• Home
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Defamation Law
    • Internet Law
    • Corporate Law
    • Ecommerce Law
    • Advertising Law
    • Social Media Law
  • Internet Law Blog
  • Contact Us

Call Toll Free 1-866-570-8585

Find An Office Near You
Speak With an Internet Lawyer Now
RM Warner Law | Online, Marketing, Internet Business Law FirmRM Warner Law | Online, Marketing, Internet Business Law Firm
RM Warner Law | Online, Marketing, Internet Business Law FirmRM Warner Law | Online, Marketing, Internet Business Law Firm
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Defamation Law
    • Internet Law
    • Corporate Law
    • Ecommerce Law
    • Advertising Law
    • Social Media Law
  • Internet Law Blog
  • Contact Us

Facebook & The “F-Word”: Free Speech

Facebook & The “F-Word”: Free Speech

April 15, 2019 Posted by Raees Mohamed Internet Law, Social Media Law No Comments

When the founding fathers first wrote the United States Constitution, do you think they could have ever imagined such a public forum as the Internet or social media? The legal definition of public forum is “a place that has a long-standing tradition of being used for, is historically associated with, or has been dedicated by government act to the free exercise of the right to speech and public debate and assembly.” So, technically, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter would not be considered a public forum by the government, but should they be? Or more interestingly, have they become public forums for purposes of internet defamation and free speech considerations?

In 2017, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, compared the Internet to a public forum in an opinion regarding the First Amendment case, Packingham v. North Carolina.

“While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace—the “vast democratic forums of the Internet…” Kennedy wrote in his opinion to the court.

This insight from Justice Kennedy raises questions about how social media and the Internet should be treated as far as the government is concerned. It’s hard though, to fully address and act upon these questions and concerns because the government does not provide or own any of these social media sites.

Facebook, a publicly-traded company, founded by Mark Zuckerberg, is one of the most widely used and powerful vehicles for spreading messages in the modern Internet era. Instagram, also owned by Facebook, is a part of the everyday lives of the younger generations known as the millennials and Generation Z. Recently, it has become the focus for businesses to better market to this younger audience as well as a way for Facebook to further its fortune, by collecting more personalize data and subsidizing their platform with paid ads. Instagram’s new “Checkout” in-app shopping feature is projected to make the company $10 billion, according to an article by CNBC.

Twitter, another publicly-traded social media platform, has become known to billions of its users as a fast and easy way to communicate messages all over the world. Twitter is also used widely to spread hate speech and controversy in addition to political messages and updates… just ask President Trump.

Seeing as how public and popular of a forum these social media platforms are, how does the government plan to regulate its power? Well, according to the First Amendment, it can’t. Unless they plan to amend the constitution, the regulation of these websites is not really possible.

In a way, this is a good thing because it upholds our First Amendment right to free speech. On the other hand, it opens the door for harmful material to be uploaded to a much wider audience than ever before, in an uncontrollable manner.

Recently, Mark Zuckerberg has addressed the issue of Facebook’s power when proposing internet regulations in four areas: harmful content, election integrity, privacy and data, and portability.

It’s surprising to see the inventor of such a wildly successful platform like Facebook, publicly addressing its flaws without force or governmental interference. In fact, it’s the opposite, because in one sense, it’s inviting the government to interfere.

During the 2016 Presidential Election, Facebook received backlash over how it handled the Russian interference with our elections. Many countries outside the U.S. also feel that the company’s policies on hate speech are not strict enough, compared to U.S. conservative lawmakers, who have accused Facebook of censorship and political bias, according to CNBC. It can’t possibly be both, strong in censorship but also permissive in allowing wildly uncontrolled content — can it?

For starters, Zuckerberg believes setting up independent bodies to set standards for what is considered to be terrorist propaganda and hate speech is a way that Facebook will be able to better regulate the content posted on the platform and determine what is prohibited. He also suggested that the government pass legislation to regulate political ads on the Internet, noting that Facebook has a difficult time determining when an ad should or shouldn’t be considered political.

This “independent body” is something that Facebook is already creating with governments outside the U.S., France is one of them. The body will review Facebook’s content regulation system to make sure it is effective.

“I also believe a common global framework — rather than regulation that varies significantly by country and state — will ensure that the internet does not get fractured, entrepreneurs can build products that serve everyone, and everyone gets the same protections,” said Zuckerberg in a statement posted by CNBC.

Suggesting a more standardized approach to the regulation of content on the platform could impact more than just Facebook. Other networking platforms, and even the Internet itself, could potentially be affected if legislation is passed.

Currently, defamation laws are in place to (allegedly) prevent harmful speech on the Internet from damaging reputations. Historically, defamation laws were sufficient to consider the pros and cons of preventing false and defamatory statements about a person from being used to damage a person’s reputation. However, with social media taking over as the go-to source for any and all “news”, the lines are now blurry.  Some argue that allowing platforms to decide what content gets removed is censorship that has no place in America. However, why should we tolerate or even allow social media platform unfettered discretion to display any and all speech, including the most vile, hateful, false and defamatory statements. Pair this issue with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and we have an even more complex issue with harmful content removal (a topic for a much deeper conversation, later).

If you have been defamed, harassed, or bullied on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or elsewhere on Internet, please contact the defamation attorneys at RM Warner Law. We can help to restore your reputation. Explore the rest of our site to learn more.

Tags: facebookfacebook lawfirst amendmentfree speechinternet law
No Comments
1
Share

About Raees Mohamed

Raees is a Founding Partner at RM Warner PLC, a corporate and Internet Law firm that caters to startups and entrepreneurs. He is also an adjunct professor of law in the acclaimed Innovation Advancement Program legal clinic at the Sandra Day O’Connor College Of Law in Phoenix. There, he teaches law students how to counsel local entrepreneurs as Rule 39 certified student-practitioners. Raees believes the push for the advancement of innovation and a culture of entrepreneurship should come from academic institutions.

You also might be interested in

20 Things You Need to Know About DMCA Takedowns in 2020

20 Things You Need to Know About DMCA Takedowns in 2020

Apr 10, 2020

The Internet and all that it encompasses is full of[...]

Free Speech vs. Government Censorship

Free Speech vs. Government Censorship

Apr 18, 2019

The Internet and the First Amendment are in a constant[...]

Angry Trolls Turn Profit: The Side of the Internet Where Rage and Controversy Sells- From Angry Gamers to Dramatic Makeup Artists

Angry Trolls Turn Profit: The Side of the Internet Where Rage and Controversy Sells- From Angry Gamers to Dramatic Makeup Artists

Jul 7, 2019

Do you ever wonder why people like to complain? Do[...]

Leave a Reply

Your email is safe with us.
Cancel Reply

Recent Posts

  • Can I Sue Someone For Leaking My ‘OnlyFans’ Content?
  • Cardi B Tattoo Trademark Trouble
  • Dr. Dre’s Divorce Battle Is Nothing But a “G” Thang: Soon-To-Be Ex-Wife Fights For the Intellectual Property Rights to His Name
  • Section 230 Reform – Why Tech CEO’s Are Against The Trump Administration’s Proposed Changes
  • Going Viral, Gone Bad: What Do You Do If Defamation Goes Viral?

Recent Comments

    Tag Cloud

    ad law advertising law airbnb amazon law amazon lawyer anonymous defamation business law business lawyer celebrity defamation corporate lawyer corporate takeover cyberbullying cyberbullying lawyer defamation defamation lawsuit defamation lawyer ecommerce ecommerce law ecommerce lawyer esports esports law esports lawsuit esports lawyer facebook facebook law facebook lawyer fake news fake reviews faze clan fba first amendment free speech influencer lawyer influencer marketing intellectual property internet law internet lawyer law day 2019 marketing law revenge porn sextortion shareholder dispute social media law social media lawyer twitter lawsuit

    Contact Us

    Send us a message and we'll get back to you, asap.

    Send Message
    Speak With An Internet Lawyer Today Call Now
    • RM Warner Law
    • 1-866-570-8585
    • 866-961-4984
    • admin@rmwarnerlaw.com

    Recent Posts

    • Can I Sue Someone For Leaking My ‘OnlyFans’ Content?
    • Cardi B Tattoo Trademark Trouble
    • Dr. Dre’s Divorce Battle Is Nothing But a “G” Thang: Soon-To-Be Ex-Wife Fights For the Intellectual Property Rights to His Name
    • Section 230 Reform – Why Tech CEO’s Are Against The Trump Administration’s Proposed Changes
    Tweets by RMWarnerLaw1
    • RM Warner Instagram
    • Payments
    • Blog
    • Privacy Policy

    © 2020 — RM Warner Law

    • RM Warner Instagram
    • Payments
    • Blog
    • Privacy Policy
    Prev Next