Free Speech and Social Media

In the Snyder v. Phelps case, CJ John Roberts wrote:

Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.

When I reflect on this quote as a leader I immediately think "At what cost"? At what cost will we protect hate and hurtful speech on public issues? In the Snyder v. Phelps' case the cost was the depression, hurt and agonizing pain of the Synder family. As a leader, I have the innate desire and feeling to protect. I never want to see speech inflict pain on others. We teach students to do the right thing, treat others with kindness, and choose love and compassion however as a nation we’ve decided to ignore those basic tenants of kindness we learn at a young age when it comes to public speech.

In today’s day and age expressing individual thoughts and opinions has become increasingly easier with the emergence of social media. Social media serves as a large platform for people to stir people to action and bring awareness to public issues. At first glance, it is a wonderful thing because it brings awareness and necessary emotion to what were once-taboo topics. What was once an app has now become freedom of speech platform and tool. Unfortunately, due to misuse and abuse, we have inflicted yet another avenue for people to make derogatory remarks, cyber-bullying, racism, and isolation. As a leader, I have an obligation to decipher between hate speech and between the speech that we just don’t like. I believe as a nation we need to take another look at our first amendment and current climate and evolution of speech. In doing so, I think we will see that while we have created more avenues for hurtful speech to reside we have not established a filter to protect from that speech. CJ John Roberts believes we cannot react to pain by punishing the speaker, but I believe that there are places in a speech where that is warranted and we need to re-image the First Amendment in the 21st Century.