Social Media vs. Freedom of Speech Since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, freedom of speech has been a hallmark of American democracy and freedom. Obviously the U.S. in 2014 is a radically different place from the nation the Founders knew. Yet, the U.S. is governed essentially by the same Constitution adopted in 1787. There have been times when our freedom of speech was tested. The Alien and Sedition Act of 1790 prevented writing against the government and newspapers were censored during the Civil War, but these were later struck down in favor of freedom of speech. The lines seemed fairly well drawn until 10 years ago when people could express themselves freely, publicly, and privately if it was not slander. The growth and scope of social media has challenged this. To remain true to our democratic fathers, there must be a stand against denials of free speech and the ability to express opinions on all manner of subjects. In the early 2000’s employers began to look at employees posts online and to fire or not hire because of what was said in a private chat. There has always been bullying especially in the teen years. Young people who were harassed could go home and escape the taunts. They were safe until school the next day. Since the advent of social media, there is not even a safe haven at home or on holiday or at night. Text messaging, tweets, and facebook are invasive every minute of the day. There is no escape for the bullied child. Some teens have been unable to stand the horrible messages and have committed suicide. In an attempt to control these cruel attacks New York passed a local law “Marquan W. Mackey-Meggs, a student in Cohoes, N.Y., was arrested in June 2011 for creating a Facebook page to which he posted photos of classmates with derogatory and sexual captions. He was charged with a misdemeanor under Albany County measure that prohibited cyberbullying, describing it as any act of electronic communication that disseminates ‘embarrassing or sexually explicit photographs”; “private, personal, false, or sexual information’; or ‘hate mail, with no legitimate private, personal, or public purpose, with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten, abuse, intimidate, torment, humiliate, or otherwise inflict significant emotional harm on another person.’ But the law was written so broadly, the court said, that it could apply to acts well out of the scope of its authors’ intentions, even a ham radio transmission or a telegram meant to annoy an adult” (Blad 4). The majority of the work force enjoys some basic safeguards at work. There is an exception of due process and not being fired without cause. People reasonably expect that what they say in a social setting removed from work cannot be used to terminate them. In the case in the sheriff of Hampton, Virginia, fired employees for liking his electoral challenger’s Facebook campaign page. “ U.S. Circuit Judge William Traxler wrote in the court’s decision that liking a political candidate’s Facebook page is ‘the Internet equivalent of displaying a political sign in one’s front yard, which the Supreme Court has held is substantive speech.’ It seems obvious: The freedom to express political opinions is a cornerstone of American civilization. But social media is upending the way we express those opinions. Clicking a thumbs-up sign doesn’t carry the same weight as a car festooned with political stickers—the latter requires much more effort, to start with—but the same laws apply” (McGarry 21). Nancy Rodgers article “Tread carefully when using social media in the hiring process,” raises the question of the social media to determine who is hired. Some employers have asked for facebook acess before hiring, in order to probe personal data to see if someone is the right fit. In the article Nancy says “Think about the pictures and information posted on social media sites. You may learn a person is from a different country or is older than you previously thought. You may discover an applicant has a disability or is pregnant. You may discover a person is in time a same-sex relationship. This is information that should not be sought during an interview process. And rightly so. By avoiding those questions, an employer can show that the hiring process was not discriminatory and that an applicant was rejected on legally permissible grounds, rather than because of race, disability, age, sexual orientation. Or other traits protected under law. Applied in the social media context, when an employer discovers impermissible information about an individual from a social media site, the employer may have trouble arguing that the legally protected information did not influence the hiring decision” (Rodgers 8). It has been 223 years since the Bill of Rights was added to the constitution. Freedom of speech is the most important freedom that maintains our democracy. It has been attacked over the years with issues such as hate speech and the need to be careful during wartime. Currently, issues such as harassment and bullying are used instead of the term free speech, but the issue is still the same. While mindful of the horrors of cyberbullying that has grown with the explosion of social media, and the distress it can cause, it is essential to maintain the constitution and our fundamental right to free speech.