Purpose
It is possible to suggest that the two aims of Caplan’s writing are to inform and persuade people. Considering the former purpose, the author uses several techniques. To begin with, Caplan describes the issue with social networks and the First Amendment and explains its causes to provide the readers with the background of the situation and outline the basic facts. Further, the researcher provides quotes from different studies, newspaper articles, and other scholars’ opinions. As for the purpose of persuading the readers, Caplan analyzes some real-life situations and draws detailed conclusions. The writer also describes the potential complications and consequences of not solving the issue as soon as possible and lists several steps that can be taken to address the situation. Overall, Caplan wrote this academic piece because he was concerned with the situation and wanted more people to become aware of it. Spreading information and proposing possible solutions can help society eliminate the problem.
Summary
Caplan begins his article by defining the public sphere as “the center of free speech in American democracy” (3). The author also explains the main aim of the First Amendment, which is to limit the power of government. Then, it is stated that, after social media became the public square, the First Amendment was put “at an uncertain step removed from protecting the public sphere” (3). Overall, the issue is that the amendment does not cover the content distributed by social networks, but what is posted by Facebook’s and other companies’ users can be moderated and censored by the platforms themselves. Social networks are focused primarily on maintaining a safe environment by protecting speech about individuals rather than public figures.
Further, Caplan explores how developed, and developing countries govern speech, especially statements related to hatred and discrimination. This difference mostly depends on the number of social network users, the laws of a particular country, and some hard lessons from states’ history (Caplan 4). Content on social media becomes more diversified, addictive, dangerous, and repellent, while most influencers use any possible ways to attract the audience. Additionally, the author provides some specific examples that, according to him, can prove that the American government constantly contests the First Amendment. For instance, Caplan discusses President Trump and his various attempts to demonstrate “his contempt for free speech” (5). Finally, the author offers several ways to address the problem, one of which is enhancing government regulation of social networks and media companies.
Main Idea
The one thought that the author wants their readers to have in their minds after reading his article may be found in the last paragraph. Caplan wants everyone to consider “what free speech is for and what it’s not for, when it’s relevant and when it’s not, and how the law should function” (8). Since nowadays, the perception and functions of the First Amendment are somehow altered, the researcher finds it significant to raise awareness and make society think about free speech.
Personal Opinion About the Article
Though the main topic of the article is valuable, and I appreciate the author’s concern and desire to draw the public attention to the problems with free speech, I do not consider some of the arguments relevant. I think that Caplan changes some facts’ essence so that they seem good arguments to support his point of view. For example, when President Trump withdrew John O. Brennan’s access to classified information, he did not violate Brennan’s right to freedom of speech. Trump also did not forbid him to express his opinion on everything besides secret government information. Apart from misinterpreting some facts, Caplan indeed discusses a significant issue while also talking about some smaller problems it covers. Thus, he mentions that content on social media can be rather influencing, addicting, and dangerous, and it is also vital to address it. Overall, this article has many weaknesses but can be considered valuable.
Work Cited
Caplan, Lincoln. “Stress Test for Free Speech.” The American Scholar, 2018, pp. 3-8.