These days social media seems to come with its own set of very mercurial set of morals and rules. The one sure thing I have discovered about social media is there will always be someone who is angry, unbalanced, ranting, and/or being negative.
Recently, we have seen many celebs charge they are being bullied, threatened, harassed or worse. Leann Rimes not to long ago reportedly checked herself into a rehab for "emotional distress" caused by Twitter users constantly tweeting very negative remarks to her. Kate Gosselin, as recently reported by Radar On-Line, has been considering joining a class action suit because of her struggles with Twitter users.
The first thing that comes to mind for me FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Its the foundation of our Bill of Rights and the cornerstone to our entire way of thinking in this country. The free flow of ideas cannot and should never be impeded by the restriction of speech.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I consider myself to be a staunch supporter of the Constitution. I support a person's right to free, uninhibited speech even if it offends me. "The speech you should most ardently protect is the speech you find the most objectionable." People love to throw around the free speech defense when it defends their words but most find it hard to defend another individuals remarks they find offensive. You cannot have it two ways.
I have been watching certain cases with special interest, such as United States of America vs. William Cassidy. Here is a basic overview of the case:
Mr. Cassidy is charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(A).8 The government
alleges that he:
"with the intent to harass and cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another state, used an interactive computer service and a facility of interstate commerce, to engage in a course of conduct that caused substantial emotional distress to that person, to wit: the posting of messages on www.twitter.com and other Internet websites concerning a person whose initials are A.Z."
Basically, the government alleged that in publishing a message to the public at large constitutes a crime if a public figure, in his/her own subjective way, feels "substantial emotional distress" when he/she views it. This interpretation of the law not only criminalizes the content of speech in violation of the First Amendment but renders portions of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(A) unconstitutionally vague. The two major elements of the crime for which Mr. Cassidy has been indicted and which render § 2261A(2)(A) constitutionally problematic - are the use of an "interactive computer service" and causing another "substantial emotional distress.
This was, I believe never the intent of this law and legislatively speaking, according to the history of this law, the expansion of the anti-stalking section of the statute to explicitly prohibit harassment by means of an "interactive computer service" was understood to "incorporate new surveillance technology like Global Positioning System, GPS." In other words, Congress intended to prohibit harassment by use of "stalking surveillance" such as location tracking devices and not of people with words via social networking platforms.
The case was eventually found to be "unconstitutional as applied" and the case was thrown out and no further arguments were heard by the court.
This case, in my humble opinion, demonstrates what happens every day on Twitter. Mr. Cassidy's words, void of any concrete action on his part, are just that, words, an opinion, however offensive or distressing AZ (the injured party) might have felt them to be. As such, Mr, Cassidy's tweets, comments or blog postings would be protected under the first amendment.
Twitter is by its very nature, a platform of choice. One can choose to view, interact or even have an account on Twitter. Parties offended by what is written about them have the choice to look away, block or ignore what they find offensive. Simply put, a higher burden applies before a person is liable for inflicting emotional distress on a public figure (Hustler, 485 U.S. at 55).
In US v Cassidy, the government hinged its entire case on what was perceived by the victim If it was left up to interpretation by the offended party, all of the KKK would now be in federal prisons. I do not know a single person of color who is not offended, threaten and/or intimidated by the ugly things white supremacists say, distribute and I am sure, Tweet. In not defining harm clearly, the government would leave all people in an untenable position of self censuring. Hence the free flow of thoughts and ideas would be stopped and as a result would render our first amendment right to free speech violated.
While I may not agree with the tactics of some, I do support their right to say what they will, whether to me, a celebrity or about an organization. There is a very clear line that must be crossed before someones speech can be taken and viewed as criminal. A person must do some concrete, physical action to cause another to be distressed.
I think what bothers me the most, as a past victim of bullying is when celebrities miss use the words, bully, stalked, and harassed. I feel, at times, say when Leann Rimes claims to feel so bullied by negative tweets, it devalues my experiences as a victim of intense bullying as a child. In reality Leann is choosing to view those tweets. True victims of bullying do not have a choice. They are subjected to cruelty constantly and don't have the luxury of being able to simply ignore a negative comment. Bullying victims are usually in close physical and social settings where their attackers leave no possibility of ignoring or blocking damaging behaviors of others. In over using, or miss using the words bully, stalker, harassed, we become desensitized to the real problems faced by many who are actually bullying, stalked, harassed.
I prefer to take the higher road most of the time. I have my thoughts and opinions on Leann and others on Twitter and Facebook. For the most part I have learned to keep my comments to myself or I share them with friends. I have mistakenly shared my thoughts publicly and have had to deal with the backlash of those who my comments angered or offended. In the end, its words on a page. Social networking is not for everyone. I have learned to grow a much thicker skin from interacting on social networking platforms.
Our ability to speak freely must be protected. I am hopeful the courts will catch up with the technology that we all take for granted. Remember to protect not only the speech you find yourself in agreement with, but rather protect the right of speech of those who you find hurtful or offensive.
No comments:
Post a Comment