. One of the guidelines is that “We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view (youtube.com).” But recently there was outrage about the websites removal of pro-life advertisement, stating it was too graphic, but there was a pro-choice argument that was left up which had very similar content(precursorblog.com). The point was also brought up was that the reason for this was because many of Google's Youtube shares are owned by Verizon, who has been rallying to control ISP searches for their sponsored products. Verizon was against this video, from American Pro-life, and so it amazingly was taken off. This threatens net neutrality and is a visible hypocrisy of free speech that they themselves display (precursorblog.com).

Besides the technical aspects of this, there are plenty of videos on Youtube that are to say the least disturbing, such as a video of an eight year old girl that still breast feeds (youtube.com). Where is the line of indecency? They remain on the site until they are “flagged” or reported by viewers. That means the damage is done and plenty of people view harmful and indecent material. This is material that, according to (Straubhaar, LaRose and Davenport (2010 p448), must be sexually explicit by community standards before it is removed.

Here is the Video, I find it disturbing, although not "flagged" by Google. Watch at your own risk!

 They also must review the material and if they approve it, then it is left on, such as the young girl breastfeeding. Of course by then the buzz surrounding the video is enough to get tons of traffic onto the website and it's sponsors. This is protected by free speech within reason, but it is the websites “terms of service” that allow them to operate in any manner that they see fit. Yet again this is an optional website, and the videos are clearly titled and described, so consenting adults have the choice to view them. Does that make them ethical? Do you think that Youtube hides behind a veil of written terms of service that really allows the viewers to describe what is ethical? After all, they have to view the content before they can flag it. Or is it the user's choice to abstain from title's and descriptions that are harmful as well as be responsible for what they view online?

Word Count: 491

Extreme Limits of Free Speech - Pro Anorexia/Bullemia Websites

One extreme example that is really pushing the limits of free speech on the internet is the development of what is called “pro-ana” or “pro-mia” websites. These are websites that promote anorexia or Bullemia, which can be life threatening eating disorders. This is a very dangerous trend and so far there are known to be 500 in existence (sixwise.com). To me this is the most extreme form of free speech. This is considered a mental illness in the medical community, much like alcoholism, yet these websites promote this behavior. This is extremely dangerous for people that are in these conditions, and prevent them from living a healthy life. Should these websites be protected by free speech laws? If we consider Potters Box (Straubhaar, LaRose and Davenport (2010 p474), and the advertising that is used on these websites, we would think not. The “thinspiration” that is occurring uses shock value and promotes detrimental lifestyles.

According to Straubhaar, LaRose and Davenport (2010 p477), “Society's welfare is paramount, more important than individual careers or individual rights.” If this is the case, these types of websites harm society rather than help it. While the few members that belong to them might find comfort, the detriment to young, impressionable girls or people that might otherwise seek treatment outweighs the use of free speech.

According to Potter's Box ( Straubhaar, LaRose and Davenport (2010 p476), these websites are considered unethical. The first stage, you define or clarify the facts of the situation. On these websites the facts are obscured, and dangers are minimalist. The second stage, you determine choice that will promote the message, such as shock value, the disturbingly thin models are unrealistic and dangerous goals that are promoted on this website. The third quadrant, we analyze if the good of society is more important than the bad taste of the message, we certainly do not find that the case with these cites. The fourth quadrant, is the website more concerned with it's own goal or that of shock value. These websites fail at every turn, and when analyzed by Potter's Box are unethical. This really asks the question of how far can free speech go?

I view this a a detriment to free speech, but where is the line? If these were illegal, what about porn, religious sites, etc? While most people find these types of websites disgusting, they are optional. There is a disclaimer that you must click acknowledging that the images on the website may be harmful, before you can view the site. You do not have to click on it, and in fact because of the social stigma, you have to sight them out because they are hard to find. I believe this is one of the most extreme examples of free speech on the internet today, just because of the content that actually promotes and unhealthy and dangerous illness. Do you agree?

Word Count: 486

Free Speech in Assisted Suicide- William Melchert-Dinkle

Today's argument pushing the boundaries of free speech on the internet is the case of William Melchert-Dinkel. This was a man who was entering suicide chat rooms for what prosecutors say was a search for victims. He would enter the chats posing as a male nurse, and sympathizing with the depressed people he met. Once he gained their trust, he would give them detailed instructions on how to kill themselves, and enter a suicide pact, in which he and the victim would agree to both end their lives at the same time. He is charged in aiding and abetting suicide in the deaths of Mark Drybrough and Nadia Kajouji. His lawyer contented this was an act of free speech, but the judge saw otherwise. He was convicted on the two counts and the judge cited that “Minnesota law made it a crime to participate in speech that intentionally advised, encouraged or aided another in taking their own life (guardian.co.uk 2010). He has not yet been sentenced and is expected to make a plea.

View the Full Length Article Here

So was this a fair, free speech argument? (Straubhaar, J., & LaRose, R. (2010 p 475) describe the golden rule into media terms as doing no harm to the subjects of your stories, and treating them humanely. It brings up the issue of situational ethics, which are “moral principles to be relative to the situation at hand and not an absolute (Straubhaar, J., & LaRose, R. (2010 p 476)”. For people who support assisted suicide, this would be an applicable argument. This refers to the theory that people may break ethical codes for the greater good of society. While Mr. Melchert-Dinkle did lie, and break Minnesota law, did he do it because he really wanted to help end someone's suffering? Did he really believe that he was making a difference in someone's life for the better, or was he a twisted individual who was using an indirect way to commit murder. As user's become content providers, it is increasingly difficult to make laws from subjective moral codes. In this case a Minnesota judge made a tough call to consider this against the law, but without many precedents to follow a relatively new medium, it is becoming increasingly apparent for new laws and policies to be made. While his words were unpopular, should we agree with the judge that they were against the law? Should he be protected by free speech, and if not, how does that damage our first amendment?

Word Count: 415

Natalie Monroe - Blog Ethics

The line between free speech and slander is becoming more blurred as time passes. Which raises the question, where does the line begin and end. Straubhaar, J., & LaRose, R. (2010 p 474) reference to consumer ethics. Because there are not many laws and regulations that governs what is said online, we have to go by the notion that “we hope that the individual ethics will prevail.” Meaning that we have to have a certain amount of faith in the people that are online. As we know ethics vary throughout cultures and individuals themselves, and as the professional and personal line integrates, “media audiences face ethical dilemmas of their own as they get involved in providing content to the internet (Straubhaar, J., & LaRose, R. (2010 p 474).”

One example of the blur of freedom of speech vs. slander is with the recent case of Natalie Monroe. This was a teacher at Central Bucks East high school who published a series of online rants on her blog which she describes her students as “lazy whiners” and in one post says "Kids! They are disobedient, disrespectful oafs. Noisy, crazy, sloppy, lazy LOAFERS. (USAToday.com)"

While many parents were outraged by finding this out, there was not much to do about it. In fact, others were praising her for speaking thoughts that they had themselves about today's kids. The school suspended her with pay while she is investigated, but it is raising the question of the boundaries of free speech. In her blog she did not identify her school or any of the students names. In addition, many of her blog entries had nothing to do with the school, and were merely thoughts about other topics. So without a precedent to follow from the school, what course should we take? Internet blogs are a new form of self expression, who what protections do their free speech deserve? What is the line between that and defamation.

According to (Straubhaar, J., & LaRose, R. (2010 p 480) “the first amendment was originally framed to densuer the freedom of the press, but that is not an absolute freedom” The book also explains that he lack of laws governing this type of medium can only be swayed by publizing bad judgement, like that of this teacher, in hopes of creating a moral code that is generally accepted among the public (Straubhaar, J., & LaRose, R. (2010 p 475).

 Click here for the full article published by USA Today.
 Should this teacher be protected by free speech? How far should that protection go with regard to blogs? Do you disagree with what she said, or how she said it? I want your thoughts!

Word Count: 496