The censorship vs. freedom of speech debate
Should there be tighter rules on the internet?
It is easy to think that the internet has no boundaries, but digital journalists are governed by the same principles as print ones. Digital journalists are just as visible online as large news organisations — so it is important for us to understand legal issues that affect us.
When your stories can be read anywhere in the world — rules become fuzzy which can leave writers open to legal problems left unknown.
Online writers must remember the human beings behind the screen. This is sometimes referred to as having ‘netiquette’ — or internet etiquette.
In part, standards are actually higher online than in print journalism. Digital journalists are under scrutiny due to widespread fears of distribution of fake news and/or political bias online.
Rules of traditional news writing still apply
Journalists know what to avoid in good writing, including reporting rumours or unverified information, suppressing opinion with which one disagrees, showing political bias or using their position for personal gain.
These are completely applicable to digital journalists too — if not more so. False information spreads easier online and will get misinterpreted as news.
There is reduced credibility, and we are all responsible for increasing it again.
Posting on a personal blog or private forum is very different and adhere to standards less often, but we should aim for netiquette in everything we write.
As Craig writes in his book Online Journalism:
We’re not all robots… the [online] medium should operate as an arena of mutual respect, shared knowledge and understanding.
Copyright is a hot topic
Attribution is as important online— hyperlinking enables us to do so easily. There is no excuse.
However, there is debate whether intellectual property needs further protection now — the software market and musicians have grabbed headlines.
It is two-fold; journalists could be copied with no compensation at all. The mass of information on the internet makes it hard to trace, meaning lawsuits of this nature are rare.
On the other hand, it has created a market for public news archives, encouraging a flow of information, despite most organisations charging to view such content.
The Columbia Journalism review argue that:
further protection of intellectual property will spur innovation.
Extending copyright may increase incentive for creators, but there is little understanding of how the part of the law truly works online.
Heald says copyright law should regulate creative industries on a case-by-case basis, rather than a ‘one size fits all’ model.
How would this affect journalists?
If information became a valued commodity, journalists ability to research anonymously and use unnamed sources would be threatened. Investigative writers sometimes have to work that way to get the truth and ‘seek to report it’
With tighter rules, journalists would get into legal trouble regularly.
If everyone was tracked, sources may not want to run the risk of being identified and publishable information would be limited.
The ability to quickly change a story on a web page raises new issues — most cases are resolved with editing rather than in court.
The responsibility of social media
Increasingly, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube are expected to police the user-generated-content they host online.
Yet under the law, they are fairly free to do what they want. There is one phrase in Section 230 that saves social media executives from being sued every day:
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”
More often that not, this prevents lawsuits, even if the site moderated content that could impose harm, such as hate speech, terrorism and violence, like the case in Hamas.
Without Section 230, social media would cease to exist.
Even if social media should be held responsible, it would be impossible to keep an eye on it all —
Facebook has 2.45 billion users alone.
Algorithms are scapegoated as responsible — they prioritise the content you see, which has some flaws. We are not robots. Robots cannot do what we can. If relied on to censor content, they would likely block out useful information, too.
What the law says about hate speech
The First Amendment protects social groups or individuals on the basis of race, religion, belief, disability or similar. It also guarantees freedom of the press, but freedom has never been absolute.
Hate speech is only punishable when considered threatening or a cause of serious harm. As with most law, it is easy to misinterpret.
Policing or censorship?
Section 230 is under attack, with some arguing that it allows social media companies to get away with too much.
The alternative argument is that moderation of social media content would defeat the freedom of speech the platforms allow. According to John Morris,
“There’s very little in terms of direct regulation the federal government can do without congressional action, and frankly I think that’s a positive thing”
Harvard professor Lessig made this argument in Code and Other Laws of Hyperspace:
Changes to the network to facilitate online commerce and government tracking of crime could threaten the core values of privacy and freedom of information.
Others believe they are being censored. Most recently, President Donald Trump drafted an executive order and suggested that social media companies are favouring liberal views over conservative ones, censoring the latter.
This said, growing concerns suggest that there will be updates to the law soon. Though Trump’s order may not go through, the debates around journalism ethics will certainly continue.
However, as Amy Webb states:
These new rules, regulations and policies won’t be modeled to understand their broader, next-order implications, or whether they can be enforced, as technology and science continue to evolve.
Thanks for reading.
Follow me for updates:
