Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression is the right that every person is able to express their opinions and beliefs in any manner and on any platform. Freedom of expression coincides with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, freedom of speech, which prohibits Congress from making any law that would abridge freedom of speech. However, many social media platforms restrict freedom of expression in practice as a means of policing impermissible content. To protect their users and reputation, most social media companies govern users through their terms of service. Yet, the the line at which free speech devolves into impermissible speech is blurry, so this kind of censorship creates a lot of controversial effect.

History of Freedom of Expression

Although the U.S Constitution protects Freedom of Speech, it does not provide absolute clarity on what that means. As a form of expression, speech freedoms have been litigated in the judicial system since the First Amendment was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. Courts have found that freedom of expression can be restricted, only in cases where it may cause direct and imminent harm to others. Courts have also ruled in favor of content neutrality, which prohibits the discrimination of expressions just because some in the population may find the content offensive.

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 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.

Credit: James Devereaux, Foundation of Economic Education.

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.

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 . 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 . 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 , and biased sources, like Occupy Democrats . 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. 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. Social media platforms pick and choose what qualifies as freedom of expression.

Ethics and Freedom of Expression

Credit: Tim Bajarin, PC Magazine

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. 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. 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.