Free speech and censorship
Free speech and censorship on the internet pertaining to “fake news” and other concerns regarding disinformation, has been discussed at length in recent years. Do you believe technology companies, e.g. Facebook, Google, should play a lighter or heavier role in regulating speech on the internet? Why?
Technology companies like Google and Facebook should not regulate speech on the internet. It is important to note that the world today is so much interconnected through the internet. Through the internet, people have more much audience than in real life, therefore communicating to a broad audience in contemporary society happens through the internet. Regulating internet speech will do more harm to society as people have freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, regardless of the platform where one speaks, is fundamental in bringing about change in society. Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that should not be regulated in any way; people should have their full rights to express their feelings.
Free speech on the internet is critical for many reasons. First, free speech is essential for change, freedom of speech since time immemorial is essential in fighting for change in society (Balkin, 2018). The rights that people enjoy today would not have been achieved if there was no freedom of speech. Freedom of speech allows people to listen to others and allow other views to be heard; freedom of speech brings people’s opinions, thoughts, and views that are good for economic, political, and societal growth. Good ideas always surpass bad ideas. Therefore freedom of speech should not be looked at from the bad speech dimension since good ideas emanating from freedom of speech will always saturate bad ideas. Besides, in contemporary society where people face several issues, sharing ideas freely is the most precious human right. A free society depends on the exchange of ideas. The most famous avenue to air people’s ideas and views in the modern day is through the internet and social media platforms, therefore technology companies should not in any way tamper with the most essential and precious human right ‘freedom of speech.’
Would the US be better off with a viable third party candidate in the 2020 presidential election? Why? What would that candidate stand for? If not, why would this be bad?
America should have a third party to stand for the majority. The majority in this sense does not only mean the person who win with most votes but that wins most votes and tops in number of votes in the majority of states. This will be a fair representation. The United States needs to have a third party since the two-party system offers limited options when it comes it voting. Voters are individuals who have varied interests, having only two options to choose from is not an indicator or democracy, having a variety of people to choose from will equate to fair representation, and only the best candidate will be elected. Therefore, this will lead to good leadership.
Two parties in the United States ignore alternative voices, especially the radical ones (OpenStax, 2020). It is essential to have three parties in the US. This is not debatable because many parties increase diversification and diversified views; this is important in attracting new thoughts, new ideas, and creativity in leadership to benefit the people. Having three contestants in the United States election will be valuable in ensuring quality election. Two options can both be bad, having a third person to break the tie is essential, this will not only revolutionize the American politics for the better but also improve part-candidate selection to ensure only the best candidate is forwarded for contestation. Therefore, in the larger picture, introducing a third party in the United States will be valuable in improving United States politics. Better politics and fair representation of the people bring equitable development, justices, and enhanced political representation. In this line of thought, therefore, America should viably introduce the third part to stand for the majority and strengthen fairness in elections.