Virtual Media Content

Freedom of Speech in Social Media vs Print Media

Since information from social sources lacks accountability, standardized rules, and reliability, virtual freedom of speech differs significantly from the freedom to express any opinions without restriction or restraint in print media (Cottle et al., 2016). These justifications can be seen in a number of legislative and related contexts. The following analysis describes how the two issues are distinguished in academic literature and legal precedents. A social media account can be created anywhere there is Internet access, according to the first amendment, which states that if a law covers more speech regions than are essential, it embraces an excessive position regarding the application of freedom measures (Fisher et al., 2001). As a result, specialists argue that the global network is the best platform for democracy establishing in case it is left without government interference (Graber and Dunaway, 2017). However, it may be problematic to define the main violator and an author of content which contradicts the freedom of speech. The difficulty in determining the certain source of information creates a problem in finding a right person accountable for any action forbidden by the law. The other media outlets, on the other hand, hire experts who are responsible for the information printed. Therefore, information transmission through press organizations is regulated by professionalism requirements (Napoli, 2015).

Differences in Regulation and Control

Virtual communication is used all over the world. Therefore, establishing a global set of rules for content which turns out to be inflammatory or harmful to the society is considered to be a fairly complicated process. Moreover, a multicultural practice in the world scope is a significant variation of moral guidelines. The constitution provides for the censoring of speech only while the relevant Internet companies are allowed to control their information traffic within the network communication (Fisher et al., 2001). Moreover, the regulation is restricted to the extent of speech control in order to allow minimal intervening in the freedom of expression. Print media operates in accordance with a standard professional guideline, and therefore, it is easier for the target population to get the context of the news shared as opposed to the social media. Therefore, application of freedom of speech in the two segments of communication differs. This evidence may be observed by the usage of banned words and report sections for polarizing content (Graber and Dunaway, 2017).

Anonymity and Misinformation

Most of the posts in Internet platforms are provided in social settings with the aim of reaching the target audience. Since the people who write the content have an advantage of anonymity and exclusion, anyone has a possibility to spread false information. Moreover, the non-verbal cues may be counterfeit leading to misinterpretation of the data as seen in the cases of child pornography. As a result, it is almost impossible to find out whether the author transmits the vital information or the person is just looking for attention from the social world. In the print press, an established central point of authority is present, hence the clarification can be provided by various professionals working in the mass media (Napoli, 2015; Ex parte Lo, 2013).

Challenges and the Way Forward

From the arguments presented, there exists a great distinction between the freedom of speech in the virtual settings and in the print media. The information control needs new methods of policy implementation to operate in the area of the virtual freedom of speech. A new approach should target credibility, accountability, and measures to standardize the freedom in a global setting with multiple society requirements. These issues are the ones that pose a great challenge for the maintenance of the freedom of expression.

References

Cottle, S., Sambrook, R., & Mosdell, N. (2016). Introduction. In reporting dangerously. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fisher, W., Benkler, Y., Brackley, R., and Ma, S. (2001). Freedom of expression on the internet. Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School.

Graber, D. A., and Dunaway, J. (2017). Mass media and American politics. Cq Press

Napoli, P. M. (2015). Social media and the public interest: Governance of news platforms in the realm of individual and algorithmic gatekeepers. Telecommunications Policy, 39(9), 751-760.