Reference no: EM132177798

1) Here are some examples of "speech", as the term is used by the US legal system. Please choose one of these to discuss.

• Debating

• Telling unpopular truths

• Telling convincing lies

• Libel, slander, defamation, calumny, smearing

• Mass hypnosis by a smooth-talking Hitlerian leader

• Wearing shocking apparel

• Monetary contributions to a cause

• Carrying a sign

• Distributing leaflets or spam

• Pretending to be someone you're not

• Chanting a slogan in a crowd

• Bullying, gaslighting, hate speech

• Doxing and inciting harassment

• Instigation of suicide, or of violence

• Fanning fears, demonizing

• Political correctness

• Manipulating a child

• Silence from self-censorship

For your chosen example of "speech", use your imagination and write two sentences. The first describes a situation in which that example of speech is just barely OK. The second is just barely not OK. (Go by where you think society's line should be drawn.)

For example, I'll choose the first type of speech above: "Debating". Here are my two sentences:

• Just barely OK: "In their TV debate, the two candidates began raising their voices to a shout as they argued their points."

• Just barelynotOK: "Gesturing closely in the other candidate's face, the first candidate began sliming the second candidate's autistic child with dirty words and a babyish mocking voice."

Now tell us in detail how you could use Lawrence Lessig's modes of control (the law, the market, social norms, or the architecture) to bring the second situation back into control. Which would be most appropriate to handle your second sentence?

For example: I would say, "The first amendment makes the law useless for this situation; a law is not allowed to prevent sliming or mocking speech. However, perhaps the market and social normscould be used, for example by setting up a GoFundMe account for each debater and having the listeners vote with their money as to which candidate behaves with more propriety.

The architecture of the debate could also be used, for example by getting agreement in advance that a wise referee is allowed to signal a debater to cool it, and then to turn off that debater's microphone if their speech crosses the line into impropriety. I think the architectural solution would work best."
Now it's your turn.

2) Social norms are highly influential on a person's behavior. Do you believe a change in social norms is needed to help prevent hate speech, bullying, propaganda etc. online, and if so, can you provide some suggestions on how to change/improve social norms in the digital age?

3) What draws the line between online harassment, trolling, and harmless fun?

What about the incident where an online Call of Duty feud led to a SWAT attack that resulted in a death of an innocent Kansas gamer? 

What laws, if any, could be amended/implemented to ensure a safe internet for us all, without silencing a vast majority of its users?