Hate Speech or Free Speech: Can we regulate social media?
Is hate speech derived from free speech? What is hate speech? If hate speech is derived from free speech, then should countries have a law against speaking or expressing freely?
We have so many questions related to free speech & hate speech, but do we have the answers yet?
The basic human rights of Australia are based on principles of dignity, equality and mutual respect which are shared across religions, cultures & philosophies. These basic human rights provide the liberty of free speech which makes people feel more open towards the community and a place where they are free. Meanwhile, the time has changed, and people take advantage of the freedom of speech. Taking advantage of free speech has given birth to hate speech in the world of social media especially.
Hate speech is not accepted in any form of media and is strictly prohibited by social media platforms. For example, terms & conditions of Twitter is, “We believe in freedom of expression and open dialogue, but that means littler as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up. In order to ensure that people feel safe expressing diverse opinion and beliefs, we prohibit behavior that crosses the line into abuse, including behavior that harrasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another user’s voice.”
Free speech has become a vital aspect of using the internet today. Co-operative features such as wikis, blogs, and social networking have changed media from being a traditional one-way broadcaster to two- way communication where anyone can participate and share their opinions. We all have a voice that can be heard now. However, it has gradually become clear that many chose to abuse this freedom in order to promote racism, sexism, and terrorism online; Hate speech.
The Christchurch shooting was a heart-melting incident that New Zealand faced on the 15th of March 2019. The incident was recorded and live-streamed through social media platforms by the attacker to gain supporters and spread his hateful message worldwide. One of the perfect examples to understand the difference between free speech and hate speech and to know where our choices begin in social media platforms. An alleged terrorist used the free and simple tools on social media to send his propaganda for the massacre to the entire before even police made an arrest.
The video about the incident was available on social media platforms before it took place and was circulated worldwide. On Twitter, the alleged terrorist used ‘pinned tweet’ which takes users straight to the content. On YouTube, the video was given play by play analysis. On platforms like Reddit and 8chan, the video was welcomed and amplified by communities where hate speech was normalised. And on Facebook, the alleged terrorist used the tool of live streaming. The platforms tried to get rid of it however, user can find the loophole to use the tools and publish their content. This is where free speech is converted to hate speech using social media platforms. However, no action was taken against it. Why?
After this tragedy, the world has been shouting for internet regulations. However, it is not as cut and dry as it may seem. The complexity of finding a balance between regulating hate speech and still permitting free speech. Hate speech needs to be legislated while free speech must be protected. And that, of course, leaves us with the inevitable question: if certain opinions and statements are to be censored by gatekeepers how are we still able to label this as free speech?
Traditional media such as tv and radio have always had an intentional broadcast delay when broadcasting to the public. This is used to prevent mistakes or inappropriate content. No such safety can be found on any social media platform.
“The security delay requires production resources to be effective. Individuals using something like Facebook Live, on their own, can simply stop the feed or choose not to post it after the live stream is over. With such huge numbers, in the millions, of live streams and shares each day, there is no way for platforms to have people monitoring the content and able to make use of a delay.”
After the Christchurch terror attack, the debate on social media regulations has been everywhere. Australia plans to implement strict social media laws preventing the live streaming of violent crimes. If successful, Australia will be the first country to punish social media platforms if violent and threatening content is not removed quickly enough.
Many people in New Zealand showed their empathy to the people who have suffered and lost dear one during the incident. Like many people, Ajay, who have spent 10 years in New Zealand and currently living in Melbourne expressed his opinions on the use of social media related to the incident.
“I love New Zealand and its people. They have wholeheartedly welcomed me to their land, and I felt safe as I feel in my home for 10 years. Such an incident has left me horrified and stuck with the notion that which world are we living in. And indeed, I believe, social media played an important role. Not only Christchurch shootings but many jihadi terror attacks have social media involvement. We have the freedom of speech but that does not give us the liberty to spread hate and terror among people. I feel responsible too because it is our choice to spread and react to it. I hope things come around soon with a collaborative effort of government, social media companies and people like us. God bless New Zealand and the rest of the world”.
People within the Muslim society, Mokhtar Mohammed, an imam at Swinburne University, was devastated when hearing about the Christchurch tragedy and the horrific live video that followed.
“People have the freedom to say and do whatever they want. But they need to understand that, for promoting hateful and vengeance in the world, there are repercussions they need to be accountable for. And it is irrespective of any medium or channel you use to promote the hateful message.”
Mokhtar Mohammed believes in the fact that love is what should be among everybody in this world to stop the hateful incidents. Being an Imam at Swinburne University, he could understand the pain and impact of the devastating incident on people who come to Mosque to worship for better and healthier lives.
Similarly, there were many people who have expressed their opinion about spreading hate through these vicious incidents and social media influences.
Andre Oboler works as a senior lecturer at La Trobe University. He is also CEO of the Online Hate Prevention Institute and deals with cybersecurity and law daily. Online Hate Prevention Institute inform and suggest social media platforms which content is harmful and should be removed. The organization has a close professional relationship to Facebook and has played a role in advising the platform on how to handle the regulation dispute evoked from the Christchurch tragedy.
“The disadvantages of being regulated by the government is that it can slow down innovation and thereby create barriers to new technology. Regulation is normally done at a national level which means other countries that don’t have those regulations are able to leap ahead. On the other side, why are regulations a good idea? Well, the value of each society differs. Its government that ultimately decides what the rules and norms for that society should be. So, if the government does that then platform providers around the world have to start adapting themselves to local expectations. It could be possible to change the system for social media platforms in order to respond quicker to unsuitable content, but that may require changes at the level of company and law. It requires a great deal of cooperation between a company and the lawmakers.”
The Washington Post published the article on Christchurch shooting explaining that social media and terrorism make a perfect fit. The columnist specifically mentions that,
“This is horrifying but not surprising. Terrorism is inconceivable without mass media. Terrorists, after all, typically operate by themselves or in small groups. (The Islamic State is one of the few exceptions: It had grown into a quasi-state before being reduced to its terrorist roots.) They cannot hope to defeat their enemy — a powerful nation-state — by brute force. They can only hope that acts of violence will call attention to their grievances and possibly generate such a powerful backlash that the resulting repression will drive more recruits into their ranks. This is why anarchists referred to their attacks as “propaganda by the deed”.
So how do we attempt to avoid similar future misfortunes being broadcasted globally? With years of experience within this subject, Andre Oboler believes he has a possible idea of how to better social media policies.
“I gave a talk for the launching of Tech Against Terrorism in Sydney. There I presented a model for how systems can be put in place using technology that the Online Hate Prevention Institute has already developed, so the public is able to report extreme content. Civil society organizations could hire a staff of active volunteers to look through these reports. They would then have the ability to elevate that so these reports could go into a priority list for the police. The idea is to empowering the public to report things but using civil society organizations and charities as gatekeepers.”
The model, whilst still being fine-tuned, has to exist in some way, shape, or form within social media use. The massive, multi-billion social media companies control all of the power at this point in time, when it comes to what can, and is, posted on social media. Andre’s, or any other model, has to be created to ensure that federal governments have the ability to withhold the data or specific IP address of the individual who is promoting online hate. With or without the Australian, or any other progressive nation having some form of control when it comes to the prevention of hate online.
It is easier for Facebook, Twitter, or any other platform to hide behind their own policy that they have put in place, and cease any control that they manage to have over their platform, but to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all members of their website is paramount.
The treatment of Muslims and other minorities on social media continues to be an issue throughout the Western world, where stereotypes and poorly researched opinions on certain segments of populations are treated so extremely poorly, with very little respect for their wellbeing, or just their general belief system. There is a major difference between free speech and informed opinions, masked behind the barrier of free speech. Members of society who promote this, and other hateful comments to create a divide, rather than choosing to welcome and respect people like they deserve to be treated.
This is something that both Andre and Mokhtar believe, especially when it comes to social media and the trail of hateful speech online. Without specific social media policy, and groups like the Online Hate Prevention Institute, who conduct fantastic prevention on social media during and after catastrophic terrorist attacks, individuals will continue to use social media as a platform for the racist, uninformed opinions that can make large portions of society ostracized within their own country.
Mokhtar Mohammed ends the interview by telling us: “Social media was built to connect with people and spread awareness about the right things. I urge all to continue doing so. And most importantly report any wrongdoings you find on social media platforms. The people who spread hate in social media platforms need to be held accountable.
Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law at New York Law School and author of HATE: why we should resist it with Free Speech, Not Censorship, explains why censoring hate speech does more harm than good. She gives a different perspective on hate speech.
Then what should we do? It still remains a debate.
In the society that we live in currently, it is integral that free speech continues to be something that exists for all people. This is a staple of our society, and people should have the ability to speak their minds when it comes to certain topics. There has to be a line that is drawn, though
