Difference between revisions of "Freedom of Expression"
(→Social Media Terms & Conditions) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==Social Media Terms & Conditions== | ==Social Media Terms & Conditions== | ||
| − | + | Lately, alt-right groups have become more prominent on social media. Alt-right groups are often criticized for their racist and sexist hate speech. Yet, these groups use social media as an outlet to express their beliefs to a large audience. David Duke is a well known white nationalist that uses Twitter to express his extreme ideas <ref> https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke </ref>. Although Duke's speech often disrespects specific people, nationalities, and groups, he is protected by his right to freedom of expression and will not be censored unless he violates Twitter's terms of service. Twitter has received many complaints for verifying the accounts of white nationalists <ref> https://mashable.com/article/seth-rogen-twitter-jack-verified-white-supremacists/#MOdY1LmgqqqD </ref>. A verified user has a blue checkmark next to their name and indicates the person says who they say they are and are an important member of the Twitter community. This indicates Twitter is in favor of freedom of expression regardless if it promotes violence or hate. | |
| − | Facebook is also a social media platform that causes political discourse. | + | Facebook is also a social media platform that causes political discourse. Politics are often discussed on the Facebook news feed. Many of the strong political opinions are catalyzed by satirical websites, like the Onion <ref>https://www.theonion.com/</ref>, and biased sources, like Occupy Democrats <ref>http://occupydemocrats.com/</ref>. Although these sources post exaggerations of the truth or blatant lies, their content cannot be legally removed because they are protected by the right to free speech. |
| + | |||
| + | Facebook has also been in trouble for the “fake name policy” deeming that a user can be reported for not using their legal name. This puts one’s freedom of expression on the social media platform into question. If someone has gone through a gender transition or feels resentment towards their families, for example, they will tend to change their names to feel comfortable.<ref> Haimson, Olivia L. and Anna Lauren Hoffmann. Constructing and enforcing "authentic" identity online: Facebook, real names, and non-normative identities. 6 June 2016.</ref> The “real name policy” strips away the true identity of a user and ultimately their freedom of expression by allowing other users to paint their profiles rather than themselves. The argument can be made that these social media platforms pick and choose what qualifies as freedom of expression. | ||
==Ethics and Freedom of Expression== | ==Ethics and Freedom of Expression== | ||
Revision as of 14:31, 8 April 2019
Freedom of expression is the right that every person is able to express their opinions and beliefs on any platform even if it is not preferable. Freedom of expression coincides with free speech, which was declared a fundamental human right in the United States Constitution. However, in practice, many social media websites restrict freedom of expression to protect their users and reputation. Most social media companies govern users through their terms of service. Yet, the discrepancy between free speech and impermissible speech is still very controversial today. This has brought about many ethical concerns on what is acceptable to post online.
Contents
Politics and Free Speech
Issues revolving around freedom of expression and hate speech arose during the 2016 election. The extremism of this election created a drastic polarization of both political parties in the United States. As Misha Teplitskiy and Feng Shi describe in “The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds,” people have used their freedom of expression in the form of politics even if the content is not related to political climate [1] When looking through social media platforms, specifically Facebook and Twitter, it is inevitable to not find a political argument taking place. Even if politics are uncomfortable to talk about, people have the right to post due to their right to free speech.
The 2016 election is an example where extreme polarization occurred with both sides voicing their strong opinions. With the racist remarks made by Donald Trump, the question arose of what deserves to be censored or not as well as what is classified as "hate speech". The term “liberal snowflake” was born as those on the left pointed out the inappropriate comments that should not be said while Republicans stood behind this idea of freedom of expression. This brings up the controversy of what speech should be restricted versus pass as freedom of expression. There is no law or jurisdiction currently in place that legally classifies hate speech separate from free speech, thus, allowing individuals to speak in a hateful manner and remain unpunished. However, given the context of the speech, if it causes fear or harm it may be subjected to punishment. [2]
Social Media Terms & Conditions
Lately, alt-right groups have become more prominent on social media. Alt-right groups are often criticized for their racist and sexist hate speech. Yet, these groups use social media as an outlet to express their beliefs to a large audience. David Duke is a well known white nationalist that uses Twitter to express his extreme ideas [3]. Although Duke's speech often disrespects specific people, nationalities, and groups, he is protected by his right to freedom of expression and will not be censored unless he violates Twitter's terms of service. Twitter has received many complaints for verifying the accounts of white nationalists [4]. A verified user has a blue checkmark next to their name and indicates the person says who they say they are and are an important member of the Twitter community. This indicates Twitter is in favor of freedom of expression regardless if it promotes violence or hate.
Facebook is also a social media platform that causes political discourse. Politics are often discussed on the Facebook news feed. Many of the strong political opinions are catalyzed by satirical websites, like the Onion [5], and biased sources, like Occupy Democrats [6]. Although these sources post exaggerations of the truth or blatant lies, their content cannot be legally removed because they are protected by the right to free speech.
Facebook has also been in trouble for the “fake name policy” deeming that a user can be reported for not using their legal name. This puts one’s freedom of expression on the social media platform into question. If someone has gone through a gender transition or feels resentment towards their families, for example, they will tend to change their names to feel comfortable.[7] The “real name policy” strips away the true identity of a user and ultimately their freedom of expression by allowing other users to paint their profiles rather than themselves. The argument can be made that these social media platforms pick and choose what qualifies as freedom of expression.
Ethics and Freedom of Expression
Along with being able to express ourselves, there is the possibility of false information being spread in the form of “fake news.” The rapid spread of lies online raises the concern of how ethical freedom of expression can be. Shannon Vallor implies in “Social Networking Virtues” that being truthful in what you post online affects how authentic others perceive your online persona to be. Many overexaggerate or lie about themselves on social media with the intentions of gaining popularity. [8] Honesty is connected to how we perceive each other online in relation to our authenticity. Lying on the internet has many consequences, and the credibility of words spread online comes into question with the normalization of “fake news,” affecting our outlooks on important topics like politics.
The rationale behind this can be due to the norms of online communities. Users are more likely to conform to social norms when an audience is present, causing them to be more likely to create lies and act maliciously towards others. Alain Cohn would suggest in his article "Honesty in the Digital Age" that users feel less observed and pay less attention to their actual identities. [9] Displaying one’s freedom of expression online versus in real life differs as there is not a way for one to validate another user’s identity online if they do not know the user personally.
References
- ↑ Teplitskiy and Shi (2018). The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds.
- ↑ “Free Speech vs. Hate Speech.” NPR, NPR, 5 June 2018, www.npr.org/2018/06/01/616085863/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.
- ↑ https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke
- ↑ https://mashable.com/article/seth-rogen-twitter-jack-verified-white-supremacists/#MOdY1LmgqqqD
- ↑ https://www.theonion.com/
- ↑ http://occupydemocrats.com/
- ↑ Haimson, Olivia L. and Anna Lauren Hoffmann. Constructing and enforcing "authentic" identity online: Facebook, real names, and non-normative identities. 6 June 2016.
- ↑ Shannon Vallor, 11 Aug 2009, Social networking technology and the virtues
- ↑ Alain Cohn et al. Honesty in the Digital Age. Feb 2018.
