Paper

It has been contested that regulations do more good than harm as regulations restrict individuals from knowingly lying about facts according to several court cases, including Stratton Oakmont vs. Prodigy (1995).  However, I believe that regulations are not a practical solution for preventing deceit and libel. Being the most prolific and widespread medium of communication, the internet has indeed been used to spread blatant lies about others, including executives of companies and politicians, but it also been a force to combat lies with the truth. For instance, in the court case Stratton Oakmont vs. Prodigy, libelous remarks were made on an online financial forum, named “Money Talk”, and the company took legal action against the internet service provider. According to the case, “a Prodigy user had posted about Daniel Porush, the president of Stratton Oakmont, claiming that it was too ‘soon to proven criminal’ and Stratton was a ‘cult of brokers who either lie for a living or get fired.’” (Court Cases). Prodigy was found liable as it was classified as publisher since it  had the “right to edit, remove, and filer” content (Court Cases). Moreover, Thomas Schweich, a Missouri politician, committed suicide after being bullied by Republican John Hancock, for “spreading misinformation about his religion…while Hancock designed a ‘whisper campaign.’” (Thompson, 2015). 
	One issue with the legal prosecution of regulation is that it is immensely challenging to determine whether the individuals who were lying, knowingly publicized the dishonest message. Blatantly circulating misleading information about individuals and facts do not further society, but authorizing regulations will not be an effective measure; there are more efficacious non-regulatory alternatives. To illustrate, truthful speech can be used to contest deceitful speech when individuals and facts are affected. Regulations will have far more unintended consequences such as a spill-over effect into other areas of free speech, creating massive limits on what citizens can express. 
	There are some instances when regulation can be helpful, such as when it protects children from abuse and exploitation. In the court case New York v. Ferber, Paul Ferber, a Manhattan adult-store owner, was charged with selling an undercover police officer a child pornography video, which violated New York’s obscenity law that forbade individuals for knowingly selling sexual content of children under the age of sixteen (New York v. Ferber). The Supreme Court ruled that the, “state’s interest in preventing sexual exploitation of minors was a compelling ‘government objective of surpassing importance’” (New York v. Ferber). Children can be, and frequently are, at a disadvantage; however, this particular court case depicted that society attempts to protect those who cannot protect themselves. This is one way where restrictions on expression does more good than harm as there is no contention about the unacceptability of child pornography in any section of the society. However, most issues are not so binary and resist attempts to be prosecuted through a generalized overarching law. Regulations in such cases end up causing discrimination and even undesirable outcomes instead of protecting and helping.
	Besides using constraints on freedom of expression to protect children, it has been argued in various court case that proactive regulations are necessary in the age of social media in order to counter cyberbullying and online harassment. However, the social media landscape changes so quickly that regulation lags behind years; therefore, regulations are not an effective nor a realistic resolution in modern day. For instance, there exists a wide variety of services, and they are constantly popping in and out of relevance. Besides Twitter and Facebook, relatively new apps such as Snapchat and Yik Yak have penetrated the market at an astonishing pace in a matter of months. While Facebook is strongly tied to users' identity and has a sense of permanence, Snapchat is ephemeral and Yik Yak is completely anonymous. Any sort of regulation that would have been in place for Facebook, even in 2014, would have become irrelevant only in a few months. Such regulations, given the number of citizens they may affect, take significant time to draft, discuss, and pass through the legislature. There is no practical way for the regulatory machinery to keep pace with the reality of social media. Laws in such a landscape are either obsolete even before they are passed or too general and open to interpretation, thus benefitting the powerful who can afford to contest in court, effectively stifling free speech.
	This time consuming process can be illustrated through the net neutrality regulation debate, which commenced on October 1, 2002, when the Federal Communications Commission first determined to separate cable internet access and DSL internet access for “regulatory purposes by deregulating cable” (A Timeline of Net Neutrality). From then until February 26, 2015—when Title II Net Neutrality Rules was passed—net neutrality had been a pressing issue with many revisions throughout a twelve year process. The legislative process can be remarkably time consuming. The speed of legislation is very slow in comparison to how quickly technology advances. Trying to impose broad regulations on the internet will not solve the problem of cyberbullying, but rather cripple the most revolutionary medium of communication ever-conceived. An immense amount of data is uploaded to the internet, making it virtually impossible to sort through this much data and determine what is acceptable and what is in violation of a regulation. According to CEO James Josh from Domosphere, 204 million email messages are sent every minute, Facebook users post and share 2.46 million pieces of content, and twitter users tweet 277,000 times per minute. Instead of formulating regulations that will be ineffective and impractical, social media employs sophisticated data mining and natural language processing strategies to understand the nature of such posts and delete or block users in violation. This sort of self-regulation ends up being more realistic, and far more effective towards addressing the problem of harassment. 
	repressive regulations tend to stifle free exchange of ideas. Therefore, individuals are unable to exchange error for truth and strengthen their own set of beliefs in order to reach their own relative truth. Allowing constraints on freedom of expression is an attempt to impose the prejudices of the few over the many. I believe that regulations impose restrictions on the ability of citizens to discuss ideas in a free society without fearing repercussions. Regulations stifle unpopular opinions from being voiced; some idiosyncratic conclusions that have been silenced could have aided in the betterment of society.
	 For instance, in On Liberty, John Stuart Mill iterates the crucial importance of a free market place of ideas. Those opinions that may be unpopular may be some of society’s greatest discoveries that impact the world in some fashion. Mill asserts the importance of truth and error within a society, “If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exhaling error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error” (Mill, 16). Discussion should never be silenced; by legislating laws on freedom of expression, the government is curbing individual’s opinions and preventing them from partaking in meaningful discussion that could yield poignant conclusions for the entire society. Furthermore, the society is not a monolith and is composed of many subcultures. Regulations are, in essence, an attempt to suppress these subcultures’ ideologies. By censoring others’ dogma, the heart of democracy is lost. Free speech is for all; placing restrictions on free speech is violating this very basic notion.
	Society must endure costs, including allowing hate speech, in order to live in a free world that protects the basic liberties of its citizens. I believe that in order for a democracy to exist, free speech—even the most ill of words, must be guaranteed under the first amendment. Despite regulations, hate speech will continue in one form or another. The only way to counter hate is with positive speech and boycott of those who care not to learn and better themselves. 
	For example, the Westboro Baptist Church is a “small virulently homophobic, anti-Semitic hate group that regularly stages protests around the country, often several times a week. The group pickets institutions and individuals, they think, support homosexuality or otherwise subvert what they believe is God’s law” (Westboro Baptist Church). The Westboro Baptist Church has controversially exercised their first amendment right to picket mainly at military funerals, but have also used this right to protest at selective tragedies including the Newtown shooting's victims' funerals. Silencing this unconventional speech will be a direct violation of the very idea of free speech. While the content of there protests may be atypical, ignorant and even hateful, the Westboro Baptist Church does have the right to picket and the right to express their beliefs, even if they are unconventional and offensive.
	To combat hateful speech, like that from the Westboro Baptist Church, organizations that promote love and respect have been constituted. For instance, the Patriot Guard Riders shield victims of the Church’s picketing in order to protect grieving loved ones from the protesters' obscenities and interruptions in order to dignify the fallen soldiers' funeral. The beauty of free society is that even with the most abusive offenders, organizations and citizens can stand up using the protection guaranteed by freedom of speech to address the wrongs. It is a double edged sword, one that must be wielded with care, but ought not to be blunt by the dings of regulations and restrictions, or the battle for the advancement of the society will be lost.