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?

Whether 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 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.

NOOR MRYAN

28 | Perspectives

Censorship. It’s a word we’ve all grown used to whether it be in the context of concealing vulgar expletives in clean versions of our favorite songs or in movies seeking PG-ratings in order to appeal to family audiences. More recently, however, this word has become the newest addition to America’s growing list of polarizing political topics of discussion. For years, conservatives have voiced concerns regarding censorship of their views on mainstream social media platforms, particularly Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. These concerns were only ignited as several platforms decided to remove a sitting president, Mr. Trump, enraging several conservatives nationwide. But this issue is not about whether conservatives or liberals are right in their views or whether there is truly an online bias against a conservative media presence. The issue is about whether this censorship adheres to the values set forth for the United States under the Constitution. Early advocates against the censorship of users on these social media platforms cited the first amendment and its protections of free speech as a reason for why such suppression of individuals’ voices on the internet was unconstitutional. This argument soon faced its limitations as many were quick to point out that the first amendment protected against suppression of free speech by the government, not by the private companies which were carrying out the censorship sparking the outrage. While this was a fair counterpoint as a private company should have every right to dictate the type of messaging and perspectives they want associated with their platform, it overlooks the ‘Big Tech’ monopoly which has begun to form in the social media space.

According to reports by The New York Times, certain House legislators spent over sixteen months investigating the monopolistic practices of tech firms, even including Facebook. A Department of Justices lawsuit even goes as far as to state that the “pattern of behavior [from these tech companies] raises questions about whether these firms view themselves as above the law, or whether they simply treat lawbreaking as a cost of business.” Clearly, there are credible government agencies that have made note of the monopolistic behavior of certain companies responsible for censorship of speech. But until these monopolies are successfully broken up by the government, is it not fair to say that the first amendment is in fact being infringed upon as the government is responsible for breaking up the monopoly which has allowed the censorship to prevail?

It can be argued that if certain people feel like the existing social media platforms don’t offer the freedom in speech they seek, then they are more than welcome to embrace America’s concept of free enterprise to create their own platform. But with that being said, the monopolistic power of ‘Big Tech’ has prevented the ability to do so. For example, Parler was a social media platform created for the promotion of free speech but was taken down by the app store which connected them to users. There is no doubt a growing issue regarding the expansive powers of the Social Media Giants who have used censorship to limit freedom of speech in America, and until addressed, our country will only further distance itself from the values which have built our democracy since 1776.

MIKHAIL ESSA

Perspectives | 29