Overview
https://newrepublic.com/article/113045/free-speech...
Prompt:
This discussion link will serve as an opportunity to talk to each other regarding the importance of the reading and why you find it important. Discussion here consists of responding to two questions:
(a) What is the most important point raised in the documentary, Internet Warriors?
(b) Why do you think it is important as seen through the lens of any of our moral theories?
“What” is most important—part (a)—means you present an unbiased, straight-forward account of what you think is the most important point in the reading, with as full an explication of what this point means. The “why” part—part (b)—is evaluative, which means you offer critical analysis, reflecting on why this point matters.
Instructions:
Make your initial post.
Respond to two other classmates' posts.
number 1
a) The most important point raised in the Internet Warriors documentary is the concept of showing these "internet warriors'" personalities and actions in the real world and cyberspace. This documentary shows how these people behave in the same way, whether they are online or not. An example of this in the documentary is the person who supported Trump in the 2016 United States election. This person made very harsh comments online about the United States election. The documentary then shows him joking with others at a diner about comments he made online and making similar comments while watching the news at his home. Other people in the documentary demonstrate this behavior as well. Such as laughing at their past posts, restating their ideals to the camera crew, stating that their families behave the same way, etc. The documentary shows that their behavior is not exclusive to their online activity.
b) One of our moral theories that this situation can be seen through is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is about choosing our actions based on which will benefit the majority and produce the greatest happiness. The actions that these people are choosing do not benefit the majority. Whether online or in real life, these individuals choose to spread negativity and add to dangerous narratives. This behavior probably influences their real-life relationships and the people who view their online posts. However, limiting people's ability to freely voice their opinions, also does not benefit the majority. Hopefully, in the future, a solution can be found that will satisfy all parties involved.
number 2
a. I think the most important point raised in Internet Warriors was that freedom of speech means freedom for ALL forms of speech, not just some, and not just the ones that align with the governing party's agenda. The documentary showed very drastic and polarizing forms of Tweets and Facebook posts that would land some of these individuals in jail, or worse, in certain countries. While some of these people's words and beliefs seem rather harsh and hateful, they were not direct threats against life or liberty to specific individuals, therefore their online presences remain valid and allowed. However, it is quite ironic and slightly funny how some of these individuals were touting messages that went against the very ideals of being a "free" and "open" society, like one of the last individuals commented.
b. I believe this to be the most important point as through the lens of the veil of ignorance in creating a societal contract by which the population would rule itself. As such, it is entirely possible that hate speech would also be banned or not exist at all. In creating a society behind a veil of ignorance, such lawmakers could potentially create rules that deter anyone from expressing their disagreement with another individual through such extreme words of hate. By being ignorant to societal/cultural/religious/etc. differences, they wouldn't believe any one person to be capable of such hate. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that this veil would inherently prevent any such bans on hate speech to exist since the idea of hating another based on their "different-ness" is out of question.