Hate Speech And Internet Censorship
If we could define our society by just one tool, it would be the internet. We use it to communicate, catch the latest news, research a topic, manage our finances, and so much more. Through the internet, individuals have been able to voice their opinion to millions. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and other websites have become the greatest platform for free speech in the history of mankind. But many view this platform for speech as potentially dangerous. Racist groups use the web to promote their causes. Even worse, criminals will use the internet as an instrument of evil. They can spread child pornography, or teach others to make bombs for use in a deadly terrorist attack. With problems like these, we must ask: What is the role of government in
…show more content…
Downing, in “’Hate Speech’ and ‘First Amendment absolutism’ discourses in the US,” makes many challenging arguments against the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, specifically when applied to hate speech. One of the best arguments against hate speech he makes is in the case of a minority group who are scared to speak against forms of oppression. “Thus women or ethnic minority groups with important stories to tell who do not tell them, are subject to what Jenson and Arriola sum up as ‘oppressive silencing’… In reality that [First] Amendment in no way protects their freedom to communicate, or their right to freedom from hate-based communication …” (Downing 179). It is true, especially online, that women and minorities speaking out against something will often be victims of hate speech. But no one has the right of freedom from hate based communication. When you expose yourself to the public in a controversial manner, you will be the focus of heated rhetoric, no matter what side you stand on. Pro-lifers who state something controversial on abortion online do not have the right to silence indecent speech opposing them, just like a Black Lives Matter protestor who states a controversial view on police officers cannot expect all reactions to be nice and encouraging. Another problem for hate speech ban advocates to consider is that hate speech itself is a matter of opinion. Liberals may not consider language that desecrates conservative Christianity as hate speech, the same way that many conservatives do not consider bashing radical feminist viewpoints with vulgarity as hate speech. On the internet, hate speech will only be more a matter of opinion. When someone posts something on the internet, it is frozen in time. This allows time for people to analyze it and judge it. If someone were to post something without thinking, a perfectly innocent comment, after evaluated by hundreds, could be seen as absolutely
Downing, in “’Hate Speech’ and ‘First Amendment absolutism’ discourses in the US,” makes many challenging arguments against the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, specifically when applied to hate speech. One of the best arguments against hate speech he makes is in the case of a minority group who are scared to speak against forms of oppression. “Thus women or ethnic minority groups with important stories to tell who do not tell them, are subject to what Jenson and Arriola sum up as ‘oppressive silencing’… In reality that [First] Amendment in no way protects their freedom to communicate, or their right to freedom from hate-based communication …” (Downing 179). It is true, especially online, that women and minorities speaking out against something will often be victims of hate speech. But no one has the right of freedom from hate based communication. When you expose yourself to the public in a controversial manner, you will be the focus of heated rhetoric, no matter what side you stand on. Pro-lifers who state something controversial on abortion online do not have the right to silence indecent speech opposing them, just like a Black Lives Matter protestor who states a controversial view on police officers cannot expect all reactions to be nice and encouraging. Another problem for hate speech ban advocates to consider is that hate speech itself is a matter of opinion. Liberals may not consider language that desecrates conservative Christianity as hate speech, the same way that many conservatives do not consider bashing radical feminist viewpoints with vulgarity as hate speech. On the internet, hate speech will only be more a matter of opinion. When someone posts something on the internet, it is frozen in time. This allows time for people to analyze it and judge it. If someone were to post something without thinking, a perfectly innocent comment, after evaluated by hundreds, could be seen as absolutely