Write a one [1] paragraph argument in support of your client\'s position. I am o

Question

Write a one [1] paragraph argument in support of your client's position.

I am on the side of Facebook and defending Facebook. Please use free speach, Constituton , censoring of media policies and laws. Freedom of expression, bill of rights amendments. This is ethics and law class/

Fall, 2018 A Manager's Dilemma: Putting it into Practice In May 2016, a Facebooksubscriber posted a comment expressing "frustration with the push to open showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms to all comers," which was attacked as "transphobic."k A University of California senior then posted "Better to be 'transphobic, than realityphobic. The truth is that no amount of scalpel cuts, dresses or wigs can make a man a woman. All it can do is make him looklike a woman." Facebook removed the comment because it did notcomport with Facebook's Community Standards and placed a 24-hour block on postings by the senior. After Facebookremoved the block, the senior posted: "Friends: I am returning from a 24-hour ban from FB. Apparently Comrade Zuckerberg does not tolerate the inconvenient truth that no amount of scalpel cuts can make a man a woman." Facebookremoved that post as well, this time imposing a three-day ban Did Facebook handle this situation appropriately? Would it matter if the posts were on a chat site sponsored by a public or private university? How should university administrators balance long-standing protections for academic freedom with calls for "safe spaces" and the "right" to be free of "microaggressions"? What role should faculty and fellow students play?

Explanation / Answer

The First Amendment lays importance on the freedom of speech rights.

The government has put certain limitations on the freedom of speech used in Free Speeches. Free speeches aiming to create controversy and incite riots among different sects are not valid and must be stopped. Such kind of free speeches is termed as criminal hate speech. Many governments have put regulations on such hate speeches.

The three kinds of criminal statutes that should never be used in context involving speech are:

Though the First Amendment renders protection to peaceful speech, if speech has the probability to create danger to the audience or public, it can be regulated. This includes the usage of fighting words in the speech. These are the words, whose very utterance can breach the peace.

This can also be included under the regulation of clear danger exception. This statute must regulate and prohibit any kind of imminent lawless actions, advocating threat to the general audience or public.

This statute is used to punish any kind of conduct done targeting a special sect of audience. The target can be based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

The step taken by Facebook was valid owing to the above-mentioned 3 criminal statutes. The statements said by the senior were quite controversial and could have created unrest in the society. Hence placing a ban in form of profile block can be considered as a precautionary measure by Facebook to maintain peace of the overall society.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.