Why is the First Amendment Important: Social Media Case Analysis

In March of 2019, a gunman entered a New Zealand Mosque and ended up killing 51 people. What was most shocking about this incident is that the gunman live-streamed the entire event on Facebook. New Zealand’s Office of Film and Literature determined the video objectionable1. Therefore, platforms hosting the video were frantic to remove it, New Zealand Companies shut down and even American companies like YouTube and Google desperately tried to remove video copies to prevent people from accessing it and avoid charges by the New Zealand Government. However, the use of social media has made New Zealand’s application of its law a controversial topic. Public social media outlets have no responsibility to the public to limit content on the servers. This is why is the First Amendment important essay in which this case is analysed taking into account the concept of the First Amendment.

Public social media outlets do not have a responsibility to the public to limit the content on its servers because social media outlets are not specific to region or area, they’re provided internationally to places with different laws and regulations. Social media outlets are public, so that means that they are open to anyone and millions of posts, comments, and messages are sent every hour. Because of this, there is no possible way to regulate every single little offensive or illegal thing.

Since social media platforms are public and are meant for everyone, social media platforms also try to make sure that anyone and everyone can feel safe by creating an account, the user is already agreeing to the site’s Terms, Data Policy, and Cookies Policy. Since the shooting mention earlier was live-streamed on Facebook, Facebook’s Terms of Use expresses, a user cannot share content at the expense of the safety and well-being of others or the integrity of the Facebook Community (Facebook). According to Facebook, this includes agreeing not to engage in the conduct of the following (or to facilitate or support others in doing):

• Something unlawful, misleading, discriminatory or fraudulent.
• Something that infringes or violates someone else's rights, including their intellectual property rights.

If the user does not comply with these guidelines, the user’s account and/or content can be reported and, determining how severe the guidelines were ignored, content can be removed or restricted.

Moreover, social media platforms do not have a responsibility to limit content because people have free will. People can choose whether to watch an inappropriate video or not. People can choose to post and say whatever they want all because of free will. Besides, there are already multiple restrictions when it comes to age and even more, based on what country for some social media outlets. For sites like Instagram and Twitter, one would have to manually say yes or no to see restricted content. On sites like YouTube, videos can be restricted based on region. An appropriate example of this is if one has their location to the U.S., full episodes of Pit bulls and Parolees are unavailable for copyright reasons. Another example is: if one travels from the U.S. to China and wants to access the same things in China as one did in the U.S., one would have to use a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to access American sites, such as certain games, articles, and certain social media sites.

Since many people think that there should be more restrictions, a suggestion to those people would be: to turn on content & Restricted Mode, most social media platforms have it. This solution will let the people who don’t want to see inappropriate or disturbing content not see it and if they do see it, they can always report, flag, and/or block the account(s). Another solution would be for social media platforms to follow YouTube’s example of restricting content based on region. The fact that most social media platforms already require access to location makes this solution mildly easier. All the platform would need to do is have an Artificial Intelligence sift through content and group it into legal, illegal, and flag. Flagged content will be reported to an actual person to dictate if the content is legal or illegal for a region.

According to the Constitution of America the First Amendment states: “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.” By saying the entire world should adhere to this amendment would be wishful thinking. Some countries would be able to easily transition into a government that follows the First Amendment but more conservative countries, such as North Korea and China, would not be able to transitions as quickly since they have so much oppression against the people. Some countries already have followed the U.S.’s footsteps. the United Nations and the European Union both have a similar law that reflects similar ideals in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, however, it is important to note that the Articles can still be restricted unlike the U.S. First Amendment. So no, not all countries should adhere to the U.S. First Amendment because not all countries are built to fit and regulate the first amendment.

In conclusion, public social media outlets should not be held accountable for the content on their servers. Social media is too big and uncontrollable to regulate every little thing that’s posted or commented on. Social media can be accessed by anyone and everyone and as long as one follows the Terms, Community Guidelines, etc., one can use the site and/or app. Lastly, people can control themselves and, therefore, control what they do, see, and say.

Works Cited

• Bossman, Matt. “What Equivalents of the First Amendment in the U.S Are There in Other Countries?” Quora, Quora, 2 Jan. 2018, https://www.quora.com/What-equivalents-of-the-First-Amendment-in-the-U-S-are-there-in-other-countries.
• European Union. “Article 11 - Freedom of Expression and Information.” European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 10 Sept. 2019, https://fra.europa.eu/en/charterpedia/article/11-freedom-expression-and-information#targetText=1.,authority and regardless of frontiers.
• Facebook. “Terms of Service.” Facebook, Facebook, 31 July 2019, https://www.facebook.com/terms.php.
• Morsink, Johannes. “Article 19: Freedom of Expression.” The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Columbia University, http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/udhr/article_19.html#targetText=The Universal
• Declaration of Human,media and regardless of frontiers.
• ParentInfo. “Social Media Apps: Setting Safety and Privacy Settings.” ParentInfo, Arent Zone and NCA-CEOP, 16 Oct. 2019, https://parentinfo.org/article/setting-safety-and-privacy-settings-for-social-media-apps.
• Parliamentary Counsel Office. “Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993.” Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 No 94 (as at 13 November 2018), Public Act 3 Meaning of Objectionable – New Zealand Legislation, New Zealand Government, 22 Feb. 2005, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0094/latest/DLM313407.html.