Chat with us, powered by LiveChat I need a paper | acewriters

“the social media executives should censor fake news” this is topic and I want APA format 6th. Checklist is the picture, and all sources in these pdf, just use these source to write.





Unformatted Attachment Preview

Fake news is ‘very real’ word of
the year for 2017
From The Guardian, Wednesday, Nov. 1, 2017, by Alison Flood
“Fake news” has acquired a certain legitimacy after being named word of the year
by Collins, following what the dictionary called its “ubiquitous presence” over the
last 12 months.
Collins Dictionary’s lexicographers, who monitor the 4.5bn-word Collins corpus,
said that usage of the term had increased by 365% since 2016. The phrase, often
capitalised, is frequently a feature of Donald Trump’s rhetoric; in the last few days
alone he has tweeted of how “the Fake News is working overtime” in relation
to the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential elections,
and of how “Fake News [is] weak!”
Trump has used the term frequently, and claimed last week to have invented it –
“the media is really, the word, one of the greatest of all [the] terms I’ve come up
with, is ‘fake’ … I guess other people have used it perhaps over the years, but I’ve
never noticed it,” he told an interviewer. This etymology was disputed by the
Collins said that “fake news” started being used in the noughties on US television
to describe “false, often sensational, information disseminated under the guise of
news reporting”. Its usage has climbed since 2015, according to the dictionary, and
really took off this year, with its ubiquity to be acknowledged with a place in the
next print edition of the Collins Dictionary.
A number of other words related to politics and current affairs were also in its list
of the words of the year. “Echo chamber”, defined as “an environment, especially
on a social media site, in which any statement of opinion is likely to be greeted
with approval because it will only be read or heard by people who hold similar
views”, has seen a “steady increase” in usage over the last five years, while
“antifa” saw its usage rise by almost 7,000% following violent clashes between
anti-fascist protesters and the far right, particularly in the US.
Corbynmania, up by 310%, was also on the list: Collins said the term for “fervent
enthusiasm” for Jeremy Corbyn “first emerged in 2015 and after a dip last year
made a striking comeback in 2017 as the Labour leader impressed on the campaign
“Much of this year’s list is definitely politically charged, but with a new president
in the US and a snap election in the UK, it is perhaps no surprise that politics
continues to electrify the language,” said Collins’s head of language content, Helen
“‘Fake news’, either as a statement of fact or as an accusation, has been
inescapable this year, contributing to the undermining of society’s trust in news
reporting: given the term’s ubiquity and its regular usage by President Trump, it is
clear that Collins’s word of the year is very real news.”
Other words selected by Collins for its list of “new and notable words that reflect
an ever-evolving language” include “gender-fluid”, defined as “not identifying
exclusively with one gender rather than another”, which increased in use by 65%
over the last year, “cuffing season”, defined as “the period of autumn and winter
when single people are considered likely to seek settled relationships rather than
engage in casual affairs”, and fidget spinner, the toy that is being twirled by
children across the UK.
“Gig economy”, defined as “an economy in which there are few permanent
employees and most jobs are assigned to temporary or freelance workers”, also
makes the list, as does “Insta”, relating to social-media app Instagram.
The remaining new words and meanings will be added to,
and considered for inclusion in future print editions of the dictionary.
The First Amendment
doesn’t guarantee you
the rights you think it
By AJ Willingham, CNN
August 8, 2017
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
That’s it. That’s the entirety of our Constitution’s First Amendment, the central animus of
our American way of life that gets dragged out every time someone’s banned from
There’s a lot going on in those few sentences, and it’s important to know when and how
it applies to common situations — and, equally as important, when it doesn’t.
Let’s look at some common First Amendment arguments; illuminated and debunked by
a constitutional expert.
If you work for a private company, it’s probably not a First Amendment issue.
“It’s the company’s right to discipline their employees’ speech,” Nott says.
But just because a private employer has the right to fire someone for something they
say doesn’t give them legal carte blanche. Depending on what the fired employee said,
the employer could be in violation of the Civil Rights Act, or possibly in violation of
contract law
If you’re a government employee, it’s complicated.
Institutions like police departments, public schools and local government branches can’t
restrict employee’s free speech rights, but they do need to assure that such speech
doesn’t keep the employee from doing their job. It’s definitely a balancing act, and the
rise of social media has made it harder for such institutions to regulate their employee’s
speech in a constitutional manner.
Google reportedly fired a male engineer who, in a memo, argued women are not
biologically fit for tech roles. It’s not a First Amendment issue because the government
is not involved.
However, Nott says she’s heard of cases where police officers sued after being fired for
saying or writing racist remarks, and courts have ruled in favor of the department. In that
case, she says, “They decided that for police officers, in their community, being a known
racist impacts their ability to do their job.”
However, public servants like police officers are also allowed to act as private citizens,
and a flurry of recent cases have ended up coming down on the side of the officer. in
2016, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a police officer who sued his
department when he was demoted after he was spotted in public holding a yard sign for
a mayoral candidate.
If it’s a private institution, it’s probably not a First Amendment issue.
If it’s a public institution, the lines can get blurry.
“If you invite someone to speak on your campus and are a public university, you have to
respect their First Amendment rights,” Nott says. That doesn’t mean you can’t put
regulations on a speech, like dictating the time, place, venue and suggestions for
subject matter. It just means you can’t do so in a way that discriminates against a
certain point of view.
If students protesting play a hand in moving or canceling a speaker, that presents a
different free speech challenge.
“If a speaker were to take legal action for being blocked from speaking, they can’t do it
against the students. You can’t take constitutional action against a group of private
citizens,” she adds.
Such a complaint would have to go against the school, for allowing the constitutional
breach to happen.
Two conservative organizations filed a federal lawsuit after a speaking event at UC
Berkely featuring Ann Coulter was rescheduled following violent protests and threats.
The groups argued the change of venue and time was “repressive” and marginalized
conservative views. The school says they acted out of concern for safety.
The question of intent is central to arguments like these. “If they moved her because her
life is under threat, that seems pretty viewpoint neutral,” Nott says. “But if a school
moves a speaker just to shove them to the side then that is unconstitutional.”
This is not a First Amendment issue though plenty of people think it is.
This scenario illustrates one of the biggest misconceptions people have about the First
Amendment. Bottom line: It protects you from the government punishing or censoring or
oppressing your speech. It doesn’t apply to private organizations. “So if, say, Twitter
decides to ban you, you’d be a bit out of luck,” Nott says. “You can’t make a First
Amendment claim in court.”
However, while it’s not unconstitutional, if private platforms outright ban certain types of
protected speech, it sets an uncomfortable precedent for the values of free speech.
Definitely a First Amendment issue.
But, like pretty much everything in law, there are exceptions and nuances.
“It’s definitely unconstitutional, unless you are trying to incite people to violence with
your speech,” Nott says. Even then, it needs to be a true threat — one that has
immediacy and some sort of actual intent.
During the Vietnam War, a man was giving a speech and said, if he got drafted, his first
bullet would be for then-President Lyndon B. Johnson. Courts ruled that it wasn’t a true
“They looked at the context, and it was hyperbole,” Nott says. “The audience took is as
a joke, they laughed, and it was clearly a joke. If he was going to meet with LBJ the next
day, or had said it in a serious way to a serious audience, that would be a different set
of circumstances.”
It’s a private company, so it’s not a First Amendment issue.
There’s that refrain again: Private companies, like social media sites, can do whatever
they want.
But regulating conversations and posts online is a delicate balance for social media
giants like Facebook.
While such sites retain the right to remove content they don’t like, they are also
protected by the Communications Decency Act, Section 230.
“That says, if you are an internet company and you have some way for people to post or
leave comments, you are not liable for what they do,” Nott says. This covers things like
obscenity, violence and threats.
The problem is, this protection often butts up against the enforcement of basic
community standards.
“Facebook is under enormous pressure to take down, not just violent and illegal content,
but fake news,” Nott says. “And the more it starts to play editor for its own site, the more
likely it is to lose that Section 230 protection.”
W H AT S P E E C H I S N ‘ T C O V E R E D U N D E R T H E F I R S T A M E N D M E N T ?

Obscenity (the definition relies on context, but regular old porn is not considered
Fighting words
Child pornography
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes
Plagiarism of copyrighted material
Source: The Newseum Institute
This is a First Amendment issue, at the very least in spirit.
“Symbolic speech is protected by the constitution,” Nott says. “In essence, you have the
right to not speak. You have the right to silence.”
In theory, a private employer could require you to stand for the anthem or say the
Pledge of Allegiance, but such a requirement may run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. Even
in schools, where there have been some cases of students being singled out for sitting
or kneeling for the anthem, it would be hard to provide justification for punishment.
“This is an act of political speech, the most protected type of speech,” Nott says. “It’s
completely not disruptive because it’s silent.” Plus, it is buttressed by court cases that
have decided there is no requirement to salute the flag.
A First Amendment issue — usually.
You are fully within your rights to record the police doing their job in public. And if you
get arrested while doing so, your constitutional rights are being violated.
This is, unless you were doing something unlawful at the time of your arrest.
In a heated situation with police, that can also become a gray area. Physical assault or
threats could obviously get you arrested, but what about if you were just yelling at the
police while recording, say, to get them to stop an act or to pay attention?
“That’s tough,” Nott says. “If you were disturbing the peace, you can get arrested for
that, or for other things. But the bottom line is it’s not a crime to record police activities in
a public space.”
If it’s a student publication, it’s a First Amendment issue.
Nott points to a landmark Supreme Court cases from 1969 that has acted as a standard
for cases involving free speech at public universities and colleges. That’s Tinker v. Des
Moines Independent Community School District, which you can read more about below.
Another case, Bazaar v. Fortune from 1973, helps tailor these guidelines to the student
press by stating that schools cannot act as “private publishers” just because they fund a
student publication or program. In other words, they can’t punish the publication -whether it be through student firings, budget cuts or withdrawals or a ban — just for
printing or broadcasting something they don’t like.
Now, a gentle reminder that this is just for PUBLIC schools. All together now: Private
institutions can (usually) do what they want!
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
In December of 1965, three students were suspended for wearing black armbands to
school to protest the Vietnam War. The school argued the display was a distraction and
possibly a danger to students, and the case went all the way up the judicial chain. The
Supreme Court didn’t bite.
“While schools have a responsibility to keep their students sage, [the Supreme Court]
decided that the armbands didn’t invade the rights of others,” Nott says. “And ultimately,
the school asking students to remove the bands infringed upon their rights.”
This case is used as a gold standard for free speech in schools.
Facebook fake-news writer: ‘I think
Donald Trump is in the White House
because of me’
By Caitlin Dewey November 17, 2016 for the Washington Post
What do the Amish lobby, gay wedding vans and the ban of the national anthem have in
common? For starters, they’re all make-believe — and invented by the same man.
Paul Horner, the 38-year-old impresario of a Facebook fake-news empire, has made his
living off viral news hoaxes for several years. He has twice convinced the Internet that
he’s British graffiti artist Banksy; he also published the very viral, very fake news of a
Yelp vs. “South Park” lawsuit last year.
But in recent months, Horner has found the fake-news ecosystem growing more
crowded, more political and vastly more influential: In March, Donald Trump’s son
Eric and his then-campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, even tweeted links to one of
Horner’s faux-articles. His stories have also appeared as news on Google.
In light of concerns that stories like Horner’s may have affected the presidential election,
and in the wake of announcements that both Google and Facebook would take action
against deceptive outlets, Intersect called Horner to discuss his perspective on fake
news. This transcript has been edited for clarity, length and — ahem — bad language.
You’ve been writing fake news for a while now — you’re kind of like the OG
Facebook news hoaxer. Well, I’d call it hoaxing or fake news. You’d call it parody
or satire. How is that scene different now than it was three or five years ago? Why
did something like your story about Obama invalidating the election results
(almost 250,000 Facebook shares, as of this writing) go so viral?
Honestly, people are definitely dumber. They just keep passing stuff around. Nobody
fact-checks anything anymore — I mean, that’s how Trump got elected. He just said
whatever he wanted, and people believed everything, and when the things he said
turned out not to be true, people didn’t care because they’d already accepted it. It’s real
scary. I’ve never seen anything like it.
You mentioned Trump, and you’ve probably heard the argument, or the concern,
that fake news somehow helped him get elected. What do you make of that?
My sites were picked up by Trump supporters all the time. I think Trump is in the White
House because of me. His followers don’t fact-check anything — they’ll post everything,
believe anything. His campaign manager posted my story about a protester getting paid
$3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist.
Why? I mean — why would you even write that?
Just ’cause his supporters were under the belief that people were getting paid to protest
at their rallies, and that’s just insane. I’ve gone to Trump protests — trust me, no one
needs to get paid to protest Trump. I just wanted to make fun of that insane belief, but it
took off. They actually believed it.
I thought they’d fact-check it, and it’d make them look worse. I mean that’s how this
always works: Someone posts something I write, then they find out it’s false, then they
look like idiots. But Trump supporters — they just keep running with it! They never factcheck anything! Now he’s in the White House. Looking back, instead of hurting the
campaign, I think I helped it. And that feels [bad].
You think you personally helped elect Trump?
I don’t know. I don’t know if I did or not. I don’t know. I don’t know.
I guess I’m curious, if you believed you might be having an unfair impact on the
election — especially if that impact went against your own political beliefs — why
didn’t you stop? Why keep writing?
I didn’t think it was possible for him to get elected president. I thought I was messing
with the campaign, maybe I wasn’t messing them up as much as I wanted — but I never
thought he’d actually get elected. I didn’t even think about it. In hindsight, everyone
should’ve seen this coming — everyone assumed Hillary [Clinton] would just get in. But
she didn’t, and Trump is president.
Speaking of Clinton — did you target fake news at her supporters? Or Gary
Johnson’s, for that matter? (Horner’s Facebook picture shows him at a rally for
No. I hate Trump.
Is that it? You posted on Facebook a couple weeks ago that you had a lot of ideas
for satirizing Clinton and other figures, but that “no joke . . . in doing this for six
years, the people who clicked ads the most, like it’s the cure for cancer, is rightwing Republicans.” That makes it sound like you’ve found targeting
conservatives is more profitable.
Yeah, it is. They don’t fact-check.
But a Trump presidency is good for you from a business perspective, right?
It’s great for anybody who does anything with satire — there’s nothing you can’t write
about now that people won’t believe. I can write the craziest thing about Trump, and
people will believe it. I wrote a lot of crazy anti-Muslim stuff — like about Trump wanting
to put badges on Muslims, or not allowing them in the airport, or making them stand in
their own line — and people went along with it!
Fa …
Purchase answer to see full

error: Content is protected !!