
Throughout the years there have been a lot of changes within our society. Just in the last 100 years the United States has been involved in over 5 military conflicts, experienced several technological enhancements that have changed day to day life for everyone, and perhaps the largest change to our society, the civil rights movement. With all of these, the way we view the world we live in has changed drastically in some cases in comparison to just a generation before. Many of these changes have come with the changing of laws as well as passing of new ones. The civil rights movement being the most notable. But with these increases to the available technology, mainly the internet and smart phones, have come many other societal changes that have yet to warrant any changes to laws but have many arguing whether or not there should be. The major one being freedom of speech. With the increase in accessibility for people to be heard and to hear other people via the internet and social media, there is also the concern of whether or not more regulations should be put on what you can say on these platforms. 

Before the internet, the way information spread was based on its importance. Major information was in the newspapers and on the news while normal people’s information that they shared only transferred by word of mouth whether in person or over the phone or letters meaning that for the most part, it was only to be known by those you directly told it too. With the internet, people post information and beliefs on social media sometimes several times a day. So what’s the big deal? Only their followers will see it. But they can see it instantly, from across the world, and in mass vs a phone call. Plus they can repost, retweet, or share that status to then be seen by all of their followers as well which rapidly speeds up how beliefs and information is shared while opening up everyone to have that opportunity for almost free. This change in technology is probably not what was in mind when the first amendment was created and that is a counter argument that can be used here. A similar one is made for the second amendment as the weapons have changed drastically and become more dangerous since it was founded. But taking away someone’s voice is different from a material possession. Censoring people’s ability to express themselves at no harm to others is something that shouldn’t be taken away under normal circumstances.
