BATTLEGROUND Is the ability for big tech-companies to censor users a free speech issue for our society? illustrations by Rania Arain & Mara Severts
CONTEXT: The censorship of former President Donald Trump on major platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook, etc., had revitalized the conversation on the amount of power that these tech companies have over what’s said on their platform, given the large population of users on the platform. So, is the ability for these companies to censor its user base a free speech issue for our society?
W
hether or not big techs can censor information is largely decided by the protocol regarding government regulation of private companies. However, the ethics of this is a point of contention; for big techs to censor information and people is an issue, however it is not one that calls for intervention. First, it does not breach the rights given to Americans in the United States Constitution. To unpack this, it is important to understand the relationship between the First Amendment, which declares free speech a constitutional right, and the release of information. Specifically, the relationship
NOOR MRYAN
between free speech and hate speech. We have heard the age old saying that “everyone is entitled to their own opinion”, and this remains valid. However, someone’s opinion, if founded on hatred, is no longer something that they are entitled to share. This is entirely regardless of where someone falls on the political spectrum. We can break this down with the statement: I like apples. To have this opinion is an exercise of freedom of speech. I can like apples irrespective of the person to the right of me. However, if me liking apples could cause harm or violence to others, and is rooted in hatred, then this statement no longer falls under free speech. In which case, for it to be censored is for the safety of the American public. What is key is that hate speech cannot be classified as hate speech for its content, but rather for the effect that it could have. Sam Sanders explains in a 2018 NPR Podcast that “speech with a hateful message may be punished, if in a particular context it directly causes a specific, imminent, serious harm”. Sanders elaborates that this harm would be a threat that would “instill a reasonable fear on the part of the person who… is subject to violence”. Censoring hateful information, or the people who spread it, is a measure that must be taken to protect peoples’ lives. Take, for example, what happened at the Capitol just a few months ago. A 2021 PBS News article highlights
Jennifer Grygiel, a Syracuse University professor and expert on social media, who stated that the “events in Washington, D.C. are a direct results of Trump’s use of social media to spread propaganda and disinformation, and that platforms should bear some responsibility for their inaction”. Grygiel specifically references Twitter, the platform that quickly banned the former president after the violence at the Capitol. Grygiel echoes the belief of millions of other Americans that Trump’s tweets on that day, which praised and urged his supporters, can be classified as hate speech. She concludes that if Twitter had acted sooner to censor this information, it is possible that less violence would have been a result of his tweets. There is no denying that who is in control of categorizing information as hate speech or free speech is an issue and a question in and of itself. But it is clear that the ability for big techs to censor information is not an issue if the information being censored can erupt violence against other individuals. For the emotional and physical safety of our country, big techs censoring (hateful) information is not an issue that requires intervention.
28 | Perspectives
battleground.indd 215792 Devils Advocate 2 Jan_Feb 2021.indd 28
2/24/21 10:01 2/26/21 10:09 AM PM
