Freedom of Speech on Social Media

Free speech has invariably been praised, since its introduction as a human right, as a fundamental building block of any democratic society. Those who live in societies with a higher degree of free speech value it greatly and tend to view other societies without it in a negative light, often regarding them as oppressive. Democratic societies, by their nature, are supposed to be representative of the societies’ people, giving the citizens the power to choose leaders and influence politics and government in some manner, and as a matter of the utmost importance to the democratic process, free speech allows information and opinions to be conveyed to the public “in ways that are free of domination, manipulation, and distortion by government and powerful groups” (page 90). It is indeed of great importance, since such hindrance of open and honest discussion would allow the public to be influenced and controlled by the powerful, effectively flipping democracy on its head, and rendering people as oppressed as those whom advocates of free speech look down on. Furthermore, freedom of speech is invaluable in attaining self-fulfillment, justice, and political participation, since it allows one to, according to Ward (2011) “resist the conforming pressures of majorities and society in general”, is tied to “values such as impartiality”, and gives citizens “a means to express their views and to take part in decision-making”(page 91–92). Freedom, however, is not without constraints. Social media websites, though they appear to be a platform for absolute freedom of speech, instead provide a platform for aggressive expressions of opinion, where freedom of speech is used to silence others and suppress their opinions.

Traditionally, freedom of the press was fought hard for, as journalists struggled against tyrannical governments and corrupt powers to overcome limiting rules on what could be published. Eventually, that freedom was won, and by the end of the nineteenth century, the press grew so popular and was viewed with such liberal hope that it was heavily monetized and that “London commuters […] fought over newspapers at railway stations” (Ward, 2011, page 98). According to Ward (2011), during the twentieth century, however, disillusionment arose over the libertarian principles of the press, as it was observed that the financial incentives behind the media replaced real news by profitable content, and that journalists were susceptible to personal bias and manipulation (page 100). Nowadays, laws and regulations exist, that are intended to limit what can be expressed in the media, which target defamation, hate speech, and release of classified or private information, among others. To an extent, these have had the desired effect, as such abuses of free speech pertaining to the listed examples are seldom seen in the mainstream media, but social media does not adhere to the same restrictions due to its sheer size, mass participation, and ease of access. In fact, the internet is often regarded as a place where aggressive discussions, invasive content and bullying tactics thrive with no repercussions. It is, therefore, very plausible, and rather evident, that some journalists with ulterior motives would act as catalysts to such behavior, using it to promote a particular ideology or point of view, and consequently undermining democracy which relies on people “willing to transcend their own interests and ideologies” in favor of fairness and objectivity (Ward, 2011, page 113). The above mentioned behavior is one that has been especially noticeable during the US presidential elections of 2016, as insults are constantly traded between supporters of both candidates on Facebook, but civil discussion is hard to come by.

News pages on Facebook also set the stage for these arguments by presenting stories with particular moods designed to invoke emotional responses.

Though the current state of social media gives an impression of a diversity of opinion, it actually gauges the merit of an opinion by the volume of the people who agree with it, who are often unwilling to discuss it civilly, while minorities are usually assumed to be wrong. As we can’t expect people to adjust their approach on a mass scale of their own accord, we must hold the media companies to a high standard of integrity, since they have a profound effect on how their consumers think and act. Rather than merely placing restrictions on obvious abuses of free expression, such as defamation and fabrication, policies should be put in place holding purportedly objective online media companies accountable for selectively choosing information and deliberately exaggerating or twisting information under the guise of the freedom of press. This may seem like a form of censorship, but true censorship lies in purposefully withholding information from the public for personal interests, which goes against the very essence of journalistic integrity. Manipulating information also serves to reinforce uninformed opinions and stir up emotions among many people, giving them false confidence and stubborn attitudes, and they, in turn, ignore or silence others with opposing or unpopular views, thereby robbing them of their free speech.

REFERENCES

Ward, Stephen J. (2011) Ethics and the Media: An Introduction . Cambridge Applied Ethics.