Why Harmful Posts on Social Media should be regulated

Harmful content over the internet is going viral nowadays on most of the social media platforms, which has negative effects on both adults and children, especially, with the increasing usage of social media tools during the Covid-19 situation. Therefore, social media’s harmful posts should be regulated. Through the recent legislative efforts, societies are still suffering from the influence of these posts. We observe that the people who share harmful posts often hide behind the First Amendment right and the Freedom of Expression of the American Constitution. This paper focuses on suggesting possible regulations to strike down social media’s harmful content regardless of the platforms it was posted on, to safeguard society from their negative effects. In addition, it highlights the attempts by Qatar’s government to regulate social media crimes and aims to assess if these efforts are enough. Also, it will take a general look at the situation in the United States and how it is dealing with this issue.

Popular Sovereignty

Chapter 4 explores how the same set of ideas about ideal constitutions resulted in two radically different outcomes: the American Constitution, and the French Revolution and its numerous, failed constitutions. The chapter traces the development of constitutional thought from the fifteenth century to the eighteenth, focusing on the work of Bodin, Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau. Again we explore the importance of media for the spread of ideas and then the adaptation of those ideas by practical politicians to very different ends.

The Intellectual Adventures of a Russian Anti-Federalist: Radishchev, Condorcet, and the American Constitution

This article suggests a new understanding of a shift in Radishchev’s perception of American democracy from the early version of Ode to Liberty to the final text of A Journey from St Petersburg to Moscow. The historical and political theories present in Ode to Liberty are interpreted not as an abstract social utopia but as a reaction to the revolution in British colonies and an attempt at establishing a new society based on the ideals of equality and freedom. The adoption of the American constitution was the main reason for Radishchev’s disappointment in the USA. The evolution of Radishchev’s views is analysed within the context of the American debate between the Federalists and the Antifederalists and the discussions about the New World in France, especially the political philosophy of Nicola Condorcet and the debates on the representation of the slave-owning colony of Santo Domingo in the Assemblée nationale. The article studies the key sources of information that may have influenced Radishchev’s opinion and analyses the common features of Radishchev’s ideas about the US Constitution and his critical approach to the “abolitionist” wing of the Antifederalists. His disappointment in the American experience had a decisive impact on Radishchev’s political philosophy: the adoption of a federalist constitution and the preservation of slavery meant for him the collapse of all hopes for reshaping society on more humane and just grounds. This led to the adoption of apocalyptic tones in the final version of Ode to Liberty, as the author’s hopes for a better future now depended not upon any political activity, but upon the intervention of providential forces.

Populism, localism and democratic citizenship

This article articulates and explores a localist conception of citizenship that stands in contrast to more liberal, neoliberal and cosmopolitan conceptions. A localist orientation, and some real sympathy, is evident in specifically ethnographic accounts of voters who supported Trump, Brexit and populism more broadly, including such accounts by Arlie Hochschild, Robert Wuthnow, Kathy Cramer and Justin Gest. This localist orientation echoes the Antifederalist opponents of the American Constitution, Jacksonian Democrats, Tocqueville’s account of American democracy and the American populists. I consider both the virtues and vices of localism. The possible benefits include local practices of nested reciprocity, special obligations, specifically local ‘social bases of selfrespect’ – in the terminology of John Rawls – and feelings of belonging and home (what the Germans call Heimat). However, localism also has its downsides: its resources can empower prejudice and exclusion. I end with a reflection on localism and exclusion in Lorraine Hasberry’s A Raisin in the Sun.

Hatred, Dignity, and Freedom of Expression

In his 2012 book The Harm in Hate Speech, Jeremy Waldron has argued sustainedly in favor of hate-speech laws like those that have been enacted in most of the European liberal democracies and in Canada and the Antipodes. His main target is the American position on hate speech, for in the USA any laws along the lines of those just mentioned would be violative of the First Amendment to the American Constitution. This chapter maintains that the gist of the American position is not only a corollary of the First Amendment but also a corollary of the moral principle of freedom of expression. Even more strongly, the chapter contends that the hate-speech statutes championed by Waldron are profoundly demeaning for any country wherein they are adopted. The adoption of such statutes both ensures and presupposes that a system of governance has failed to meet its responsibility to bring about the political and social and economic conditions under which every member of a society can be warranted in harboring an ample sense of self-respect.