.             .                           .                  .           .             .      (         )                              -   .                   .                                             .         ""            :  1: "                 ."  2: "                                                   ....                 ".  3: "                   ."                      

Consider the recent swarming of the United States Capitol by a large mob. At least six people, including police officers, have lost their lives during this event. The US President Trump has been accused of inciting the violence that ensued, and, using this alleged incitement, multiple social media platforms have suspended President Trump's accounts. Moreover, President Trump got impeached in the House of Representatives for a second time, a first for a US president The belief in freedom of speech is said to be held high in the US. Yet, the right to freedom of speech is not limitless by law. Carefully argue for or against (or both sides of the issue, if you wish) the social media platforms' blocking or suspending President Trump's accounts, keeping in mind that freedom of speech is considered a fundmental human right protected by law in the United Statesas well as other countries. You may wish to provide references to what has been said about the suspension of President Trump's social media accounts to help your argument In addition, discuss whether this suspension harbors any danger for the general public and the world, since very powerful online platforms are in position to essentially decide who should and who should not get to voice his or her opinions online. Did these social media platforms do what was "right?" As a perspective, consider the following quotes by American statesman, Benjamin Franklin: Quote 1: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Quote 2: "Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech; which is the right of every man as far as by it he does not hurt or control the right of another, and this is the only check it ought to suffer and the only bounds it ought to know.... Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech, a thing terrible to traitors." Quote 3: "Without Freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech." Organize different points you wish to make as separate paragraphs, possibly under different subtitles so that the reader can be clear about your arguments. NOTE Note that this question is not a simple "What do you think?" question! That is, the question does not seek to merely find out what you happen to be thinking about the issue at hand, especially without any basis mentioned. Rather, it seeks to find out why you think the way you think based on the principles of ethics, law, logic, and fundamental human rights. Therefore, a hallow discussion is not what is required. A rich discussion with proper references is what is hoped. So feel free to enrich this discussion with issues not mentioned in this question but that you believe are intimately related to freedom of speech. Therefore, you are expected to mention critical documents, ideas, and opinions in your answer. Please do not just write what you happen to think without any scientific, logical, and ethical basis. You are expected to organize your thoughts in paragraphs. You may wish to use titles and subtitles to help you organize your answer. Refer to all sources with a simple, yet proper format that would make quick access to those sources possible. Some statements of fact should be part of your answer.* In short, this is SHORT RESEARCH QUESTION for which you should use the provided time to the fullest to present a successful piece of work. Consider the recent swarming of the United States Capitol by a large mob. At least six people, including police officers, have lost their lives during this event. The US President Trump has been accused of inciting the violence that ensued, and, using this alleged incitement, multiple social media platforms have suspended President Trump's accounts. Moreover, President Trump got impeached in the House of Representatives for a second time, a first for a US president The belief in freedom of speech is said to be held high in the US. Yet, the right to freedom of speech is not limitless by law. Carefully argue for or against (or both sides of the issue, if you wish) the social media platforms' blocking or suspending President Trump's accounts, keeping in mind that freedom of speech is considered a fundmental human right protected by law in the United Statesas well as other countries. You may wish to provide references to what has been said about the suspension of President Trump's social media accounts to help your argument In addition, discuss whether this suspension harbors any danger for the general public and the world, since very powerful online platforms are in position to essentially decide who should and who should not get to voice his or her opinions online. Did these social media platforms do what was "right?" As a perspective, consider the following quotes by American statesman, Benjamin Franklin: Quote 1: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Quote 2: "Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech; which is the right of every man as far as by it he does not hurt or control the right of another, and this is the only check it ought to suffer and the only bounds it ought to know.... Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech, a thing terrible to traitors." Quote 3: "Without Freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech." Organize different points you wish to make as separate paragraphs, possibly under different subtitles so that the reader can be clear about your arguments. NOTE Note that this question is not a simple "What do you think?" question! That is, the question does not seek to merely find out what you happen to be thinking about the issue at hand, especially without any basis mentioned. Rather, it seeks to find out why you think the way you think based on the principles of ethics, law, logic, and fundamental human rights. Therefore, a hallow discussion is not what is required. A rich discussion with proper references is what is hoped. So feel free to enrich this discussion with issues not mentioned in this question but that you believe are intimately related to freedom of speech. Therefore, you are expected to mention critical documents, ideas, and opinions in your answer. Please do not just write what you happen to think without any scientific, logical, and ethical basis. You are expected to organize your thoughts in paragraphs. You may wish to use titles and subtitles to help you organize your answer. Refer to all sources with a simple, yet proper format that would make quick access to those sources possible. Some statements of fact should be part of your answer.* In short, this is SHORT RESEARCH QUESTION for which you should use the provided time to the fullest to present a successful piece of work