The Freedom of Speech - Censorship Essay Sample

In this age, blunt manipulation, and new censorship of political speech, many Americans thought that after the First Amendment, they were protected from the public debate and the press. But it ended up being confined to an often and narrow irrelevant role. This is the reason why many asked if the first amendment was obsolete and what could be the next step. Such questions came up because the First Amendment was designed to solve a particular set of problems in the world people live in. However, this agreement was because the history of America was ignored until judges like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, and Learned Hand came into power (Tufecki 175). Civil libertarians and the courts used the amendment to protect the government speakers from censorship and prosecution, which took place in the 20th century. They also arrested and seized the pamphleteers and newspapers produced by the Postal Service. The essay will elaborate more on the freedom of speech under Zeynep Tufekci and Angela Nagle's books.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

There are individual books when read changes the mind of people. The Kill all Normies, a book narrated by Angela Nagle, are articles written from personal experience. The author, who is also known to write many publications such as The New Man of 4chan, culminated about the freedom of speech after the 2016 elections by pinpointing the progress of speech (Nagle 272). The narration of Nagle was directed to the political awakening and the online misogyny. Throughout her book, the author looked at the origin of online subcultures, and they were catapulted into the mainstream to propel the presidency of Donald Trump.

The book was also developed after a compelling and long article she once wrote when she emphasized on the Beta male University from polarizing the campus talks. The book not only does it show the frustration of stereotypes but also to expand on the delicate chapters of speech that fueled nihilism in profiling, familiar, and dangerous facts (Nagle 299). That is why the author decided to focus on the notion of inner clashed and counterculture with the imaginary speech. Both were connected because the thesis of the book focused on the sensibility of the development of an online statement against the liberal establishment.

In the 21s century, the role of censorship became different, as elaborated by the academic writer Zeynep Tufekci. The impression of suppressing freedom of speech became an era because the world's most sophisticated sensors like in China and Russia spent many years pioneering techniques and tools for the internet age (Tufecki 199). However, those censorships were not welcomed in America because of the catastrophe of democracy. Russia was the first country to realize that the speech could be used as a tool of control and suppression. Such agents who were also known as the 'troll army' or the 'web brigade,' disseminated the news from the government and converted those to false stories to create criticism.

The Chinese government, on the other hand, reversed the censorship because it never values the freedom of speech drowned by the sentiments of the government. Since Tufekci was a writer, he stated that "techniques that employ information also give freedom of speech to blackmail, confuse, paralyze and subvert people (Tufecki 204). The public discourses come from the use of the tools of expression and control and censorship. This made the administration to cross the lines between propaganda and facts. Such declarations punished people instead of taking action.

Moreover, the freedom of speech manipulated the political debate in the U.S, such as the exploitation of Twitter and Face book. The only solution to this, according to Tufekci, was to recognize the market place and American political process for ideas that were attacked by freedom of speech after the First Amendment (Tufecki 225). It was imperative, in this case, that the lawmakers failed to protect the public speakers and journalists fork threats and harassment.

On discourse that was also revealed by Nagle were the online transgression of politics and the attitude of the antagonist because of their association in the roots of the avant-garde aesthetic. According to her mentions on the 1968 slogan 'It is forbidden to forbid,' the author was also trying to trace the spanning across the Surrealists, the Marquise de Sade and Lenny Bruce down their actions towards the internet (Nagle 304). Based on the argument, the commitment to aggressive rhetoric and free speech came from the past from people like trickster god Loki and Jesus defined the traits of free speech. The strategic level of the author was to bubble up this freedom in the 21st century to bubble the online phenomena that were exploited and directed to the institutions that worked for hand in hand with the Media.

The whole process made Nagle argue that the mainstream media is facilitating the freedom of speech, particularly in platforms such as Buzzfeed and Upwrothy. This is because the author embodies the Obama-era millennial era that consisted of "Ultra-sentimentality and sensitivity and what facilitated the radial social constructionist when it came to politics (Nagle 372). Such media platforms only embraced the share of the parody and created memes such as the vocalists to divide members of parliament during the primaries.

Zeynep Tufekci also observes the same issue because of his motive to protect American politics from being attacked. For instance, Russia loves using YouTube, Facebook, and other social media platforms to compel against the American Congress act. In short, Tufekci wanted to show that social media plays a significant role in promoting the freedom of speech when it comes to elections during its broadcast due to its consistency and the ability to manipulate people.

To finish this, the author also suggested that rules should be embraced to bar the social media companies from being bribed to facilitate political advertising by governments outside their region. Moreover, more active anti-bot should be implemented to fight the freedom of speech that impersonates propaganda issues. The white house also needs to be accountable when it comes to private parties, particularly the ones that circumvented the protection of the First Amendment. This makes people punish the critics. On this note, the pain of tax penalties will make the government disfavored speech.

Nagle's final critique also focused on the cultural wars of online platforms. Instead of learning the language of freedom of speech, the author opted for the reconsideration of the counterculture given to online platforms. Even though she felt it was too late to confine the rapid growth of online politics, she insisted that they have also become ethereal venues that are skeptic towards the counterculture that does not recognize the overcoming of polarization.

Conclusion

Even though many can argue about the freedom of speech, the current state that was embraced has created a political world full of hate speech. Free speech is a tradition embraced form the history, but it became defensible once it started bringing harassment, creating threats, and brought propaganda campaigns that attracted the social media to spread the word. This means that corruption of debate is one thing, and the unfiltered debate is another thing. The reason why the two authors were against the freedom of speech was that so many governments have entered into dangerous places that can destroy the public sphere due to hate speech.

Works Cited

Nagle, Angela. "Kill All Normies:." Online Culture Wars From 4chan And Tumblr To Trump And The Alt-Right, vol. 25, no. 3, 2018, pp. 270-372., doi:10.5817/pc2018-3-270.

Tufecki, Zeynep. "Golden Age of Speech." Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 43, no. 4, 2010, pp. 174-382., doi:10.1080/00335635709382261.