Americans today face an age of information overload. With the evolution of Media 3.0, the internet, and the rise of Media 3.5—i.e., social media—relatively new communication technologies present pressing challenges for the First Amendment in American society. Twentieth century law defined freedom of expression, but in an information-limited world. By contrast, the twenty-first century is seeing the emergence of a world that is overloaded with information, largely shaped by an “unintentional press”—social media. Americans today rely on just a small concentration of private technology powerhouses exercising both economic and social influence over American society. This raises questions about censorship, access, and misinformation. While the First Amendment protects speech from government censorship only, First Amendment ideology is largely ingrained across American culture, including on social media. Technological advances arguably have made entry into the marketplace of ideas—a fundamental First Amendment doctrine—more accessible, but also more problematic for the average American, increasing his/her potential exposure to misinformation. <br/><br/>This thesis uses political and judicial frameworks to evaluate modern misinformation trends, social media platforms and current misinformation efforts, against the background of two misinformation accelerants in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic and U.S. presidential election. Throughout history, times of hardship and intense fear have contributed to the shaping of First Amendment jurisprudence. Thus, this thesis looks at how fear can intensify the spread of misinformation and influence free speech values. Extensive research was conducted to provide the historical context behind relevant modern literature. This thesis then concludes with three solutions to misinformation that are supported by critical American free speech theory.

Theories about the human origin in evolution and religion are fundamentally countering beliefs that are still debated to this day. This study continues to explore this relationship in the college population at a public university with the intention of targeting a diverse religious population. This research hopes to answer the question: does having greater literacy in evolution lead to a noninterventionist perspective on evolution? The prediction is that evidence of increased evolution comprehension will influence students to have a more agnostic, or noninterventionist, view on evolution. An evolution class was given a survey that had two parts broken into demographic and evolution sections with one question that asks about compatibility between evolution and religion. This was given twice in a single semester to track the growth of evolution knowledge and any other differences. There were 265 students in the initial survey, but only 223 responses in the post-survey. The compatibility question had 8 statements that range from creationist to atheistic perspectives and was divided into two sides: interventionist (divine involvement) and noninterventionist (deity may be present but does not intervene). More than 70% of the class had a noninterventionist perspective on evolution despite the Christian categories being the second largest group students identified with after agnostic. The agnostic statement was the top choice followed by the atheistic answer on the noninterventionist side. Lastly, there was some growth of evolution knowledge for each religious category in the evolution section but is not significant for interpretation. Based on the collected data, it is not sufficient to answer the question and requires more data collection via a longitudinal study.