Hate Speech In Social Media

The trade-off between ensuring free speech and restricting hate speech has been the ire of government across the international community. With the advent of social media, this issue has only become more contentious. Social media platforms such as facebook, twitter, and instagram are increasingly becoming forms of debate, tension, and animosity rather than serving their original purpose; to be a refreshing escape of pleasant social interactions and meeting. Yet, it is the social media companies themselves that are under the most heat as of late. Blame that is traditionally placed on government and political institutions has shifted towards the tech firms of silicon valley and the priority of these firms in regards of restrictions on speech has
been brought to question. However, one is abundantly clear. Social media platforms must allow constitutionally protected speech on their website. The often unappreciated nuance behind free speech is that certain aspect of hateful speech are constitutionally protected. However, those forms of speech should only be protected if they have factual backing. In view of recent events regarding alternative facts and fake news, this strikes at the very heart of the dilemma.
Now, more than ever, social media platforms are hubs for people to share trending articles, news stories, and columns and subsequently voice their opinion on them. If hate speech is defined as speech that attacks individuals and groups based on structural irreversible aspects of their identity, then it should be noted that many of these controversial articles are definitionally examples of hate speech. To restrict every instance of hate speech is to put social media users in monotonous bubbles; in echo chambers lacking any diversity of thought. That is the sort of safe space that is made the topic of political correctness in educational settings so prominent. By no means of advocating for rash, abrasive, and hurtful commentary to cloud the world wide web, if speech is constitutionally permissible and carries factual merit, then social media platforms are in no position to place restrictions. Providing the masses with as much information as possible, so long as that information is real prevents the kind of ignorance and closed-mindedness that causes divisive rhetoric to consume our present
culture. With all of that in mind, the sad reality is that cold malevolent social media users have used the constitutionally protected nature of some hate speech as a scapegoat. Indeed, many individuals have taken on an abusive interpretation of hate speech. Ignoring the fact that not all hate speech is legal under a court ruling, hate speech under the term fighting words are not permissible under the rule of law.
Essentially what eventually became known as the fighting words doctrine outlined that words that inflict injury or tend to incite immediate breach of the peach shall not be deemed legal. Undoubtedly, there is a fine line that makes it difficult to determine what is and what is not a form of fighting words. In that regard, social media companies do have some discretion as to which forms of hate speech they will tolerate. However, well erring on the side of greater restriction may be considered safe. These platforms must be weary of their actions potentially overstretching their grounds. Thus, it is clear because the United States Constitution does uphold certain forms of hate speech, social media platforms must allow constitutionally protected speech on their websites. If not, they risk imposing upon the democratic values of the US, as well as the diversity of thoughts that this country was founded upon. The dichotomy of free speech versus hate speech is one of great contention and the worst thing that any social media platform can do, is to approach this matter with a black or white stance. Evidently complex issues demand complex
actions.