Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Essay 1
Student I.D. -200727571
November 2015
Word count: 2,550
To what extent is freedom of speech regulated online and do such current
measures serve in the best interests of society?
receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers (United Nations, 1948). With this in mind, it shall
be the aim of this essay is to critically evaluate the current regulatory
responses used to address concerns raised over our right to freedom of
speech made within the networked realm. By focusing on the countryspecific difficulties in addressing acts of speech, to understanding the role
of intermediaries in the governance of the internet; the subsequent
increasingly added pressures placed upon by states and questionable
organisations, it is in the conclusive view of this essay to assert that such
measures pose a particularly negative outlook for the notion of an
individuals right to freedom of speech and therefore suggests the need
for revision of such regulatory responses.
In respect to ascertaining whether current regulatory measures towards
our right to freedom speech truly serve in best interests of society, it is
important to understand that in regard to acts of hate speech, this poses a
considerable dilemma when dealing with content within Europe and the
United States. It is defined as any message that promotes hatred on the
basis of race, religion, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or national origin
(Boyle, 2001:53).
In most western European countries, the adoption of hate speech laws is
commonplace and the logic behind doing so can be seen in the intention
of protecting the dignity of its inhabitants, to ensure their identity, selfworth, social and political inclusion is upheld. Governments that punish
those who bring undue harm onto others are committed to the ideals of
egalitarianism (Delgado and Stefancic, 1997) and in one sense can be
congratulated for their efforts to ensuring that the voices of the most
susceptible to targets of hate speech are not silenced and their
participation in broader public debates remains intact (Vick, 2005). Both
Germanys Constitutional Court and following the Race and Religious
Hatred Act 2006 in the UK, for instance, persecutes those found guilty of
intent to incite racial hatred. While the sense in carrying out such
measures are justifiable, it also directly comes at a cost to an individuals
right to freedom of speech; so much so that when hate speech laws
adopted by national governments have been challenged on free speech
grounds in international tribunals, these challenges have usually failed
(Vick, 2005:45). The efficacy of hate speech laws imposed by
governments are drawn into question, given that by design, they are there
to protect the most marginalised citizens, yet often is the case that those
they serve to protect are most likely to be drawn to extremist ideologies
(Vick, 2005). Most alarmingly perhaps are the chilling effect hate speech
laws might pose for all forms of controversial expression, begging the
question of when and where do we draw the line, and at what point does a
government go too far in the censorship of material, mirroring that of
something more like an authoritarian state? On the contrary, there is
weight in the argument that policy concerning acts of free speech in the
United States might be viewed as more beneficial to citizens and to
society at large. For instance, providing the dissemination of online
speech that advocates racial violence but does not actively incite it, this
will be protected unlike in the UK per se. This is because of the paramount
importance that the First amendment of the Constitution has in the
protection of a US citizens autonomous right to free expression, even in
cases deemed particularly controversial by the global community.
Seemingly, through the adoption of a laissez-fairs approach to acts of
speech seen as contradictory to public opinion, the USA affords an equal
space in which reason and truth can emerge triumphant through a free
trade in ideas and statements regarded as false can be vigorously
rebutted instead of sanctioning by the state (Schauer, 1982; Vick, 2005).
In this way, citizens are granted equality regardless of how obscene or
immoral their words might sound. One idea might be to think about the
use of an online public forum such as Reddit wherein a user may post
homophobic comments about another person. Public denunciation of
hateful speech serves a societal interest as it allows the public to hear all
voices in the debate which are necessary in order to make an informed
decision on what constitutes as truth. If we were to convict he who
challenges the norm it may only in effect, lead to intensified feelings of
resentment and provide a cloak of martyrdom for those expressing
pernicious views (Vick, 2005:51). Moreover, as put succinctly by one BBC
article, in the act of shutting down free discussion, we will never know
who is right the heretics, or those who try to silence them (BBC, 2015).
Subsequently, comparing legislation between the United States and
Europe would in this case point to the US as a more favourable system to
look to when thinking of our right to freedom of speech.
While it may be that countries one might regard politically, socially and
culturally similar, as has been noted this is not always the case for
determining the legal implications of disputes over certain free speech
instances. Nonetheless, there are common features involved in the
process of content regulation that cross borders and should subsequently,
be taken into consideration when understanding how speech is regulated
online and whether it operates in a way most beneficial to society. With
this in mind, it is imperative discuss the role of intermediaries in the
regulation of content, specifically identifying the use of blocking and thus,
addressing concerns that arise with it. Due to the decentralised and
international nature of the internet, it is often seen that the process of
regulation lies with that of private intermediaries (Alder, 2011; Boyle
1997; Swire, 1998) and in light of this, such intermediaries have taken
steps in order to adequately meet the needs of internet users. One
method of doing so is that of filtering or blocking which refer to
technologies which provide an automatic means of preventing access to
or restricting distribution of particular information (McIntyre and Scott,
2008:109). The use in filtering out content may in one sense be seen as
contributory to societal interest if we are to consider things such as child
pornography or indecent content that may fall into the hands of minors,
both of which do not have a place in society. Similarly, filtering
mechanisms have proven to be beneficial in the curtailment of spam in
emails as well as the prevention of copyright infringement. But the
arguments weighted against filtering seem by contrast, tenfold. The
Delgado, R and Stefancic, J. 1997. Must We Defend Nazis? New York: New
York
Lessig, L. 2006. Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. Cambridge: MA
McIntyre, T.J. and Scott, C. 2008. Internet Filtering: Rhetoric, Legitimacy,
Accountability, and Responsibility, in Brownsword, R & Yeung, K. (eds.).
Regulating Technologies. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp.109-124.
Schauer, F. 1982. Free Speech, Cambridge: CUP, pp 15-34; Marshall, W, in
defence of the search for truth as a First Amendment justification. 1995.
30 Georgia L Rev 1.
Swire, p. 1998. Of Elephants, Mice and Privacy: International Choice of
Law and the Internet. [Accessed 10 November 2015] Available from:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=121277
United Nations, 2015. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, United Nations, 1948. [Online]. [Accessed 7 November 2015].
Available from: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Vick, D. 2005. Regulating Hatred, in Klang, M & Murray, A (eds.), Human
Rights in the Digital Age. London: Glass House Press, pp. 41-53.
Wikipedia, 2015. Aaron Swartz. [Online]. [Accessed 9 November 2015].
Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
Zuckerman, E. 2010. Intermediary Censorship. In Deibert, R. Palfrey, J.
Rohozinski, R and Zittrain, J. (eds.). Access Controlled: The shaping of
Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace. MIT Press: MA. Pp. 71-85.