Cadet Peter Chew

ERH-102-02

Professor Dupal

December 14, 2022

 

Paving The Road ahead: A Reflective Essay on my Semester Work of Written Essays.

My time as a student in the course Writing & Rhetoric II (ERH-102) for the fall semester of 2022, has thus far been quite a journey of self-improvement. My writing skills naturally have usually been all over the place, switching back in forth between a simple and concise style of writing to complex, old-fashioned, opinionated pieces comprised of tangents, and run-on sentences along with attempts to write with elegant words to further enhance the validity of my arguments. After indulging in a self-analyze of my performance and of the previous semesters, I have noticed that overall, my writing has steadily enhanced to a higher standard. However, I will touch upon some of the writing problems and significant improvements made this semester.

My writing encountered several problems, lack of proper time management, and an unbalancing of my study schedule made it complicated for me to think and concern properly as a writer when writing the essays. As a result, my unproductivity, made me put them off for days. Such behavior cost me time and ideas, which I have learned to notice, and I have come to grips to suppress such feelings of procrastination. I seem to work at my most productive peak during the early morning before most is awake during this period I was able to catch up on late essays and complete them with confidence.

Writing in an ample time block has been quite a challenge for me, usually, my writing process is categorized by working on my paper during intervals through the afternoon to over a week, it usually depends, and at times even longer if I find myself unable to process any ideas needed to write my paper. Nonetheless, time management has been a troubling issue for me, and further associated with unsettled self-discipline has made it quite unpredictable regarding productivity. Much of my formal education was spent learning how to write in both the English grammar structure and the Portuguese grammatical structure, and because of the differences between the languages along with syntax rules, and so on. Has made my writing not as concise as I would like it to be. The Portuguese language has quite a standard format for writing essays which still is somewhat different from the more direct, simple, and concise style of the English language.

Another issue I encountered was attempting to write essays in the new “delayed thesis” approach which is a centerpiece of ERH-102 to make the students learn how to stop writing the thesis at the top of the page but present it close to the end of the essay. A new style of writing, where writers use “hooks” to draw in the audience and focus their attention at hand leading them towards the thesis. I had quite a challenge with this approach. Not only is the format different, but there is more of an emphasis on the proper usage of rhetorical strategies to further indulge the reader in the contents of the essay, and a convincing argument.

When it came to the quality of my essays. For instance, my second essay for the course to my surprise was not exactly how I expected to be received with a grade of seventy-two out of a hundred –– unaware of the grammatical mistakes, and off-topic tangents that occurred several times throughout the essay, mixing the proposal style paper with the delayed thesis topic of the second essay. The topic that I choose for that paper was “Are tech giants obligated to promote freedom of speech? Are they exempt because they are private companies? (Chew, 2022). I found writing the paper to be quite a challenge, trying to piece it all together into one central theme that begs the question. The research and readings on the subject were also quite interesting, and I learned some important information regarding how the first amendment and other laws of the American legal system work regarding the protection of the civil liberties of freedom of expression.

            Writing a delayed thesis for the first time was quite a mess, the unconventional style completely goes against what I have been taught throughout the entirety of my formal schooling, yet I took the task head on. Constructing a claim and bringing in supportive arguments further enhanced by rhetorical strategies of Pathos, Ethos, and Logos are key ingredients to any paper that is intended to convince the reader of something. Writing such strategies and looking for where my thesis would be written made it odd, and consequently too jumbled for the reader.

I have learned and continue to improve each time I am handed a writing assignment, despite the errors I have made in the process of writing, some being quite basic for my level. Has allowed me to catch such mistakes more efficiently, especially when re-reading my essays to myself making it supremely clearer to see mistakes and spot off-topic sprees. As the semester rushes to a dashing end, I can say with confidence that I am more aware and mature as a writer, and with that my writing will be at a higher standard as I continue to practice and write more, as I tackle the endeavors of writing for the next semesters to come and my continued journey as a student with a passion for literature and writing.

Works Cited

Chew, Peter. Essay 2: Delayed Thesis Argument “Are tech giants obligated to promote freedom of speech? Are they exempt because they are private companies?” 3 Nov. 2022. Writing and Rhetoric II, The Virginia Military Institute, Student pap

Cadet Peter Chew

ERH-102-02

Professor Dupal

November 11, 2022

Assignment: Essay 3: Writing a Proposal Argument.

 

Wrongful Removal of Civil War Era Memorial Monument from VMI

The Virginia Military Institute –– a long-standing grail of tradition, a symbol for those who sought an adverse lifestyle, a gateway to a disciplined regime catered to those who do not seek to be or do ordinary. A mission to achieve above and beyond in the aspects of military, academic, and athletic excellence; a cadetship served for mostly four years, the precious time to mold an individual into a citizen-soldier instilled with the values of the Institute. The school has a deep-rooted history, not only in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia but one in which its members made on several occasions lasting impacts on the nation. Its graduates and members of the VMI community have served in both the public and private sectors, many have reached good fortune, and few have achieved immortality in the place of history. Such as George C. Marshall who is perhaps the highest exemplary figure of modern-era VMI, such a lasting influence on his life had been expected from each Cadet. This issue concerns several groups, most predominately the Corp of Cadets, as they are the most impacted by the culture and environment. Such monuments and the context of history set the foundation for organizational culture, and once something is removed or changed that had significant importance is dealt with negative morale and backlash, which is exactly what occurred when “Stonewall Jackson was removed from Post. The Alumni concerned about change are unquestionably divided between being supportive or unsupportive of the removal decision. There is a divide in the community, which could be alleviated by praising both Marshall and Stonewall. Instead of erasing one from the equation due to political correctness.

The cadets who fought and died on May 15, 1864, in the Battle of New Market, numbering 257 were organized into a battalion and marched off to battle against Union troops. Ten cadets were killed in battle or died later from their wounds and were buried on VMI grounds, a memorial statue of her lady Virginia mourning the death of those cadets, the keystone whose names are inscribed as a sign of immortalizing their names and giving honorary respect. The participants who continue to be memorialized paid ceremonial respect on the date the battle occurred. (Kludy, VMI). Despite the media outlash, with the suggestion to remove the memorial, it was graciously rejected. And thus the ceremony continues to exist and is attended by all Cadets, where all pay their respect and admiration –– not to the confederate army that they fought with, such ideal is cleansed from the ceremony; all focus is instead centered on the bravery of such young boys who as Cadets continued marching towards the Union soldiers while receiving a cannonade from Union artillery, whom some as a result, unfortunately, died on the field of honor –– “The field of honor” that itself is has a double meaning among cadets, one previous describe while the other being one of several words and terms that are unique to the VMI community, which apart from its formal usage, is usually used as an informal wit among Cadets with a connotation that describes a moment in which someone has either “passed out” during a long, past and review parade, or “fell out” of a heinous high-intensity physical workout. Terms and language which continue to live and be used among the community, terms that originated from the era of the Civil War. It becomes clearer where this rooted culture originates. The culture of the civil war makes the rooted existence of the Corp of Cadets, the lifestyle, and the way of life of a Cadet today, living in the same Barracks they once slept, the similarities are a glimpse into the same footsteps of those Cadets, of an ancestorial tree to the modern equivalent of the Corp of Cadets.

The problem could be resolved by a return of the memorial statue that stood beside the cadet battery, which he proudly overlooked over the institute to which he so proudly served and devoted himself. Ideally, with the support of the VMI Alumni association, along with a decision from the Board of Visitors (BOV), The statute should be returned to its original spot beside the cadet battery. And it should emphasize that the figure of Stonewall Jackson is not praised or romanticized. Simply a matter of respect toward the character of the man, his leadership, personal virtues, his immense respect earned by those who served under him, Cadets, Alumni who died, and who were a part of such a defining moment in American History. Because there is more behind men than the organization one is a part of.  Most figures in history have some type of bad deed which society tends to pass off and instead focuses on the more admirable aspects. This does not mean that the issue of slavery and racism in the South should be discredited. However, the subject that pertains to VMI and Jackson is not one of slavery, but one of his careers as a professor, instructor, Leader, and exemplary figure who made an honorable name for himself during the war, that is among southerners. Ironically enough Jackson was a graduate of West Point, yet the academy is not blamed, nor should it be for the sins and cause for which Jackson fought and the same courtesy should be extended to VMI.

                     Furthermore, some context behind the origins of the Statue opens another issue at hand that should be worthy of criticism and outrage, particularly of the decision of its removal. It has a deeper meaning than just representing a “Confederate Figure” who taught at the institute. The Statue itself was made by Sir Moses Ezekiel, “the first Jewish Cadet from VMI”, (Col. Wyatt, 2020), a veteran of New Market who was a student under Stonewall’s time as Professor, (Baskind, 2021). And if any posses: notion of the Jewish Religion and its Laws, one must realize that it is prohibited to craft an image of man, a statue which signifies flesh and blood is not permitted, for God must be the only one praised by mankind. A sculptor Sir Moses Ezekiel gave to VMI his work of art, “It is Old Stonewall himself as he scanned the enemy on the field of Manassas”. He was praised for his devotion to duty, his figure as a man: “The Jew, breaking the long tradition of his race, which forbade the making of a graven image, interpreting aright the spirit of his ancient law, has lent his splendid genius to perpetuate in bronze the image of a Gentile, and Christian, and his comrade in war, Stonewall Jackson.”, (Rockbridge County Newsprint, 1912)…, a breaking of tradition to present praise to a man highly respected by his comraderies, to have an Artwork crafted by a talented Jewish sculptor that gave the highest praise, a breaking of his own religious adherence to signify respect to a Confederate General is quite avant-garde for today’s political tolerance if that is not enough a statement that a man himself earned such respective by the people of that time.

Therefore, Jackson deserves proper dignity in principle to what the memorial was originally intended for, not praise of a lost cause, but the totality of a man who earned the respect, and for the following reasons: he was the first faculty member to die since the founding of VMI in November 1839. His body was brought to Lexington, where the Corps of Cadets escorted the body of the fallen soldier, professor, and their former commander carried to his old classroom where it lay in state with cadets humbly standing as guards over their fallen teacher. Along with a proper salute, where his pride and dignity were further evaluated by The Cadet Battery gun salutes which fired from sunrise to sunset. Stonewall was admired for his character as a leader, professor, and scholar –– a commander who inspired the men under his care, his ability to instill inspiration and bravery in troops, through his display of courage and stubbornness won him many a battle. A showcase of his tactical cleverness on the battlefield, are all personal traits of character that allowed him to command and conquer effectively, a general of the Confederacy forces and the cause for which he fought he nevertheless his biggest blunder, despite the cause of behalf in which he died for. the complexity of his story, like many others is much more complex than what is typically assumed of in surface-level mainstream understanding of the subject.

It is unquestionable that VMI has a rooted history from the Confederacy and Civil War era, as to most southern institutions of that time. It is simply something that cannot be denied or rejected. The issue of The Civil War itself is a troubling, decisive topic –– with two commonly debated arguments in academia, within the field of politics and history, the debate between the true motive of why the Confederacy broke away from the Union and the underlining motive that caused motivation for a bloody conflict between brothers, an instance before separation was merely the same country, to be eventually divided by politics. One side preferable to presenting a “cleaner” and innocent version of the confederacy, claiming the war was fought on behalf of “State Rights”, followed by “Northern aggression”, which is true, but usually misinterpreted and used as a propaganda piece to promote confederation revisionism. The other side of the argument is the most understood in mainstream America, that the southern cause for war, was a motive for maintaining the inhumane right to slavery. Either way, as it is entailed with war, acts of evil were committed by both sides on several occasions greater than the other, and the narrative of righteousness is usually set by the victor. Nevertheless, the Civil War is an integral part of Southern History and identity, and with where VMI is located, clearly aligns with that part of history.

Historical figures from the past who are admired in society, are praised for the overall impression and contribution they left behind, usually not for their wrongs, but such wrongs are subjective to one’s opinion and moral compass. Exemplary figures in history have some element of bad deeds in their life. As it is human to err. None is perfect. And if by this logic all who were to be subject to censorship because of their involvement or existence with immoral behavior, would mean that several members of the Founding Fathers themselves, such as George Washington would have their monuments and name reprimanded from the American consciousness of praise. Someone such as Washington with such a high reputation to be expelled would-be grave devastation to the societal fabric and morale of the nation and the cultural foundation: all of which are symptoms of what the institute endured when Jackson was “Relocated”. It is morally wrong to remove a memorial that was chosen to be there by past generations, especially when such removal is motivated by politics. Caught in the storm of politics, a leaked picture of former governor of Virginia Ralph Northam was exposed by the media for doing blackface. The governor to not lose face, swept VMI under the rug, removed the previous administration, cleaned house in the BOV, and appointed “politically aligned” board members to enact changes that would come with the high backlash that made matters worse with the addition of new programs in line with the politically correct progressive agenda that comprises today’s overall collegial academia. One must understand that VMI is not comparable to other Colleges. It is a bastion of the past, of traditionalism, conservativism, of devotion to duty, God, and country. A fact that is the opposite to most academic institutions, not even the Service Academies embody the ideals that are construed by progressive entities to be as “backward thinking” than at VMI.

 

 

 

 

Works Cited:

Baskind, S. (2021, January 21). The Jewish sculptor of the Confederacy – Tablet Magazine. Arts & Letters section The Jewish Sculptor of the Confederacy. Retrieved December 14, 2022, from https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/stonewall-jackson-moses-jacob-ezekiel-vmi

Col. Wyatt, Bill. “VMI Headlines 2020-2021: Boxing Adapts to COVID ERA – News – Virginia Military Institute.” VMI, 7 Dec. 2020, www.vmi.edu/news/headlines/2020-2021/vmi-begins-to-relocate-the-stonewall-jackson-statue.php.

Kludy, Mary Laura. “New Market Ceremony History.” VMI, www.vmi.edu/archives/manuscripts/new-market–vmi-in-the-civil-war/battle-of-new-market/new-market-ceremony-history/.

Memorial exercises at the unveiling of Sir Moses Ezekiel’s Statue of Stonewall Jackson, Virginia Military Institute June 19, 1912. Rockbridge County Newsprint, 1912.

Shapira, Ian. “At VMI, Black Alumni Want Stonewall Jackson’s Statue Removed. the School Refuses.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 10 Sept. 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/09/09/vmi-stonewall-jackson-statue/.

“Stonewall Jackson at VMI – VMI Museum – Virginia Military Institute.” VMI, www.vmi.edu/museums-and-archives/vmi-museum/stonewall-jackson-at-vmi/.

Cadet Peter Chew

Professor Dupal

ERH-102-02

November 3, 2022

 

• Are tech giants obligated to promote freedom of speech? Are they exempt because they are private companies?

During my 2022 fall semester at The Virginia Military Institute, I was invited to a Leadership and Ethics event by “VMI Building BRIDGES Club”, where I and other Cadets engaged in civil debate steered by a discussion moderator. The topic of discussion was “Is Social Media a Threat to Democracy”. Whilst there I presented the point that social media was an evolution of speech, a natural development of freedom of speech that originated in technological progress, i.e. the invention of the internet, and the media revolution, Western Society has in a way moved from the traditional view of using the public Townsquare as the mainstream platform of expression, migrating to the apparatus of social media — it simply evolved with technology. There were many good viewpoints and opinions presented by others on the topic, among the fourteen or so members present, there was a consensus that social media does in a way present a threat to democracy, but in theory so does any form of speech, regardless of where it is delivered, the reasoning being that the freedom of expression and speech is what allows movements to gain attention and grow, it is the essential machine of any society with a government, it is what allows the people to express their resentment or approval.

Means of expression is the ultimate tool of a citizen, it is what allowed Regimes to grow unstable and collapse, what elected democratic and prosperous leaders, However, it has also allowed for those with ill-intent, the authoritarians to gain power, the rise of Hitler and Mussolini is a direct link to their usage of their own freedom of speech and expression to grow a cult following and slowly but eventually becoming rulers of their masses. The infamous Joseph Goebbels and his usage of rhetorical speeches and what was one of the first things they did as soon as such men gain power? At once oppressive regimes censored the printing press and restricted the freedom of speech and expression, censorship was rampant all who defied were subjected to punishment by the State regime, and the government became the regulator of freethinkers., (BBC News). This is ultimately what the 1^st amendment attempts to quell, the government cannot interfere with the opinions of its citizens, free thinks, and their rights. However, when that platform, which was once a public physical entity, has moved to a virtual platform run and headed by legal control of private enterprise and their policies, which do not entirely adhere to the first amendment, some may see this as a problem, especially when concerning the aspect of censorship..

Social Media is a powerful tool of speech and expression, and if calls for illegal activity are advocated for — there are and should continue to be legal repercussions. The highest peak of such contention occurred during the election results of the 2020 presidential run. The infamous day that is deemed by the mainstream media as an attack upon the very own democratic institutions of The United States of America that day being January 6^th, 2021. The lackluster and polarized administration of the Presidency of Donald Trump, the 45^th President of the United States, created a big divide and political instability within the country. Leading up to a crucial election both sides of the aisle were on the edge of their seats. Furthermore, the flow of political dogmatism on social media apps such as Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and many more, was unprecedented compared to the previous election of 2016. The hyper-connectivity offered by the internet and social media allowed for groups to mobilize upon the Capitol Building openly communicating to storm democratic institutions.

The spread of “Fake News” and misinformation conflicting with factual evidence allowed for a quick stream of chaos to occur that day. Confused, frustrated supporters of the former President, unleashed unsubstantiated resentment upon the Capitol. As previously stated, democracy is a system of caution. From the smallest minority opinion to the majority, enough can transform the path of a nation. This was apparent during the January 6^th election results, the question of democracy itself was undermined and questioned by its citizenry. The call for violence and re-counts of already declared votes were a sign of loss of confidence in the electoral integrity and of the democratic process itself. With all the occurrences, the nation was unsure of the future outcome of such an event. The structure itself of democracy was questioned.

The New York Times reported on this issue, reporter Sheera Frenkel stated: “On social media sites used by far-right, such as Gab and Parler directions on which streets to take to avoid the police and which tools to bring to help pry open doors were exchanged in comments.”( Sheera Frenkel, New York Times), usage of social media for purpose of assembly and protest should be allowed, however when it encourages calls for violence and attacks upon the democratic institution, at that point, it no longer becomes an act of freedom of speech but calls for political terrorism. Furthermore: “Calls for violence against members of Congress and for pro-Trump movements to retake the capitol”… “been circulating online for months”… “movements like Qanon and the Proud Boys”,… “openly organized on social media networks and recruited others to their cause.”, (Sheera Frenkel, New York Times). The question of whether private companies were obligated to control such speech and calls for riots, is a difficult question to answer, as the premise of this essay is to support the idea of applying the standards of the 1^st amendment to U.S. Social Media Companies. Social media essentially is a polarized medium of information, algorithms detect the user’s behavior, interests, and activity and use this analytical data to specifically tailor receipts of information instituted by the private corporation, with today’s laws such companies have the right to censor users. Ultimately the question is should such people as CEOs and Twitter employees have the right to censor others’ speech?

The question of censorship is not a universal issue, but a localized one — It is dependent on the particulars of a nation and its transparency of ethics and morals, of how it reflects on their governmental institutions. For instance, the mainstream notion of freedom of speech, the want to have the right to speak freely is a phenomenon that was truly realized in America with the U.S. Constitution, where it was brought upon the Western hemisphere and demonstrated that it could be done, ever since the founding, the growing influence of American values and liberalism, that is further helped by the mere fact that most of these Tech Giants are either founded or have Headquarters within the territorial boundaries of the U.S. have spread with Globalization and cultural exchange of technology to virtually every corner of the globe. With this spread, people from other countries around the world, have developed a sense of liberal values, usually among the intelligentsia population. With this sophisticated group, the push for values of freedom of speech, habeas corpus, and human rights activism has ever been so greater, especially with the integration of social media. Within the United States, social media unquestionably plays a crucial role in political affairs. The George Floyd Protests that occur because of what is perceived as police brutality was the creation of an unprecedented political movement of activism, and justful protests, along with riots and violent behavior among some crowds. This became even more futile when the trial of the police officer was ongoing, such frustration among the disposed population expressed their emotions on the streets of major metropolitan areas across America, similar to how January 6^th was an emotionally charged event worsened by activity on social media.

On the most basic level, democracy may sound simple in objectivity. It is a system of government where power is exercised by the people. However, like all things it is more complicated than that. The advent of liberalism and the promotion of civil liberties such as freedom of speech has made democracy an outstanding achievement of Western Civilization, despite its fragility. As America and the rest of the world have seen in the past decade, social media continues to play an ever-increasing role of importance in the matters of political stability of a nation, and the power to give private companies that legal right to regulate what sort of speech is prohibited or allowed on their social media platform should be an infringement on the 1^st amendment. Regardless, an attempt to censor “fake news” is an attack on freedom of speech, “Once established to crush fake news, the Facebook mechanism could be repurposed to crush other types of information that might cause moral panic. This cure for fake news is worse than the disease.”, (Retrieved from Post-Fact, Post-Truth Society? – The Cure for Fake News…, Jack Shafer, 443).

However, the issue remains big tech is not required by law to conform to the freedom of speech clause. The first amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights adopted in 1791, is embedded into the U.S. Constitution and protects five freedoms granted to a U.S. Citizen: freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition – It is a protection against the powers of public government and not private enterprise. The first amendment rightfully claims the following: “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.” (National Archives). It could be re-adjusted so it applied to the private sector by voting on ratification or adjustment to the amendment, furthermore, this would but the government and institutional law essentially in control of the Private Sector, which ultimately is a bad thing and defeats the purpose of the 1^st amendment.  It is in the best interest for social media to filter content, specifically those that do not fall under the guidelines of the 1^st amendment, such as calls for violence, harassment, illegal content, and so on. There is nothing wrong with having a clean polished platform, while still allowing for degrees of freedom of speech, the question is what is the possible solution for private companies, how should they monitor content, and what other means are there of enforcing civility without censorship?

While analyzing for a solution to this issue, I stumbled upon a possible solution presented by Clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan B, Peterson, who purposed the idea that – The people who are dominating the online comment sections, specifically those who post anonymously, that is without any real form of identification, under a fake alias, tend to dominate the political discourse. In some sense, this is what Peterson calls a new form of pollution, that is also “corporate-sponsored” – pollution of the domain of public discourse. This pollution occurs; because social media companies are enabling this or fail to control those who are known in popular parlance as trolls. Such individuals are not good for discourse, they seek to toxic and disrupt the domain, under the guidelines of free speech, essentially, they are abusing a right by acting disruptive and contributing nothing of value. What should be done, especially with the new adminstratice change of Twitter which came about with Elon Musk’s recent acquisition of Twitter, Inc. Such social media platforms that have millions of active users should be required ti implement “Know your customer laws”, this helps the people who are posting who are genuine verified persons, who are willing to abide by the rules, with their personal reputation on the line, should be put in a sperate more valued comment section. Whilst “online anonymous users or trolls” should be placed in a different comment section, this way would help mitigate such pollution ton public discourse, while still giving both sides the right to freedom of speech without directing censoring users (Rigolizzo, John. “Dr. Jordan B. Peterson: The Daily Wire”).

Freedom of speech will always be a threat to the stability of democracy but that is simply the order of nature. Ultimately what matters is — should private companies have the right to institute policies that control, censor, and directs their users to engage in. That being that people will also have the right to simply not use the such platform and move to another one, but that is where it becomes an issue, for platforms such as Twitter, Instagram and Facebook that is where the most users are — where one’s voice can have the highest reach, a restriction of that should be unconstitutional. However, it is not due to it being performed by a private company, if I had to suggest a solution to this issue, it would not be the idea to extend the application of the 1^st amendment to private companies. This should be the last option and only when the situation is truly dire and other solutions failed, and if applied it should be strictly enforced to specifically companies defined as social media platforms, where if they reside and are registered as a U.S. company they must adhere to the constitutional law. And similar laws already exist such as the “Civil Rights Act of 1964” which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin — applies not only to government agencies but the private sector itself. Because social media plays such a prominent role in everyday life, for some it is their main source of information, and communication regarding the status of the world and society, it may sway public opinion along with the harmful effects of misinformation and it can cause a wave of violence. (US EEOC, Civil Rights Act of 1964). Out of the options presented, the solution by Dr. Jordan B. Peterson seemed to be the most neutral and least complicated one. It still grants private companies’ autonomy without legal enforcement and is the least limiting option in terms of censorship, it also provides social media complaints the moral and ethical reasons to obligate themselves to provide a more professional, less polluted medium for public discourse, where all who follow, policy and guidelines similar that simply prohibit illegal activity should be allowed to exercise their right to freedom of speech and expression online.

Works Cited:

“Control through Propaganda and Censorship – Nazi Control of Germany – National 5 History Revision – BBC Bitesize.” BBC News, BBC, https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zn8sgk7/revision/3.

Ramage, John D., et al. Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings. Pearson, 2019.

Rigolizzo, John. “Dr. Jordan B. Peterson: Social Media Is Part of ‘Pollution of the Domain of Public Discourse’.” The Daily Wire, The Daily Wire, 12 Nov. 2022, www.dailywire.com/news/dr-jordan-b-peterson-social-media-is-part-of-pollution-of-the-domain-of-public-discourse.

Frenkel, Sheera. “The Storming of Capitol Hill Was Organized on Social Media.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Jan. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/protesters-storm-capitol-hill-building.html.

Stjernfelt, Frederik, and Anne Mette Lauritzen. “Your Post Has Been Removed : Tech Giants and Freedom of Speech.” OAPEN Home, Springer Nature, 1 Apr. 2020, https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/22854.

Shafer, Jack, et al. “The Cure for Fake News Is Worse than the Disease.” POLITICO Magazine, 22 Nov. 2016, www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/the-cure-for-fake-news-is-worse-than-the-disease-214477/.

       –, Ramage, John D., et al. Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings. Pearson, 2019. Published in Post-fact, Post-Truth Society? – Jack Shafer, “The Cure for Fake News is Worse Than the Disease; Stop being Trump’s Twitter Fool. Page, 442.

“The Bill of Rights: A Transcription.” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript.

“The Limits of Free Speech in Social Media.” The Limits of Free Speech in Social Media | Accessible Law, 26 Apr. 2021, accessiblelaw.untdallas.edu/limits-free-speech-social-media.