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.

As social media and technology continue to impact the way students communicate and receive information, it is encouraged that university student-run organizations utilize social media platforms as a tool to further the development of their organizations. Social media platforms allow student organizations to network, promote awareness of their organizations, current campus events, and provide the opportunity to develop strong associations and interactions among students. Overall, student-run organizations currently utilize a wide variety of social media; however, frequently it is used without a clear understanding of its role and best practices, which could lead to a loss of effectiveness in their communication with students. Therefore, these factors suggest the need for university student-run organizations to recognize and understand the opportunities that effective social media strategies can bring as a communication tool to enhance student engagement.

On September 30, 2019, the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, signed the Fair Pay to Play Act which prohibited universities from taking away an athlete’s scholarship should they choose to profit off their name, image and likeness (NIL). This was a monumental moment in college athletics as numerous lawsuits against the NCAA had been filed by former and current athletes due to the unfair nature of “amateurism.” With California getting the ball rolling and the Supreme Court pressuring the NCAA to change their outdated ways, the NCAA withdrew their rule stating that student athletes could not monetize their NIL. While this was a massive step forward in regard to compensating athletes for the time and effort they put into their sport that in turn generates revenue for the school, it also posed many questions that needed an in-depth look into including how this will affect non-revenue generating sports. This study aims to measure the student-athlete knowledge surrounding name, image, and likeness, as well as capture the athletes, coaches, and administrators' projections of the future implications of this policy. On the surface, this is a wonderful opportunity for college athletes. However, with the variability in the popularity and profitability between revenue generating and non-revenue generating sports, this does not put student-athletes on a level playing field to profit off their name, image, and likeness. With non-revenue generating sports falling vastly behind revenue generating sports, a further divide between these two segments of collegiate sports will form. Though there is an opportunity for all collegiate athletes to profit off their name, image, and likeness, the feasibility of putting these athletes on a level playing field is slim. In addition, with this new era comes a whole new set of rules for recruiting tactics and the desire to get more influential athletes. The data collected for this thesis, in conjunction with this new rule, implies that sports producing more influential athletes will be given more money as more eyes will be on the individual athletes. This will leave smaller sports behind because it will continue to create a divide between revenue generating and non-revenue generating sports. This gap will be created by increasing the publicity and recognition surrounding the revenue generating sports, while pushing less relevant sports further behind.