This page is referenced by:

• 1 2016-04-21T17:35:32-07:00 Freedom of Speech 10 plain 271697 2016-04-26T22:37:41-07:00 Freedom of speech is a complicated concept about which different people have vastly different things to say. We have therefore gathered the individual thoughts of each of our authors and a few of our classmates.
  
  Amelia Moseley:

  Freedom of speech is a difficult subject because it’s dependent a lot on how many rights you believe the government has. You can also say it’s reflective on your faith in other people doing the right thing and that it shouldn’t be moderated, and for some people, that expectation is just really low. For me, freedom of speech means that the government will never tell me I cannot say something I believe in, unless, and only unless, it puts a number of people at risk. And I don’t mean like cyberbulling or harassment. I mean like releasing military plans or divulging national secrets or stealing identities. Things that either affect people’s lives, as in keeping them alive, or their economic well-being to promote them being alive.
  
  Anything beyond that and things start to get really complicated. I’m going to sound like an awful person for saying that the government shouldn’t really intervene in cases of cyberbullying, at least not on the national level, but there is a broader reason for that. There is some, though definitely not all, hateful or derogatory text that needs to exist out there, not because it’s right, but because it is still the equal expression of someone’s beliefs. Furthermore, without the presence of discontent, there would be nothing to counter-argue someone’s own argument. There is some merit to the idea that without “hate” there would be no growth in an individual, and that being a well-informed and educated adult means that you need to be able to handle those situations maturely and with well-thought-out responses. So while there are awful people out there who say awful things, they are within their rights to do so and the government shouldn’t say they can’t.
  
  That kind of censorship should be from–oh, I sound even worse now–peer pressure. But I think there is such thing as good peer pressure. If you have a friend group who expects you to be a decent person, hey, you might turn out to be a decent person. So the censorship that ought to occur shouldn’t originate from the government but from the people who make up its population and expect a society that is above slurs, hate, and illegal activity. Because if we want change in a society, then we need to encourage its movement forward. So if we want people to be safe from hate speech, crime, and intolerance, then it’s our job to refuse to allow those people to have either an educated-sounding voice, because hate isn’t really educated, or a voice at all. What drama we do or do not tolerate is solely dependent on ourselves to moderate.

  
  Cae Herlin:

  Freedom of speech is a concept that’s easily misunderstood. As easy as it can be to extrapolate from the name that there should never be repercussions for speaking, that is not at all what freedom of speech means. It refers instead to the concept that the government does not have the right to imprison or otherwise punish its citizens for speech alone--in other words, government censorship is forbidden. This amounts not to a lack of consequences for what one says, but a lack of government control over what one says. Except where illegal activity beyond speech occurs, we have to take the government out of the equation. That’s it.
  
  We cannot escape the fact what we say has consequences. Even if it were possible to forbid any repercussions toward the speaker, we would still see repercussions towards those who hear. The old adage, “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me,” is a lie, as words can and do cause harm, and at times leave deep emotional scarring.
  
  At the same time, even without government censorship, for any individual or non-governmental organization to respond or react to what one says is never a violation of freedom of speech. If others call someone out for saying hateful, vitriolic, racist, sexist, or otherwise problematic comments, they are well within their rights to do so. We need to be able to communicate with one another, to call out anyone who's being a problem, and to foster greater understanding and community.
  
  When it comes to YouTube, freedom of speech is no excuse to let hate speech and vitriolic comments to go unchecked. We all have the right to a voice. But beyond that, we have a responsibility to whatever kind of a community and society we wish to foster.

  
  Kaitlin Harris:

  Censorship has been at the forefront of important topics since the beginning of publicizing creations. Especially with the advent of the film and book industries, there has always been an issue with deciding how much credit people get, who should be able to share the rights to something, and how open the source should be.
  
  When it comes to copyright censorship, limitations are definitely needed. However, with the rise of the digital humanities, it is becoming more difficult than ever before to make boundaries between what counts as criticism, reproduction, or just plagiarism. If someone blatantly rips off someone else’s work or blatantly threatens them, freedom of speech should not be granted. Freedom of speech is not the allowance of harm or theft. In cases where people are using humor to make a point or they are taking someone’s work to make constructive progress, freedom of speech is not harmful or used for a type of copying. It is important to ask for permission before reproducing someone else’s work, and it is important to not use enough components of someone else’s work in a sly way as if to hide the influence. Paying tribute and acknowledging people that influenced one’s reproduction must be obvious, and there must be a big enough change to prove as reproduction instead of plagiarism.
  
  I do not believe in censorship when it comes to expressing one’s beliefs. Unfortunately, even the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis are allowed to parade around for ceremonies regarding their beliefs. As a society, we cannot tell people how they can or cannot limit their speech, because as long as active violence is not occurring, people have every right to say what they mean. Even hate speech is unfortunately a gray area that is difficult to regulate. If people begin to govern everything that they are offended by, everything will eventually be outlawed because everyone is offended by something that maybe someone else is not. We can do what we can to teach people the right way, and we can tell people to stop offending us, but we cannot legally regulate what people believe. There is a big problem right now with both sides of the political spectrum wanting to censor the other side. Republicans for example do not want sexual education to be open to anything other than abstinence education and many also do not want transgenders to share the bathroom of people with their identified gender. Democrats, on the other hand, may also sometimes want people to censor the words they say and not let their religious beliefs limit people based on their sexual orientation, such as the cake serving argument.
  
  Censorship is needed in certain circumstances, but as of now, we have been trying too hard to censor problems that may not be as crucial to deal with as others. Too much censorship can definitely jeopardize our priorities, and we can never seek out everything that is inappropriate or offensive. If we truly want to grant the people in our country the freedom we all have been given in the constitution’s first amendment, we cannot limit anything unless it harms or takes advantage of another person.
  
  
  Works Cited
  
  Wharton, Robin. “Digital Humanities, Copyright Law, and the Literary.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 7.1 (2013): n. pag. Web. 24 Apr. 2016. <http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/7/1/000147/000147.html&gt>
  
  Owen, Robert L. “Bill of Rights Copied.” Eastern Illinois University. Library of Congress, 14 Oct. 1942. Web. 24 Apr. 2016. <http://www.eiu.edu/eiutps/billofrights_broadside.gif&gt>

  
  Betsy Connor:

  Freedom of speech, I believe, is one of the most complicated and messy issues facing the world today. I would like to look at the United States in particular, where the freedom of speech is “protected by the First Amendment”; however, it should be noted that these arguments can be applied to other countries as well.
  
  On a broad scale, I don’t see freedom of speech being an amendment that means that we should be able to say whatever we want, regardless of its impact on other people. Many times, people use freedom of speech as a defense to be racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted, and/or intolerant. The first instance that comes to mind is when Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson gave an interview to GQ where he made numerous comments that offended many people, while others chose to support his right to make such comments. The show ended up suspending/firing Phil from the show, and the internet exploded. There were people calling left and right for A&E to retract this decision, claiming that Phil was under attack and his first amendment rights were being violated.
  
  I’m inclined to disagree.
  
  Freedom of speech means that you cannot be prosecuted or arrested for your opinions. (And, if that were the case, most of the people on my Facebook feed would be in jail due to disrespecting the President of the United States.) It means that laws cannot be created that limit freedom of speech, expression, the press, and/or religion. In an opinion piece, CNN Contributor LZ Granderson writes: “You can say some stupid stuff … and the First Amendment will keep you from going to jail. But it is not a get-out-of-jail-free card in the eyes of society.”
  
  Freedom of speech does not mean that there are no negative repercussions for stating your opinion. If you openly denounce a large portion of the public in an interview, on television, in a speech, anywhere, really, you’re opening yourself up to criticism and the negative repercussions that may come.
  
  In this sense, then, the freedom of speech should not be limited in any way. People should be able to say what they want without being prosecuted for it. There should not be laws made that restrict freedom of speech. There have been too many cases in our history of restricting the right to speak of those who were not intending to cause harm to others (see: The Red Scare). If we begin to censor and restrict the right to speak or write, there’s no saying that the power that comes with that would get out of hand. Those who get to decide what is censored and what is not then become those who are in power, and those in power are then able to distribute the knowledge to the rest of the population. But if those who are in power are corrupt, or do not share our particular set of morals, the situation becomes much more complicated.
  
  It would be nice to believe that we could make a blanket statement and say that certain things should be not allowed. And I think it’s fine to make those limits ourselves. For example, I tend to not be friends with people who don’t think women deserve equal rights. This is different, though, from making laws that say people shouldn’t be allowed to say certain things.
  
  I would like to end this post as I began it: by reminding readers that this is an incredibly complicated and messy issue. I am in no way an expert on the First Amendment, nor do I believe that what I wrote here is one hundred percent correct. The 600 words written here do not, and cannot, begin to skim the surface of the in’s and out’s of freedom of speech. But it is my hope that through an open and honest conversation about the different aspects of freedom of speech we will be able to come to a conclusion about how to treat freedom of speech in the digital world.

  
  Tannis Weaver:

  “What does freedom of speech mean?” At first glance, this question seems like it would have one straightforward answer, but I think we all know how complicated and complex this issue is. The 1st amendment protects people’s right to say what they want without legal repercussions. This can be beneficial for many reasons, but most importantly, it allows people the right to criticize our government without prosecution. I do think, however, that a lot of people use it as a reason to say harmful things. But then that raises the question of who decides what is harmful? I’m not sure there’s really an answer to any of these questions.
  
  I think there’s a difference between expressing your freedom of speech and being a good person. There is also a difference between being prosecuted for what you say and having consequences for what you say. You may be able to say what you want, but that doesn’t mean that somebody else doesn’t have the same right to be upset about it. You can say something that you can’t have legal actions taken against you while at the same time a private company might reprimand you. There are so many layers to freedom of speech and the limitations placed upon it.
  
  We live in a world that is becoming increasingly digital. The things you say and post can have lasting repercussions. A tweet can end your career. A drunk selfie on Facebook can prevent a company from hiring you. There are consequences for actions in some aspect or another. Just because you have the ability and the right to say something, it doesn’t mean that there won’t be social consequences to those words. It’s complex and hard to consider all of the factors that affect freedom of speech, and it really is hard to put it in to words.