Welcome to a new school year! And welcome, young journalists, to Waldsmith's Dispatch, our journalism class blog. I began this blog in the fall of 2009 and it goes on hiatus when our semester-long class is over. I'm excited to get the blog up and running again because it works as a great tool to accompany and emphasize issues covered in class, as well a place to share your thoughts and comments. Some of the posts will be "greatest hits" of earlier posts; others will be brand new.
Are newspapers a dying breed? It would seem so. As we've discussed in class and as chapter 4 in your textbook points out, traditional newspapers are fighting to survive and implementing new technologies to meet the needs oa new generation of readers who are more likely to get their news from an iPod or cell phone.
On the other hand, journalism itself isn't dying. Only its mode of delivery is changing and adapting. Meanwhile the trend of citizen journalism is also here to stay. As we saw in the For Neda documentary, ordinary citizens, as well as journalists, were able to use cell phones and social networking sites like Twitter to report news that would have otherwise been suppressed by the Iranian government.
While the digital revolution has enabled us to have incredible opportunities and resources at our fingertips, it has also spawned problematic trends. How, for example, do we sift through it all? How will people know the difference between legitimate news sources and biased or unsupported propaganda? How will people be able to make informed decisions?
NBC anchorman Brian Williams summed it up well: "It is now possible--even common--to go about your day in America and consume only what you wish to see and hear. There are television networks that already agree with your views, iPods that play only music you already know you like, Internet programs ready to filter out all but the news you want to hear . . . The whole notion of 'media' is now much more democratic, but what will the effect be on democracy?"
The First Amendment is the foundation of an open society. Two of the five protections guaranteed by the First Amendment -- freedom of speech and freedom of the press -- help ensure that we provide citizens with a "marketplace of ideas" free from censorship. Yet the right to free expression often comes into conflict with other rights, especially when it infringes on the safety or morality of others. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, for example, is not protected by the First Amendment. Neither is child pornography or material that is considered obscene in nature. This is why the First Amendment is not just a static document that was written by our forefathers over 200 years ago. Because society and technology change and evolve, the First Amendment is continually challenged by cases that need to be interpreted by the courts.
For example, click here to read a current court case that involves the First Amendment, then read another version of the story. What is your opinion? Offer a brief comment about the case or anything else mentioned in this post.
I think that "Liking" something on Facebook should be protected by the First Amendment. In my opinion, it is the same thing as voicing your opinion out on the street about something. Therefore, I think that Carter, the employee that liked the opponent on Facebook, did nothing wrong. He was simply voicing his opinion peacefully on social media.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Carter had every right to "like" his employer's opponent on Facebook because he is expressing his views. The U.S. District Judge made a mistake declaring that the Facebook like is not covered under the First Amendment Rights. How were the founding fathers of our nation supposed to know that one day Facebook would exist? The didn't even know that something as complex as the Internet would ever be possible. As we have talked about in class, the circumstances for which the First Amendment apply are always changing as our world evolves.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with Facebook's comment about there being no difference between "liking" something on a social media site and voicing an opinion openly in public. I believe that the First Amendment applies,under reasonable circumstances, to even the most simple and informal methods of self-expression. I also question the judge's knowledge of both our Judaical system and our basic American rights.The six employes did the right thing in fighting for the justice they deserved.
ReplyDeleteI believe that "liking" something on facebook should certainly be protected under the First Amendment. As the first article states, the First Amendment protects people's rights to voice any thoughts or opinions they have. Daniel Ray Carter was simply voicing his opinion when he "liked" Robert's opponent on Facebook. The first judge stated that a "like" is not protected under the First Amendment, but I believe it should because a "like" is the modern, 21st century way to express an opinion. Therefore, I think Carter did nothing wrong and has every right to be protected under the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Facebook's position that, "likes are the “21st-century equivalent of a front-yard campaign sign," and are, "constitutionally protected speech." I disagree with Judge Raymond Jackson's conclusion that, “merely ‘liking’ a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection," as I believe it is protected under The First Amendment. However, we must consider that the two articles we have read do not provide us with all of the facts associated with the termination of Daniel Ray Carter and the other employees. According to Sheriff Robert's attorney, "all employment decisions involving plaintiffs were constitutional, lawful, not the result of any improper purpose or motive, and not in retaliation for political expression.” In my opinion, the judge should not have dismissed the case, simply based off of a summary judgment against Carter. The case should have gone through a full court evaluation, and a verdict should have been established based on all of the facts associated with the termination.
ReplyDelete~Danya Ziazadeh
I completely agree with ACLU attorney Aden Fine stated that, “The Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment protects everyone’s right to express their thoughts and opinions in whatever form they choose to do so, whether it’s speaking on a street corner, holding up a sign, or pressing a button on Facebook to say that you ‘Like’ something.” I do not believe that there is any difference between "liking" a Facebook page and actually typing out that you support their campaign. Either both of them should be protected by the First Amendment, or neither.
ReplyDelete"Liking" something on Facebook is something that you're allowed to do. There is no law prohibiting it or allowing consequences to result from it. So why was one person fired for expressing their opinion on a social networking site? I understand Sheriff Robert's view on how his employee should not support his opponent, but he can't control what his employees viewpoints are. Therefore, I think what Daniel Ray Carter did should be protected under the First Amendment because he was putting his verbal words into written ones.
ReplyDeleteI fully believe that "liking" something on Facebook should be protected under the first amendment. Regardless of the post,from a friends picture to an opponents campaign page, anything that a user posts is subject to an opinion. Facebook is a modern revelation of interaction between people and it should be inferred as though in the constitution. In the Carter vs. Robert case,I think Carter's "like" of the opponents fan page should protected under the first amendment. As Volokh states in the WA Post, "liking is similar to putting a bumper sticker on a car, so it should be protected." A "like" is a small expression of belief. Although it is simply a button, every person that clicks it is stating that they like that post. If the first amendment protects a public, vocal statement to a trivial bumper sticker I feel as though a Facebook "like" should be supported under the first amendment as well.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that "liking" something on Facebook should be protected by the first amendment. The purpose of Facebook, is to share your opinion about a certain matter or reconnect with friends. Myself, as a user of Facebook shouldn't be afraid to "like" a post on Facebook because i could possibly be fired from my job. I also feel like Roberts is trying to justify his decision in firing Carter and 5 other employees so it doesn't seem like he is the bad guy. It is stated in the article that Roberts said "Some of the fired deputies had unsatisfactory work performance and that the campaigning had disrupted the workplace." In my opinion this whole issue was started because Roberts didn't approve of one of his employees showing favor to the other opponent. So, if liking a page on Facebook is not protected by the first amendment then why should it be okay to create a law that prohibits people from liking certain pages on Facebook?
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that "liking" something or someone on Facebook should be protected under the First Amendment. The judge portrayed himself as extremely small-minded in saying that a "like" on Facebook is "insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection." The "like" obviously carried enough weight to cost someone their job, so why did it not carry enough weight to be considered free speech? The sheriff evidently thought that the "like" meant something, so why didn't the judge think it held enough power to be protected? Nowhere in the First Amendment is there a required length that a piece of free expression must reach to be considered worthy of protection. The examples of posting a campaign sign in your front yard or pasting a bumper sticker on your car are very effective in asserting that "liking" something on Facebook is simply the way that thousands of human beings say, "This, I believe in. I support these ideas." Isn't this the very expression that our founding fathers sought to protect?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, it is evident that Carter made a pretty bold move, but this move was in no way "unconstituional". There is a reason we have the Constituion to protect our freedoms,and one of them is clearly the freedom of speech. I firmly believe that we are allowed to voice our opinoins, especially on social networking sites. Yes, I think people do realize that what they say can offend or enrage someone else, but we have the right to say what is on our mind whether or not other people like it. I think "liking" something on Facebook should definately be protected under the First Amendment. Makers of social media sites and forums didn't make the websites so everyone would agree on the subjects presented, they knew people would have different views. Think about it though, if we are allowed to have our religion available to see on Facebook, why can't we "like" whatever we want? All in all, expressing views on Facebook is the same as having campaign signs on your front lawn or bumper stickers on your car. It is legal, and not one single person should tell us otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI believe that pressing the "like" button on Facebook should be supported by the first amendment. When you press the " like" button you are expressing your view or opinion on a specific subject. The fact that the sheriff fired his co- workers for expressing their opinion on a matter he did not like is unconstitutional. They should be supported by the first amendment's freedom of speech, to "like" whoever they wish on Facebook or any other social media website. Declaring that a person with hold their opinion for fear of losing their job, is a case that should be taken to court.
ReplyDeleteI do not understand why "liking" something on Facebook would not be protected by theh First Amendment. The ACLU attorney Aden Fine makes an excellent point explaining how it is no different to express your opinion, whether it is saying it out loud or hitting the "like" button on Facebook. As Aden said "the end result is the same." Although there have been doubts on whether or not the case for clicking "like" on Facebook to be protected by the First Amendment is enough to bring back to court, I believe it is more than enough.
ReplyDeleteWe live in a country where people argue over politics everywhere: TV, newspapers, in public venues such as a cafe... Why shouldn't are our rights to do so be protected on the Internet? The judge's decision about the First Amendment protecting liking Facebook is wrong in my opinion. This decision attacks our rights to express freedom of speech on the Internet. What's next? Will bloggers be under fire? Will online petitions be stopped? The Internet is just another venue for us to express our opinions. Our right to free speech should be protected there too. The six employees should take the case to a higher court. My real question is whether or not it was okay for Sheriff Roberts to fire his employees for stating an opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe first amendment protects our freedom of speech, which is what 'liking' a Facebook status is."Whether someone presses a ‘Like’ button to express those thoughts or presses the buttons on a keyboard to write out those words, the end result is the same: one is telling the world about one’s personal beliefs, interests, and opinions..." says the ACLU brief. I couldn't have said it better myself. If I were to take the words of an influential figure up on a poster board, and went around in public with it is equivalent to those words being on a Facebook status, and 'liking' it. Liking a status is in no way affecting anyone's safety and is a way of voicing an opinion, and therefore falls directly under the category of things our freedom of speech includes.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion liking something on facebook is a way to express how you fell about something and to broadcast the things you support. Liking something should be protected under the First Amendment because you are expressing and communicating your feelings toward something. Carter had every right to like that facebook page and the First Amendment should have protected him for doing so.
ReplyDeleteI believe that liking something on Facebook should be protected under the First Amendment because they have a right to state their opinion. By liking something on Facebook, they are not being violent, they are just telling others that they agree with this person, band, or thing. Carter is a U.S. citizen and as a U.S. citizen, we should be able to state our beliefs and opinions freely.
ReplyDeleteCarter's decision to "like" Adam's campaign on Facebook was an example of freedom of speech, and as a US citizen this is perfectly acceptable under the First Amendment. This wasn't done in a violent way, so what he did was a right based on the Constitution, and therefore he should not be punished.
ReplyDelete