Do social media posts magnify the impact of a protest for better or worse?
THE CASE
You work for a nonprofit organization that advocates for greater racial equality in the United States. Recently, there have been a number of shootings in which police officers have killed unarmed black men. Your organization is looking for a way to publicize this issue and help create a movement for change to ensure that all Americans can live in safety and without fear.
You become aware of a protest started by a biracial quarterback with the National Football League. In order to bring attention to the issue of police shootings, this athlete has started to kneel rather than stand when the national anthem plays before a game. Some teammates and players on other teams have periodically chosen to join him in this gesture. In interviews, the player has confirmed that he is hoping to use his high-profile position to call attention to racial injustice in America.
The athlete’s protest has been met with both support and anger. Supporters see the kneeling as a peaceful and respectful way to remind the public that racism continues to impact many Americans, sometimes with fatal consequences. Critics say that kneeling during the anthem shows disrespect toward our nation and service members who have made many sacrifices — sometimes even giving their lives — to keep our nation safe and prosperous.
You believe this protest could be an opportunity to encourage a bigger conversation about inequality in America. You are deciding whether to begin a campaign on social media about the protests to drum up support for your organization and the changes it seeks to make. You could post photos and messages tracking the latest protests, public responses and the athlete’s comments on his actions, and possibly tap into some athletes’ large social media followings.
Taking the conversation online might give the protest more reach and start a conversation protected by the First Amendment. (As a private company, the NFL has the power to stop players’ protests at any time.) But posting about the protests could also elicit some angry reactions and draw out trolls who may use their First Amendment freedom of speech to attack your cause.
Should you try to expand the impact of this protest using social media?
Yes.
Side Score: 12
|
 |
No.
Side Score: 13
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Yes everyone has social media, and many people post their thoughts on a subject. But how many of those people have actually done anything to stop an issue? The player described in the article actually took a stand and did something. On social media, all they did was say something that could or could not be true. Someone could go and dispute about something right now on Twitter and wouldn't receive as much recognition from someone who went on tv or went to a protest and spoke up. Side: No.
1
point
Social media would better the impact and expansion of protest. It gathers more people's attention and educates citizens all over the nation. Prohibiting this would not only nullify free speech, but it would also stop people from being able to help stop an issue. It allows people to help take a stand against issues over the internet, instead of physically being there. Social media creates groups, and those groups create easier ways to shed light on problems. People from other nations are able to learn about what is going on in our country due to social media, which brings even more attention to these issues. Either way, trolls will find their way to oppose your ideas and feelings. Side: Yes.
1
point
It does help other countries understand what is going on in our own country. However, other countries do not control our own country. Political figures such as the president and congress control what happens. They may look at another country and like how they go about something but what other countries do does not determine what we do. The most effective way is to go to an influencer or political person and ask them for help in making a stand/difference. Someone may look at something online and agree but that doesn't mean much of a difference is being made. Confronting someone or something in person is the best solution. Although social media has helped issues, they weren't the leading cause and most of the time the media just takes something from an issue and turns it around completely to where the main issue is forgotten. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
1
point
Yes, because everyone everyday are on social media at least once. So everyone could include their opinions, thoughts,and reasons why they disagree with someone else on a topic. If there is a debate, then they'll just argue it out then be on their business. Which could or would lead to making an argument worse to the point where violence and other actions are taken into the conflict. Side: Yes.
1
point
They can argue it out on social media but their arguing has nothing to do with governmental decisions. People who go straight to the board and petition something make a difference, not those who say what they think on social media. You can talk to someone about something you show contempt for but that won't make a difference. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
It makes people aware just as a protest makes people aware. The only difference is you're more likely to hear about the protest that is in the news and involves government officials rather than a tweet. Everyone worldwide can know about the issue but it's those who lead your country that can actually change something officially. Side: No.
I think people should be able to post about this situation because so many people are on social media. If you were to petition to kick off the football player that kneeled during the national anthem, you could get enough people to support that and get it widely influenced by people to happen. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
the reason i agree is because it is that person's freedom of speech. but at the same exact time, it is kind of like Gina carano. just because you have freedom of speech does not mean that you have freedom of consequences. the impact of a protest kind of goes worse. with the 140 days of black lives matter riots in may-august, it got positive reception. whereas, the one day of capital riots was negatively received. in conclusion, it depends on their political affiliation Side: Yes.
1
point
|
2
points
I do not believe it will help too much with bringing it to a social media platform. Social media is a way for someone to voice their opinion about a matter, which everyone should be able to, but many people online find a way to diminish a good cause by saying hateful things. Most of the time people's voices don't get heard when it is on a platform such as Instagram or Facebook. People come to know what is going on but having a post on social media isn't doing anything to stop an issue. At most all it is doing is making people aware of a situation. Many people have been aware of a situation and have done nothing to stop it. If they want to stop a matter from continuing the best course of action is actually doing something, not posting a picture, event or comment. If someone had an issue with something that many people shared contempt for, they should take it up with city officials or people of the political party that have a hand in what happens in America, or even an influential person like how the article has a famous NFL person backing up their cause. The action of the player would probably cause more widespread attention than a tweet. Side: No.
|
