From Tweets to Triggers: Linda Lemos Explores Social Media Regulation and Assault Weapon Attitudes
Linda Lemos is a dedicated academic, delving into the complex realms of social media regulation and the attitudes of Kentucky voters toward an assault weapons ban. As the author of Can the Law Regulate Social Media, and Should It? and a co-author of Would Kentucky Voters Approve a Ban on Assault Weapons? alongside Macaulay Michael Minton—both borne out of her academic work at George Washington University (GWU)—Lemos provides thought-provoking perspectives on pressing issues at the intersection of law, technology, and societal concerns.
Linda Lemos
Lemos embarked on a journey into the regulation of social media, spurred by her encounter with Kimberly A. Houser's Legal Guide to Social Media. Featuring Houser on her podcast Linda Love Talks and subsequently having her as a mentor, Lemos was inspired to address the dearth of sources on this subject. In her exploration, Lemos scrutinizes the influence of international law on social media regulation in the United States, pointing to Germany's pioneering role with NetzDG and advocating for the adoption of similar measures globally.
Addressing concerns like cybercrime, identity theft, and terrorism, Lemos acknowledges the FBI's role in overseeing cybercrime and terrorism, while the Federal Trade Commission handles identity theft. Emphasizing the inadequacies of the current regulatory landscape in protecting consumer privacy, Lemos advocates for national laws to address data breaches and privacy violations. Furthermore, she navigates the intricate relationship between the First Amendment and private social media companies, shedding light on the complexities surrounding freedom of expression in the digital age.
Macaulay Michael Minton
In her collaboration with Macaulay Michael Minton, Lemos investigates Kentucky voters' attitudes toward banning assault weapons. Grounded in meticulous research, including a survey gauging public opinion on gun control measures and gun violence, their work underscores the need for a reassessment of gun laws in Kentucky. Revealing the historic factors contributing to the prominence of firearms and gun ownership in American society, Lemos contends that gun control measures do not imply a total eradication of gun rights. Drawing parallels to driver's licenses, she advocates for common-sense laws that ensure responsible gun ownership.
In echoing President Ronald Reagan's stance, Lemos emphasizes the necessity of distinguishing between sporting weapons and those with a potential for harm. With an unwavering belief in the capacity to find solutions, Lemos addresses the long-standing issue of gun control, emphasizing the need for thoughtful, pragmatic measures.
The following interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
On Can the Law Regulate Social Media and Should It?
What motivated you to explore the regulation of social media and its intersection with constitutional rights?
My motivation was this great book that I read, and I featured the book and author on my podcast Linda Love Talks titled Legal Guide to Social Media by Kimberly A. Houser, J.D. I was very fortunate to have the opportunity not only to read her book and have her on my Podcast but also to have her as a mentor for writing this thesis that would turn into a book. There weren’t many sources on this subject when writing this book.
How has international law influenced the perspectives on regulating social media in the United States? It hasn’t, and I believe in Comparative Law, which appears on page 16 of my book. Germany is leading the way with regards to social media regulation. They have a law called NetzDG. In India, social media companies are compelled to remove content. In Australia, “Platforms are required to remove abhorrent violent materials or face hefty fines quickly.” These great ideas can also become law here in the United States of America.
What are the key concerns and debates regarding the regulation of social media, particularly in addressing issues like cybercrime, identity theft, and terrorism?
About cybercrime and terrorism, the F.B.I. is the primary agency overseeing these crimes and keeping citizens protected from identity theft. Regarding identity theft, the Federal Trade Commission is the agency in charge of these crimes.
Data breaches and widespread privacy violations have shown that the current regulatory landscape does not adequately protect consumers. More recent scandals have increased public urgency to address this problem. Equifax’s 2017 data breach exposed 147 million Americans’ data. These millions have suffered identity theft, economic harm, and the autonomy injury of having sensitive information made public without their consent. This is why I have recommendations for Congress and urge Congress to create national laws about this.
How does the First Amendment relate to private companies and social media, and what implications does this have for freedom of expression?
The First Amendment does not relate to private companies which own social media. These private social media companies must abide by all state and federal laws. But it gets complicated because one singular social media platform is used worldwide. However, many times, it’s breaking the law in more than one country. As an example, a swimsuit model is modeling a bikini, which is expected in the United States; however, If this picture of a celebrity or model reaches a country that prohibits this type of exposure, then the perpetrator here, which can be a swimsuit company, the model and celebrity can be fined or requested to appear in a foreign court.
The second issue regarding the First Amendment is that most people use social media to “troll.” Unbeknownst to them, they can be held liable for the following defamation in a court of law. Defamation is a statement made to a third party about another person that is false and likely to harm the person’s reputation. Laws in different states can have different results concerning defamation judgment.
What do you propose, balancing individual rights with the need for social media regulation?
First and foremost, people need to be made aware of their rights on social media. Most people don’t. Neither the current government nor the social media companies have made it clear to citizens. I also question what the Third Amendment of the U.S. Constitution implies, which means privacy in the home. Is our Third Amendment being protected by the use of social media? It's definitely a balance between individual rights and the need for social media regulation.
On Would Kentucky Voters Approve a Ban of Assault Weapons?
What is the specific proposal discussed in the book, and what are the implications of implementing such a ban on assault weapons?
Great questions. Well, I closely examined the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report on firearm mortality and compared gun laws with the mortality rate. States with strict gun laws have fewer firearm deaths, as can be seen on this website. Also, the specific proposal for this book was initiated by Macaulay Minton because Kentucky is his home state.
What led to the research and exploration of Kentucky voters' attitudes toward banning assault weapons?
Per our book, the recent survey conducted in Kentucky aimed to gauge public opinion on gun control measures and gun violence. The study results have several implications regarding the views of Kentuckians on gun control measures. Firstly, most respondents believe that gun laws in Kentucky are not appropriately balanced to protect the rights of gun owners while ensuring community safety. This indicates a lack of confidence in the current gun laws in place in Kentucky and a desire for stricter regulation to prevent gun violence.
What factors in American history and society have contributed to the prominence of firearms and gun ownership?
The early Americans set forth the following factors: The use for daily lives, hunting, shooting for sport, and lack of law enforcement.
How do Kentucky's gun laws compare to other states, and what challenges and opportunities are associated with advocating for systematic change in this area?
This is a full circle moment; I believe the recent news in Kentucky probably created the research and exploration of Kentucky voter's attitudes. Per our research and EveryStat, As an example, "Kentucky has the 19th-highest rate of gun suicides and gun suicide attempts in the US. Every year, an average of 253 people in Kentucky die by gun homicides, and 408 are wounded by gun assaults—a rate of 6.0 homicides and 9.2 assaults per 100,000 people."
This book and the survey that was conducted found that most respondents would support a state constitutional amendment that would ban the possession of assault weapons and the manufacturing, selling, transferring, and receiving of such weapons. This indicates a willingness on the part of Kentuckians to take concrete action to prevent gun violence and suggests that there may be public support for stricter gun control measures in the state.
How does the book address the complex relationship between gun control and gun rights, and what are the potential pathways forward?
Gun control does not mean a total eradication of gun rights. It does not mean that the licensed gun holders will not be able to have and responsibly use their guns for sporting, hunting, and or a home invasion. It’s like a driver’s license. There are common sense laws concerning having and driving a car. If you drive drunk, then the right to move is taken from you for a set period.
This issue has been long-standing; I think it’s time to solve it. I wholeheartedly believe in what President Ronald Reagan said once. There is a speech that Reagan made at the University of Southern California in February 1989. This was the first public appearance after leaving office and after a mass shooting at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, which took place on January 17, 1989.
He said the following, "I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen to own guns for sporting, for hunting, and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for the defense of the home."
