Kolling 1

Ashley Kolling

Instructor Nunez

English 130

February 26, 2019

How does freedom of speech online affect American society?

The technological advancements that have been made throughout history have provided

American society with the ability to communicate with practically anyone around the world.

Because of these advancements, there are unlimited opportunities for speakers to have their voices

heard. People are now able to share their thoughts and lives with others from around the world on

the internet. And in particular, the growth of social media has allowed people to communicate with

each other about almost anything and say almost anything. This literature review is relevant to

many because the internet is a huge factor in American society, and it will discuss how the First

Amendment’s right to freedom of speech can be used during online communications, along with

the limits to free speech online, the positive and negative effects of freedom of speech online in

American society, and the possible societal effects from free speech online.

Uses of Freedom of Speech Online

Freedom of speech is used by people as a tool of expression during online communications.

The internet is a resource tool where information can be found and shared by virtually anyone.

Freedom of speech allows this sharing of information to take place without limitation. In “Is

Google Making Us Stupid,” Nicholas Carr questions whether the advancements of technology are

benefiting people or not. He points out how, nowadays, there is access to so much more

information through the use of search engines such as Google compared to what was available to

earlier generations. This is possible because of freedom of speech. With unlimited access to
 Kolling 2

information, the internet is designed to allow people to search all the information they need, with

the goal of making people more intelligent, but there are people taking advantage of this by

becoming lazy and less intelligent. The use of the internet can lead towards different paths of

intelligence depending on how this tool is used. There are people who take advantage of Google

because it is always there, and as a result, they no longer feel the need to store any information in

their brain. On the other hand, there are also people who are actually using Google for deeper

research and knowledge.

The conversation regarding whether or not Google is making people stupid can relate to

the ability to share practically anything on the internet. The ability to share virtually anything

online, thanks in large part to free speech, does make it difficult to determine what is accurate and

what is not. On social media sites and Google, you can come across inaccurate information posted

by people and believe that, because it has been published on the internet, it must be true. There are

some who believe that anything published on the internet is true, when in fact, that is not the case.

Also, in contrast to Patrick Ford’s, “Freedom of Expression through Technological Networks:

Accessing the Internet as a Fundamental Human Right,” where Ford discusses the state’s censoring

of certain information to prevent content that could damage its unity and sovereignty, portrays

violence, displays pornography, promotes gambling or terrorism, or violates privacy, the

censorship of academic information on websites is not always completed, and as a result, the things

that you can find on the internet may not always be factual or trustworthy. When anything can be

published online without limitation, because of the right to free speech, it is difficult to sort through

what is true and what is not.

Another use for free speech online is to allow internet users to freely speak their minds on

a particular topic. In “Why Don’t We Complain?,” William F. Buckley Jr. displays his frustration
 Kolling 3

in the way Americans sometimes sit back and let things happen. He describes how many times

Americans do not speak up for themselves unless someone else does it first. His purpose in this

passage is to explain why he thinks that it is time for Americans to complain and say something to

someone with the power to change a problem, so everyone can benefit from the needed change.

This is similar to Patrick Ford’s article, “Freedom of Expression through Technological Networks:

Accessing the Internet as a Fundamental Human Right,” where Ford discusses the problem that

arises when some of the content being censored by the states goes so far as to violate basic human

rights. Ford argues that, in such a situation, people must take action to prevent the violation of

basic human rights. Buckley makes a similar argument where he argues that Americans have

regressed from using their voices to speak up on things that need to be complained about, and he

also argues that this needs to change.

With the virtually unlimited availability of technology, it can sometimes be used as a place

to complain about subjects that, most of the time, do not really call for social change. With the

ability to say anything one wants on the internet, it is much easier for someone to say how they

feel on this platform rather than taking the initiative to speak up to someone in power. Buckley

states that a big part of this reason is because of the new coming age of technology in American

society, “I think the observable reluctance of the majority of Americans to assert themselves in

minor matters is related to our increased sense of helplessness in an age of technology” (Buckley).

The impact of the age of technology, according to Buckley, it that technology has created a loss of

human integrity because people no longer feel as though they have to stand up for themselves in a

face-to-face interaction because they can simply share their feelings online and hope for something

to come out of that.

Limits to Free Speech Online

 Kolling 4

An example of a limit on freedom of speech online is set forth in the United States District

Court case, Snyder v. Blue Mountain School District. In that case, J.S. and her parents, the Snyders,

brought suit against the school district in the United States District Court for the Middle District

of Pennsylvania, alleging that the school district had violated J.S.’s First Amendment rights when

it punished her for content that J.S. had posted online outside of school hours. J.S. was suspended

from school for posting a vulgar message about a school principal on a social media website. J.S.

and her friend created a MySpace profile of the principal that possessed inappropriate content

which was determined to not fit a principal’s standards. The district court found that the

punishment fit the situation and her First Amendment rights were not violated in the matter.

Although the appellate court reversed under the limited circumstances of this case, it nevertheless

went on to make it clear that the First Amendment is not without its limitations.

This case relates to the topic of how freedom of speech on social media impacts American

society. I found this case to address an important question regarding what can and cannot be said

online within the confines of the First Amendment. When you examine the case, you need to

evaluate what is being said online and what are the appropriate consequences for the situation. The

vulgar and offensive statements put online by J.S. were not appropriate. In my opinion, such

comments should not be allowed even considering the rights provided by the First Amendment.

There comes a sense of ethics with the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, and that is why

the district court judge ruled that school officials have the authority to punish “lewd and vulgar

speech” about a school or its officials, even if the speech occurs outside of school.

This case relates to Ashley Thorne’s article “Social Media, Civility, and Free Expression.”

In that article, Thorne sets forth examples of statements that people have made online that have

affected them in academic communities, in professions, or when finding a profession. What

 Kolling 5

someone posts online can have many dramatic consequences to their life outside of the internet.

Thorne displays how even though the things said online can be protected by the First Amendment,

they are not always smart, ethical, or necessary, “[n]ot all speech is conducive to an atmosphere

of respect, and therefore, there is merit in the expectation that faculty members hold themselves to

a higher standard and exercise some self-restraint as part of an academic community” (Thorne,

336).

Positive Effects of Free Speech Online

Patrick Ford’s article, “Freedom of Expression through Technological Networks:

Accessing the Internet as a Fundamental Human Right,” delves into the topic of freedom of speech

on social media, and whether any censorship is appropriate, and it found that there are things that

should be left off of the internet for public safety. Despite this, Ford supports a reasonable level of

free speech online, and argues that when matters of public safety are not involved, there are many

positive effects of free speech online. The text discusses how the ability to use the internet as a

form of expression has allowed citizens of the world to expand their political, social, and economic

freedom. The internet allows expression in ways that can reach a large number of people. Patrick

Ford provides an interesting look into how much freedom of speech is available online. His article

explains that the internet is a useful resource available to people because it allows them to express

themselves and it allows them to voice their thoughts and opinions.

Similarly, Ashley Thorne’s article, “Social Media, Civility, and Free Expression,”

discusses the importance of free speech online. Thorne discusses the importance of academic

freedom for academics in colleges and universities and the relevance of free speech guaranteed by

the First Amendment. Thorne states how social media can be a place where people are able to

expand their thoughts, find others who relate to their thoughts, find agreement, or enhance
 Kolling 6

important changes, “[t]his realm of online social media, where people open their private thoughts

to the public, is complex. It would seem to be the ideal place for unprecedented numbers of people

to come together for mass discussion and to find common ground” (Thorne, 335). As is

demonstrated by Patrick Ford and Ashley Thorne, the freedom of speech can be used online in

such a way as to create a positive effect on American society and on other citizens of the world,

but sometimes, there are negative effects from free speech online.

Negative Effects of Free Speech Online

Ashley Thorne discusses the importance of civility while expressing opinions on various

platforms, including social media, and the negative effects that can occur when civility is not

exercised. Oftentimes, thoughts displayed on the internet can cause people to take offense. And

this can create an unneeded confrontation between people, “[u]nfortunately, social media is not

usually well-disposed toward debate or collaboration, for a number of reasons. Much of what is

said on social media is highly polarized. Trendy causes arise and people endorse them blindly.

Online comments are easy to misinterpret, and it’s easier both to offend and to take offense when

you aren’t face-to-face with any particular person” (Thorne, 335). Thorne’s article questions what

people should or should not say on social media. It stresses the importance of practicing civility

while expressing oneself on publically available social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook.

According to Thorne, the internet provides a way to express oneself, but it is also important to be

ethical and show respect for other people while communicating on the internet. Thorne states, “[i]f

our goal is to grow educated men and women who can think for themselves and exercise good

judgment, civility is the healthy soil that makes it possible for them to grow this way, whereas

vilifying people shuts down open debate and stunts educational growth” (Thorne, 335). Social

media should be a place where people can display their personal thoughts to the public and come
 Kolling 7

together for discussion and common ground. Unfortunately, many times it is not used as a place

for a good-natured debate. Instead, statements are often misinterpreted and considered offensive,

leading to unproductive disputes.

Thorne’s article is very relatable to the issue of freedom of speech online and how it affects

American society. Many times, people can get too comfortable online with unlimited access and

the feeling of being in control of your own space. That leads them to express anything that comes

to them. People can often be very brutal and opinionated when it comes to their own thoughts, and

this can cause a great deal of divide in the community. I think the impact of social media in

American society is very much based on the obvious, what people are displaying, and also how

people react to what others are sharing.

In the article “Freedom of Expression through Technological Networks: Accessing the

Internet as a Fundamental Human Right,” Patrick Ford states how communication on the internet

is not completely free. Despite the advantages of freedom of speech on the internet, there is

censorship. There is censorship by states seeking to prevent content that could damage unity and

sovereignty within a particular state. There is also censorship of content that portrays violence,

pornography, gambling, or terrorism. Content that violates one’s privacy is also censored. While

these interests may be legitimate, many argue that not all of the content being censored is

appropriate. For example, a state may censor statements on the internet to prevent dissemination

of dissenting and anti-government ideas to the public that could undermine the state’s authority.

Most of the censorship being performed by states are meant to be beneficial, but many argue that

censorship of dissenting or anti-government ideas constitutes a violation of a basic human right. I

think that certain types of censorship by states on the internet is beneficial, and there are certain

things that should not be visible on the internet, but the content being censored for purposes of
 Kolling 8

preventing dissemination of dissenting or anti-government ideas to the public that could undermine

the state’s authority is inappropriate. To me, this does constitute a violation of one of the basic

human rights. While certain things such as content promoting violence, pornography, gambling,

and terrorism should be limited for public safety, censorship should be limited to concerns of

public safety and should not include dissenting or unpopular ideas or opinions.

In contrast to Patrick Ford, in “Social Media, Civility, and Free Expression,” Ashley

Thorne also discusses censorship online in an academic standpoint and feels that this take on

censorship has caused us to feel everything we do not want to hear should be censored. Thorne

states, “[w]e’ve entered an odd moment in the history of higher education in which large numbers

of students have developed a taste for censorship, not of uncivil speech but of any ideas they don’t

want to hear” (Thorne, 336). Between staying silent to avoid being criticized or attacked to

exercising complete free will when speaking comes a point where civility needs to be accounted

for when communicating online. Without civility, the exercise of free speech online can cause

many negative consequences, but that does not mean that censorship of any and all unpopular

opinions is the answer. There should be an appropriate compromise in place to allow freedom of

speech while still attempting to limit the negative consequences of free speech online. Civility, to

the extent possible, is a reasonable compromise.

Societal Effects of Free Speech Online

In “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted,” Malcolm Gladwell

discusses the evolution of media use in America and how social media now is being used by news

and media outlets to discuss issues that are going on in American society and in the world.

Gladwell brings up prior revolutions that have occurred, and he discusses why these revolutions

were brought upon and why they created such a big impact on American society. With this
 Kolling 9

observation, Gladwell reveals that it was not because people were tweeting about their feelings on

the matter, but because people went out and actually did something about those feeling. For

example, photos taken by Charles Moore of the demonstrators in the Birmingham, Alabama,

protest of 1963 affected the civil rights movement at the time. When people witnessed the photos

depicting violence directed at people protesting social issues in a nonviolent manner, a desire to

change things arose. The photos helped by convincing the public that the treatment of the protestors

was not right and needed to be stopped. Media back then got people to see injustice and take action,

but today, people are not using media to take action.

This passage relates to how free speech and expression substantially impacts our society

because it delves into the impact of the internet, specifically social media, on American society. It

is great to be able to share anything you want online, and it is also great that the internet is able to

give everyone a voice and a chance to be heard around the world. But simply sharing one’s

thoughts on the internet has not brought about much in the way of societal change. The internet

allows people to feel that speaking on an issue online can create a huge impact on a needed change,

but that is not entirely true. There needs to be action taken to accomplish a change, and most of

what occurs on the internet involve discussion and not action. Revolutions are not something that

can happen via Twitter, and that is why many things are not being accomplished today. People feel

that they can voice their opinions on situations online, and that is the only thing that they need to

do to get things done.

In “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King Jr. begins by stating that the reason

for him being in Birmingham Jail was because of a nonviolent protest to fight for equality between

people of all colors and to fight the injustice. He and other civil rights activists were put in jail

because they would not follow the ruling to cease public protesting of segregation. His letter
 Kolling 10

expresses the struggles faced in the United States and how there needs to be a change in how

people of color are treated. Martin Luther King Jr. is defending his right to stand up for what he

believes. He explains that he could not sit back and let the issue of segregation stand in the country.

This letter was written for his fellow clergymen, but it became a letter that was circulated to

everyone, which is why “Letter from Birmingham Jail” surpassed the achievement of the goal. It

was able to reach a much larger audience than initially intended and created a step closer for a

change in the future.

The Letter from Birmingham Jail created a huge impact in the civil rights movement along

with the photographs taken by Charles Moore of the Birmingham protest at the time. This

correlates to “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted,” and how media can be

used to convince people on the need for social changes and affect the lives of many. The impact

of King’s letter and Moore’s photographs created a desire to take action and make societal changes,

and now with the ability to say and share something online and have it reach around the world in

seconds, the world has the potential for more revolutions in the future by taking action based on

the information shared online.

After reviewing how freedom of speech online affects American society, there are many

factors and perspectives to be taken into consideration. This literature review was able to look into

how the First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech can be used during online communications,

the limits to free speech online, the positive and negative effects of freedom of speech online in

American society, and the possible societal effects from free speech online. Current research has

called for investigation into the many gaps left to be filled in on the matter. One can perceive the

positives and negatives displayed, and this topic will continue to evolve as the reliance on

technology and social media continues. The future holds more to be looked into.
 Kolling 11

Works Cited

Buckley, William F., Jr. “Why Don’t We Complain?,” 50 Essays. Ed. Samuel Cohen. New York:

ccccccBedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. 64-70.

Carr, Nicholas, “Is Google Making Us Stupid,” 50 Essays: A Portable Anthology, Bedford/St.

ccccccMartin’s, print.

“First Amendment – Student Speech – Third Circuit Applies Tinker to Off-Campus Student

ccccccSpeech – J.S. Ex Rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain School District,” Harvard Law Review,

ccccccvol. 125, no.4, 2012, pp. 1064-1071.

Fisher, William. “Freedom of Expression on the Internet.” Berkman Klein Center, Harvard Law

ccccccSchool, 2001.

Ford, Patrick, “Freedom of Expression through Technological Networks: Accessing the Internet

ccccccas a Fundamental Human Right,” Wisconsin International Law Journal, vol.32, no. 1,

cccccc2014, pp. 142-170.

Gladwell, Malcolm, “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted,” 50 Essays: A

ccccccPortable Anthology, Bedford/St. Martin’s, print.

Luthor King Jr., Martin, “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Bedford/St. Martin’s year, print. 203-

cccccc219.

Thorne, Ashley, “Social Media, Civility, and Free Expression,” Academic Questions, vol. 28, no.

cccccc3, 2015, pp. 334-338.