France has the right idea. RIP Trayvon

Is America too good for a law prohibiting racial hatred? Should the First Amendment be amended? Can social media transcend government action, such as court verdicts?

Reportedly, Twitter was demanded to hand over data linked to racist tweets last October by the French government. To my understanding, someone had posted anti-Semitic context on the site and the French government's law "prohibiting the incitement of racial hatred" was broken. When Twitter initially refused to hand over the data, five organizations got involved and forced the micro-blogging site to pass along the goods.

In this case, media could not transcend the nation-state despite debates on the power of media internationally and its transcendence of borders, also noted by rhetoric surrounding the Arab Spring. Since the Trayvon Martin case has made international news, it is important to explore government and the limits of hatred (offline as well as on). Is social media more powerful than the government?

With the Trayvon Martin verdict of George Zimmerman being found as not guilty (I won't link a news source, because most people are aware of the case), I wonder what it would be like if America had such a law like France that did not tolerate hatred. It seems that this French law extends to the <international> Internet as well, considering their demands for data and the power behind the law in having the corporation provide the data. It kind of tickles me pink that a government would actively pursue such wrongdoers.

However, if this kind of law were enacted in America today, people would be breaking it constantly, from the KKK to the Westboro Baptist Church, to everyday people online and offline. There is rhetoric in America about whether racism is dead, and with the Trayvon case, it shows it clearly is not. This may be due to the First Amendment inherently protecting the speech that we hate as a means to have a public forum of ideas, as it was originally intended.

In America, we have freedom of speech, which to a certain extent extends to the Internet. However, freedom of speech can collide with some people's actions, as the case with shooting a black teen. No, shooting Trayvon had nothing to do with freedom of speech, but again, consider if America had a law prohibiting actions that incite hatred in all respects. As an offline and extremely relevant example, Zimmerman would have been found guilty, if so.

Is it also true that your freedoms truly stop when it begins to infringe on others' freedoms? That is the philosophical question here, and the First Amendment is broken each day in thinking about hurtful speech. Its intentions contradict itself.

President Obama asked Americans today to reflect on the Trayvon Marting case and push for stopping gun violence. He must know that social media is fired up about the verdict, since many, even in my own social network, are extending their right to express their thoughts on the outcome. Thankfully, we have social media to express our feelings and even alter events. Maybe something may come out of the verdict because we all have a voice on social media...but as with Twitter and France, it can also be negative and a breeding ground for hate.

Still, one commonality remains: Both the U.S. and France must be mindful of social media, because of such voices. Voices which condemn others have a space on social media, but the handling of hatred varies by country. The U.S. has freedom of speech which protects hate language, while France fiercely goes after those with such vitriolic words. So who is right? I'm not sure. All I know is there needs to be more rhetoric AND action around hate, and hopefully social media can become a platform for good in this respect.