Social media is rapidly becoming the most important source of connection and communication nowadays. Â This brings up the questions: what is the influence of free expression on the Internet; how much freedom of talking can people really have in a social network? The internet services proclaim that users can put out their activities, thoughts, photos to the audience and exchange or advocate for their ideas in the discussions freely. Nevertheless, the current prosecutions for content on social media sites raise the disturbing issue about the bounds of free speech and the state of the law.
The articleÂ Watch what you tweet: 4 Twitter lawsuitsÂ is the illustration of the problem, bringing attention to the huge implications of social media free speech. The article put emphasis on Twitter lawsuits, providing four cases of them. For instance, when Kim Kardashian, the world’s celebrity, published disapproval ofÂ Cookie DietÂ on Twitter, Dr. Sanford Siegal brought a claim on her. The main reason of such court cases is that famous people do not only share information with the public but form their opinions on certain issues, as well. Other legal complaints included the breaches of contracts, libels and moral damage for reputation.
There is rising recognition that this tendency threatens free speech. Lawyers inform that people can take responsibility for both their own posts and retweeting messages. On the other hand, a part of freedom contains also obligations. From this perspective, posted information must involve objective and factual information. In reality, free expression of thoughts is far from perfect. It can disturb, offend or shock. For this reason, it is impossible to remove all immoral free speech and leave only respectable one.
In conclusion, Twitter as other forums and social networks must be for free speech. Nevertheless, if there is a clear violation of the law, and people use Twitter for harmful things, measures should be taken against them. That is why it is a complicated question, and users must be instructed on the importance of maintaining the law.