Heather Clark
2W
The central claim of this editorial is where can court systems draw the line between threats and freedom of speech on the internet. The court system has issues with identifying what is considered a threat on the internet. The government is having issues controlling what is being said on the internet, and regulating the differences between a threat and just posting an opinion. The author argues that you can’t decide legally what a person’s true intentions of their words actually is.
A significant piece of evidence that the author uses to support their argument is the court case involving Anthony Elonis. Elonis threatened his wife on Facebook after she left him and took their children with her. The lawyer of Elonis argued that the prosecutors have no evidence of his clients intentions of the Facebook posts. This court case supports the author’s argument because it shows how the court system can’t tell the difference between threats and freedom of speech.
My opinion on the claim is that the government should make regulations that clearly state the difference between a threat and an opinion or idea. The government however can’t control and regulate the whole internet, so they may need to find a way to filter through controversial posts and investigate the intent behind the post.
No comments:
Post a Comment