Write an essay about this topic.
In 2016, a YouTuber called PewDiePie was temporarily suspended from Twitter after tweeting that he had joined a terrorist organization. In response, Twitter closed his account. According to Twitter, this tweet broke one of their community rules, which prevents users from promoting “organizations or individuals associated with promoting hate.”
Thinking about this case, what do you consider is protected under the Freedom of Speech amendment? Is Twitter obligated to let PewDiePie send these tweets, or do you agree with their decision to remove him from the platform? In your essay, consider both sides of the argument. You may include other cases, as well, or cite the Constitution. This essay should be 250-350 words.
Freedom of Speech: The Fine Line Between Expression and Harmful Content
The Freedom of Speech, protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, is a fundamental principle that allows individuals to freely express their thoughts, beliefs, and opinions. It is a cornerstone of democracy and an essential tool to promote diversity, creativity, and progress. However, amidst the ubiquity of social media platforms and influencers like YouTuber PewDiePie, it has become more challenging to discern the boundaries of freedom of speech when it conflicts with community guidelines and potential harmful consequences.
In 2016, PewDiePie was temporarily suspended from Twitter after tweeting that he joined a terrorist organization. Twitter justified their decision, stating that the tweet broke their community rule on promoting hate. While PewDiePie's suspension from Twitter may be seen as a limitation on his freedom of speech, it is crucial to acknowledge that social media platforms are not legally obligated to grant their users total freedom of expression. Twitter, being a private company, has every right to enforce a code of conduct to maintain a safe and welcoming environment for all its users.
Moreover, freedom of speech does not extend to reckless, obscene, or dangerous speech that might incite violence or harm others. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) is a notable Supreme Court case that established that the government could only restrict speech if it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. While PewDiePie's tweet might not directly incite violence, it may be perceived as supporting or encouraging a dangerous group or ideology.
On the other hand, some may argue that the suspension impedes on PewDiePie's right to express himself and that such jokes should be protected under the freedom of speech. Critics of Twitter's decision might view the suspension as a sample of "cancel culture" or unnecessary censorship without considering the context of his tweet. Nevertheless, it is essential to recognize that while freedom of speech is a vital principle in democratic society, there are lines that should not be crossed, especially when it involves hate speech, acts of terrorism, or any sort of message that might cause damage to the well-being and safety of others.
In conclusion, the case involving PewDiePie and Twitter serves as a crucial reminder of the importance and complexity of the freedom of speech in the digital age. While it is essential for individuals to express themselves and voice their opinions, there are limits to this right for the sake of public safety and to prevent promoting or endorsing hate. Legally, Twitter as a private platform has the jurisdiction to enforce community guidelines and close accounts that violate their terms of use. Balancing freedom of speech and public safety should be a priority both for social media platforms and their users.