Featured
Trending
Thoughts
Media
Contest November 2024
Contest October 2024
Contest September 2024
Contest April 2024
Health & Wellness
Politics
Science
Religion
Technology
Culture
Business
Finance
Sports
Art & Illustration
Beauty & Fashion
News
Music
Faith & Spirituality
Climate & Environment
Literature
Travel
Parenting
Philosophy
Comics
International
History
Humor
Education
Miscellaneous
thinkspot
We’re pleased to announce that the thinkspot Writers’ Contest has returned! For our first contest in April, you shared some amazing, provocative content, and thinkspot wants to amplify quality thoughts like yours. For the September contest, we’re offering a chance at $900 in cash prizes, a lifetime thinkspot Writer’s membership, and a special feature in our Newsletter. We’re hope you enjoy our September writing contest, open to all current thinkspot Thinkers and other curious minds. Contest Details: First Prize: $500, lifetime thinkspot membership, and top placement in a thinkspot Newsletter. Second Prize: $300, 1 year thinkspot membership, and featured status in a thinkspot Newsletter. Third Prize: $100, and featured status in a thinkspot Newsletter. Submission Deadline: September 24th, 2024, 9 am US Eastern Time Zone (UTC - 4) Winners Announced: September 30th, 2024Eligibility: Applicants must register for a free thinkspot Writer’s account, or be existing thinkspot Writers. Entries must be published on thinkspot on the Writer's own account. Limit of one entry per participant. Entry title must be prefaced by “THOUGHTS ON BALANCING FREE SPEECH RIGHTS,” followed by a descriptive subtitle. Entries must be original works not published elsewhere. Entrants must be able to prove authorship of their submission. To be eligible for prize money, entrants must be able to receive bank transfers from Stripe, and link Stripe to their thinkspot account. Essay Length: 500-1000 words Judgment Criteria: Essays will be judged on their clarity, coherence, originality, relevance to the selected topic, and quality of research. Essay Prompt: THOUGHTS ON BALANCING FREE SPEECH: RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS, PLATFORMS, and GOVERNMENTS In today's digital age, the right to free speech faces complex challenges. Individuals are often targeted or silenced for expressing their opinions, while online platforms struggle to navigate the spread of misinformation that can mislead or manipulate the public. Meanwhile, governments worldwide are adopting increasingly sophisticated methods to enforce censorship laws, sometimes infringing on fundamental rights. How can we strike a balance between protecting free speech for individuals, maintaining the integrity of information on digital platforms, and allowing governments to ensure societal safety without resorting to undue censorship? Consider the ethical, legal, and social dimensions of this issue and explore potential solutions that honor the principles of free expression while fostering an informed and secure society. In 1000 words or less, please share your thoughts on balancing free speech with the responsibilities of individuals, platforms, and governments. How should freedom of expression be balanced with the need for government regulation to curb disinformation or assist in criminal investigations? What role should AI algorithms have in the tension between freedom and censorship? Who decides what qualifies as misinformation or disinformation? Should humor, satire, or memes be subject to legal restrictions? What would a balanced solution to these issues look like, and who should define it? How can we protect against the misuse of power by governments or corporations? These questions aim to provoke thoughtful consideration of this complex topic. Our panel of judges looks forward to seeing how you push the discourse ahead. Best of luck, The thinkspot team
The First Amendment: 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 grievances. English is not an easy tongue. It is frequently confusing even for the literate. However, the First Amendment to our Constitution suffers from no such confusion. It’s plain enough for all to know exactly what it means! And yet, here we are being asked to consider the “balancing of free speech rights” when, in fact, in the United States, the Constitution clearly rejects any such concept! For the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” the operative word here being “abridge.” According to the dictionary, abridge is presented – when associated with the law – as “intended to curtail a right or privilege,” while “curtail” is a verb meaning “to reduce in extent or quantity or to impose a restriction upon” something. Thus, taken together, obviously the First Amendment forbids the “abridging” of the freedom of speech and the curtailing of that “freedom” without exception! This interdiction cannot be denied and as our Constitution prohibits foreign laws and statutes from taking precedence over American law or being adjudicated in American courts – even in global matters – the issue is settled! Indeed, Americans are also prevented from advising other nations on this matter as these are not subject to our Constitution! Of course, there is that old adage invoked to “limit” what the Constitution says cannot be limited: “one cannot yell ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theater!” People accepted that proviso (often expressed in courtrooms) as demonstrating that even speech is not under all circumstances, without restraint! However, today’s culture is afflicted with contentious nonsense designed to “abridge” our laws and silence our speech rather than protect what the Constitution has declared can be neither abridged nor silenced! According to the United States Constitution, no laws can be made to “balance” free speech rights as any such attempt would, of necessity, abridge that right! Yet, if someone speaks or writes or some “platform” presents a sentiment that “offends” the ever growing gaggle of giddy idiots on constant watch for all things “offensive,” there arises a public outcry that, in the past, would have only accompanied some great iniquity! Thus does our present culture inflate foolishness while trivializing wickedness! Therefore, is it even possible for an American, to take a position on this matter? Does considering the implementation of attempts to “balance the freedom of speech” imply our acceptance of the legal right to do so? Going back to our dictionary, “balance” is both a noun and a verb requiring action upon the object “being balanced” – in this case, freedom of speech. As this is forbidden under our Constitution, the very question is itself “questionable.” A platform may prohibit a criminal form of communication such as direct threats, but to be able – or forced – to remove posts because they are deemed “offensive” or to deny an individual access to a platform on the basis of his use of constitutionally protected speech – especially in today’s WOKE culture! – proves that the only things being “removed” are our constitutionally guaranteed liberties! No matter how staunchly defended, attempts at limiting speech in the name of “fairness,” – another idiotic criterion! – violates both our God given rights and our Founding principles. Further, there are two matters that prove the futility of the question itself! For it is obvious that there is no way to “balance” anything when dealing with the Left! How many reasonable “solutions” have been adopted in disputes between these two worldviews only for the Left to make further demands whose adoption eventually ends with the total capitulation of the Right? Thus, to speak about “balancing” these two irrevocable and irreconcilable worldviews is to abandon the path of reason! Worse, to seriously ponder this question as if there were a legitimate answer, is to condemn to oblivion what remains of the United States! Any attempt to “balance the freedom of speech” – however calculated to prevent that concept’s eventual extinction – invalidates not just the First Amendment but the Constitution itself. But this is not the first time that right has been assailed by our government! In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus without meeting any of the constitutional criteria required for him to do so! When dutifully challenged by the Supreme Court, Lincoln threatened the Justices with arrest and internment should they interfere! He also declared war without Congress, that body not even being in session at the time (see Article 1, Section 8: Congress has the power to declare war . . .). Further, he closed opposing newspapers, arresting and imprisoning their editors and finally, he made war upon eleven States that had constitutionally – therefore legally! – seceded from the Federal Union – treason under Article 3, Section 3 of that same document! Much of what is wrong with our country can be traced to men who decided that a sufficiently formidable and orchestrated “emergency” – Lincoln’s threatened “civil war!” – together with unrestrained federal power and a beguiled American public would – and actually did! – nullify that document that all Presidents take an oath to protect and defend – the Constitution of the United States of America! As a result, today, there are, for all intents and purposes, very few true “constitutional guarantees” remaining! Thus, we must be very careful about perhaps the greatest of those that do remain, our freedom of speech by recalling the cautionary words once spoken by the greatest of Americans: “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent, we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington