COM 329 — Assignment 1: Was the removal of James Foley’s beheading from Twitter justified?

When it comes down to media and ethics, it’s hard to find the right balance. Because the media is accessible to virtually anyone and everyone, more conflicts arise.

On August 19, 2014, a video of American journalist and video reporter, James Foley, being beheaded by the terrorist organization, ISIS, went viral and ultimately caused social media to go crazy.

Many, including celebrities such as actress and activist, Mia Farrow, took on to Twitter and voiced their opinions on the matter.

Even Foley’s family kindly requested that everyone respect Foley and his family’s privacy.

Shortly after, Twitter’s CEO, Dick Costolo announced that Twitter would be suspending any account that shared images from the video of James Foley’s beheading.

Now, this case us leaves us wondering: does Twitter have the right to censor its users in such a way?

Surely, Twitter showed some form of ethics towards Foley’s family by following their wishes, but what would have happened if Twitter had never taken on the ban. And where does the greater good of the audience lie?

In this scenario, those who would like to comply to the Foley family’s wishes, could have chosen to actively ignore the video, spoken their mind, and used whatever hash tag they pleased (ex: #RespectJamesFoley). Some would even argue that trying to make the video go away could be an act of trivializing Foley’s death. He was after all a photojournalist.

@maureenjahmed tweeted, “Out of respect for James Foley and his family, don’t share the video. Let’s not give this demonic group any more power #ISIS #condemnIsis”

Yes, the video is very graphic, but viewing will not give ISIS more power. It might however, alert people of the dangers and terrorism of this “demonic group”.

Tom Doran (@portraitinflesh) tweeted, “Don’t share the video. Don’t share the pictures. Don’t work for ISIS. Share images of James Foley’s life instead. #ISIS”

Here, Tom Doran seems to slip into a slippery slope fallacy. Sharing the video does not mean that you instantly work for ISIS. In addition, someone might consider the video a part of James Foley’s life and imply that it is okay to share the video or graphic images from the beheading.

It seems that in such a case, Twitter should have followed a more utilitarian approach, especially considering the numerous amount of users they have. A utilitarian approach would include acting on what would result in the most pleasure by inflicting the least harm. As Ward puts it,“They aim to be fair and objective in calculating the expected utility. The utility of any group is no more important than the utility of any other group.” (2011. Ward. What is Ethics’ in Ethics and the Media, Cambridge University Press.) The public can be given the option of choosing to watch or share the video or to actively ignore it, which could even make an even bolder statement to ISIS.

The freedom of speech does seem to be what Twitter claims to be all about, even if it is in just 140 characters.