Abstract

This paper examines the current issue of social media and freedom of speech debate.  Social media is a huge phenomenon in the digital age, but there are pros and cons associated with its usage.  This paper provides a list of possible topics that could serve as focal points for a paper.  It also gives a range of titles and an outline for how to bring a paper together.  Finally, it offers up a sample paper with an introduction, essay hook, thesis statement, body paragraphs and a conclusion.  So if you’re looking for a possible sample essay on social media and its relationship to the 1^st Amendment in the US, this paper will give you all you need.

Essay Topics

1.  Should free speech be muzzled online or does the 1^st Amendment protect a person’s views—even if they are offensive to others on the platform one is using?

2.  What are the rules of using social media in the age of political correctness—and were those rules made to be broken?

3.  What are the pros and cons of freedom of speech in the 21^st century, particularly when it comes to free speech?

4.  Should a coordinated attack by Big Tech on Parler be permitted in a free society?

Essay Titles

1.  Limits to Free Speech?  What Fact Checkers, Shadow Banning and Permanent Removals Reveal about the 1^st Amendment in the Age of Big Tech

2.  Why YouTube, Twitter and Facebook are Cracking Down on Conservative Voices and Removing Them from the Public Discourse

3.  When Ideologies Clash:  The War between Left-Leaning Politics of Silicon Valley Social Media Platforms and Their Right-Leaning Users

4.  Who Wins When Free Speech is Blocked:  1984-Style Censorship in 2020

Essay Outline

I. Introduction

a. Social media is where most people go for news and information (Vorhaus, 2020)

b. Yet some voices are being excluded from these platforms

c. Big Tech is censoring views from the alternative or right-leaning end of the socio-political and cultural spectrum.

II. Body

a. Background

b. Social media censoring political figures

c. The closing down of Parler

d. The power of Zuckerberg, Dorsey and Bezos compared to that of the US President—who has more?

III. Conclusion

a. Big Tech is not just out of control—it is running the show

b. Suppression of freedom of speech is a sign that the left-leaning ideologues of Silicon Valley have usurped the reins of political power and are now driving the world towards a terrifying real-world Orwellian nightmare.

Introduction

As Vorhaus (2020) notes, more and more people turn to social media every year to get their news and information on what is going on in the world.  Old media no longer are as relevant, especially for younger generations who have cut the cord.  Today’s younger generations want information from peers and names they can trust—influencers, bloggers, vloggers, podcasts, and YouTubers.  Social media is the playground where everyone connects.  The problem, however, is that more and more people with certain voices and points of view are being barred from that playground.  Their views and talking points are deemed offensive by one clique—typically the Left, which people on the Right accuse of being intolerant even though their banner is one of tolerance.  The reality is that Big Tech—firms like Google, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter—have publicly censored conservative voices in an attempt to control the public discourse and permit only a one-sided “fact-checked” narrative that is to their liking.  But in a free society these actions have big ramifications, particularly when it comes to the 1^st Amendment protection to the right of freedom of speech and who can exercise that right.

Essay Hook

When Big Tech starts acting like Big Brother, you know there is a problem.

Thesis Statement

If Big Tech companies want to offer social media platforms to the public, they should be obliged to abide by the rules of the Constitution—the same way anything offered to the public is obliged to do.

Background

Jordan Peterson, Sargon of Akkad, Rubin Report, Ryan Dawson—these are just a few of the many names silenced by Patreon, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms (Nash, 2018).  Their offense?  They dared to offer...…everyone about the extent to which America has stopped acting like the land of the free.

How Some Say Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and Bezos Have More Power Than the President of the U.S.

Clearly when Big Tech can silence the President of the United States by banning him from their platforms and no one can do anything about it, it shows who has the real power.  Zuckerberg of Facebook, Doresey of Twitter, and Bezos of Amazon (and The Washington Post) have worked together to paint Trump and his supporters as white supremacists, bigots, racist, xenophobes, and extreme radicals akin to terrorists.  They have sought to influence the public discourse in a way that marginalizes what people think about conservatives and liberals.  They have been far more lenient with radical movements on the left, such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter, than they have with radical movements on the right, such as Proud Boys or people who like to wave the Confederate flag.  More than that, however, they have barred President Trump from having a voice in the public.  The mainstream media hardly gives him a fair showing; Twitter was his platform of choice because he felt it allowed him to communicate directly to the public without any interference.  When Dorsey finally banned the president from using the platform it was a clear signal that only certain types of speech would be tolerated by Big Tech.  Populist speech is not that type.

Conclusion

The 1^st Amendment of the US Constitution protects the freedom of speech in public.  Today, that right is no longer protected because Big Tech has set itself up as judge, jury and executioner—and the politicians, businessmen, investors and judges all appear to be in agreement with Big Tech’s assumed role as self-appointed Minister of Truth.  If this is not Orwellian, nothing is.  If social media platforms can censor not only politicians but also the President of the United States, that sends a distinct message to the public:  the public better watch its step and conform to the will of…