Facts or Fiction
The ban on an infamous fake news website brought the meaning of ‘free speech’ back to the spotlight.
Last week, content from the far-right, conspiracy theory website Infowars was removed from some of the world’s largest content platforms including Apple, Youtube, Facebook and Spotify. After receiving backlash, Twitter recently followed suit and suspended two of Alex Jones’ accounts . The suspension, however, is only scheduled for a week and both accounts are still visible to the public.
Jones, the creator of Infowars, is infamous for spreading conspiracy theories accusing the U.S. government of creating staged tragedies as well as demonizing victims of tragedies and their families.
Various conservative and far-right groups are arguing against the decision to restrict Jones’ content. Despite the fact that Jones’ content contain several harmful and inaccurate facts, those groups view the restriction as an infringement of Jones’ First Amendment rights.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects five basic freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of speech for the public and the press, freedom of assembly and freedom to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Although the First Amendment provides U.S. citizens the rights to express themselves, that right does not necessarily cover all forms of speech. According to the various press releases from the social and content platforms, Infowars was removed from those respective platforms for violating the platforms’ hate speech policies.
Conservative groups are advocating for their right to have freedom of speech, but can a form of speech that causes significant harm to groups of individuals be considered as protected speech?
A definition of hate
Although the term ‘hate speech’ does not have a single legal definition under U.S. law, there is a general understanding among different variations.
US Legal generally defines hate speech as any form of communication used only to express hatred toward people based on their social identities, such as race, gender, religion or disability, that can provoke violence toward those groups of individuals.
According to the Freedom Forum Institute, unprotected speech can be categorized as: Obscenity, words intended to incite hatred or violence, defamation, child pornography, perjury, blackmail, incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats and solicitations to commit crimes. As such, hate speech is a form of unprotected speech prohibited subject to governmental regulations.
From words to actions
The Trump era throughout the past years has seen an increase in the number of hate crimes across the board.
During the weeks and months following the presidential election, several U.S. cities reported a significant increase in crimes targeting groups based on their social identities.
New York City experienced five times more hate crimes during the weeks immediately after the election results. In the state of California, Los Angeles experienced a 29 percent increase in hate crimes during the same period of time.
Trump’s rhetoric that specifically targets minority groups has encouraged prejudiced behavior among people with those mindsets. The lack of punishment and condemnation on Trump’s part also furthers the idea that the current standards of bigotry are acceptable.
The current rate of anti-Muslim hate crimes during the Trump administration are at an all-time high, even when compared to the rates of anti-Muslim hate crimes during the Bush administration following 9/11.
Although several factors can affect the number of hate crimes, it’s clear that the increase in anti-muslim, anti-black, anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ ideology within the recent years has only helped increase those rates.
A recent study found evidence that anti-Muslim hate crimes had increased in correlation to the frequency of President Trump’s racially-charged, anti-Muslim tweets.
It’s easy to be misinformed
Social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter continue to steadily grow as the main source of news for U.S. adults. The same study found that the increase in social media usage is also correlated to the increase rate of hate crimes.
It has become easier for people to read and report on things from a more personal point of view by using social media, however, the lack of moderators or gatekeepers allows false information to reach the public. This has a harmful effect as it not only spreads misinformation, but it also gives people a false impression and understanding of what is going on in the world.
During the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Jones claimed that the tragedy was a hoax and accusing victims and their family members of the massacre to be actors. His claims exhorted fans of Jones and his website to harass the families of Sandy Hook victims, even five years after the tragedy.
Jones is currently facing a defamation lawsuit for those claims.
More than just a difference in opinions
Claiming that Jones’ is being restricted due to a difference in opinions is oversimplifying the situation.
The people and groups defending Jones and his claims need to understand that even if they have the rights to express themselves, that is freedom of speech, that right does not excuse them from facing the consequences of their words and actions.
The restriction placed on Jones is not censorship. It’s simply just a result of the claims he made.
But that’s just my personal opinion.
Do you think social and content platforms should restrict opinions on their websites? Share your thoughts with us!
