Regulation of Free Speech on Social Media - Research Paper Example

Regulation of free speech on social media Regulation of free speech on social media Introduction In the world today, internet has unquestionably posed numerous challenges for balancing right to non-discrimination or equality and on the other hand freedom of expression. Irrespective of an individual’s nationality, ethnic, social or religious background, sexuality and gender, every person have equal rights and is liable to enjoy equal rights. Freedom of expression facilitates exercise of human rights (Fisher, 2001). However, free speech which has been provided by internet has played a role in undermining people’s human rights. Considering the rate and the scale in which messages can be spread through the internet raises a question of under which conditions should the freedom of expression should be restricted legitimately. Freedom on one hand should not violate the rights of others on the other hand and be termed as democracy. This implies that there should be regulation of free speech on internet. However, this should not deny people the freedom of speech. This forms this documents base of argument that social media need to be treated as another public forum hence to be regulated accordingly. Discussion Factual background Balancing between the freedom of expression and promoting equal rights for the entire internet users is the key issue here. Democracy should bring equity to all people. This implies that people have their rights of freedom while at the same time they are restricted from violating the rights of others through what they post on internet. This raise a question on how can this equity be realized in the society. The best way to approach this whole issue is amending the existing law so as to define objectionable content (Hana & John, 2013). To begin with for the freedom of expression to be criminalized, it might not necessary be that the content is objectionable in the public’s perception. Precisely, it entails strong disagreements on dearly-held practices, habits, values and beliefs that fortification of the freedom of expression tend to matter most. The right to offend, shock and disturb is integral to freedom of expression’s right and not contradictory to it. All the attempts to define objectionable contentshould incorporate the fact that there is a critical difference between what the society consider objectionable, and what is objectionable from a legal perspective (Lunt & Livingstone, 2012). Every nation in the world today recognizes and observes right to the freedom of speech as well as expression. However, freedom of expression does not guarantee people to be conveying immoral and indecent information as well as law defamation and incitement in the name of the freedom. Such content is automatically objectionable since it poses the security as well as the values of the members of the society in danger. The violation of social ethics and endangering the lives of people through defamation of law or incitements should form the base of defining the content that socially objectionable and legally objectionable. In other words, when defining the content that need to be restricted, it is important for the legislators to incorporate both the legal and the social parameters since they are equally important. The legislators might concentrate on the legal background only dealing with the information that is defaming the law while on the other hand members of the society’s moral ethics are decaying (Kovacs, 2014). This implies that the government will be dealing with few established criminals while the entire society is being prepared to join the group of crooks. A peaceful society is the one that is morally upright. In other words, both aspects are equally important when legislation of the laws to deal with regulating free speech is being done. Although many people are against regulation of free speech, they need to consider the effects of some of the speeches made on social media. Some of the texts tend to endanger the lives of ordinary citizens (Hana & John, 2013). Such texts include the racial or incitement based texts. Although freedom of expression is essential, the safety of human life should be prioritized. Similarly, exposure of pornographic materials and other nude stuff to all the internet users exposes even the minors to them hence corrupting their morals. This implies that the society will be raising a generation with corrupted morals. Considering both the safety of the members of the society and their moral uprightness, regulation of free speech is urgently required before things goes out of hand. The increased texts on social media which contain immoral and indecent content are as a result of lack of enough parameters to control the quality of the information being conveyed through social media. The first American amendment indicates that every person has a right to express himself/herself without constraint or interference by the government. However, it prohibits speeches such as fighting words and advocacy of an illegal activity. The other prohibitions incorporated in the first amendment are in the commercial advertisements’ sector (Fisher, 2001). The commercial advertisements prohibited are those which are obscene, profane, defaming and copyrights. This reveals that individual’s speeches have not been regulated comprehensively. The first amendment has left a significant gap unattended as far as regulating the social media’s free speech. The prohibition which has been put in the texts that contain fighting messages and inciting speech need to be applied in several other aspects related to social media’s free text (Michael, 2014). It is hence clear that what is required is just advancing the prohibitions or regulation to other essential aspects which are affecting some members of the society adversely. For equity to be realized, a fair means of defining objectionable speech in the social and legal frameworks need to be established. This can help in maintaining the freedom of speech and ensure internet users are only viewing substantial information. People have come out strongly to oppose any attempts of regulation of free speech on social media on the grounds of the violation of freedom of speech and expression. However, some cases and stories reveal the need to having the free speech regulated. In October 2010, Tara who was Anthony Elonis’ wife moved to court after reading a text from her former husband on faced that was a threat to her. The message read “There’s one way to love ya but a thousand ways to kill ya. I’m not gonna rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts.” This is truly an unacceptable text and by all means this need to be highly condemned and reveals the essence or regulation of what is being posted on social media. Some nations, however, have started criminalizing utterances or publication which is blasphemous. In Britain for instance, a 15 year old girl was arrested for posting a video when burning a Koran. This reveals some nations have appreciated the necessity of regulating free speech especially on social media.   Legal background Through the legal processes have been trying to control the free speech on social media with the help of the first amendment. It is worth noting that the provisions available in the first amendment are not enough to control indecent and immoral free speech successfully. Over the past five years, the federal legislation has been working on preventing children’s access to pornographic materials. The first effort was through the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA). They criminalized transmission of indecent or obscene messages to the recipients who are under 18 years(Fisher, 2001). It also prohibited displaying or sending any message, whose content violates community standards, reveals excretory or sexual activities or organs to a person who is under 18 years. CDA was, however, criticized widely by the civil libertarians succumbing to challenging that statute constitutionally. In the year 1997, the American Supreme Court struck the statute down on the grounds that it violated in several ways the First amendment. They claimed that violation took place because the statute restricted speech on its content hence could not be justified as a place, manner and time regulation (Kovacs, 2014). The second reason was that the statute’s references to patently offensive and indecent messages were vague constitutionally. Another reason was that the statute did not exempt from its restriction sexually explicit material with educational, scientific or any other redeeming social value. This reveals a perfect trade of social ethics with freedom of speech. The first amendment does not have what it takes to control speech that is violating the community standards. Similarly, free speech on being a threat has been another aspect that has been legally approached (Michael, 2014). It is important to determine when a communication through the internet is inflictive or it is threatening to inflict. In a Jake Baker’s case of 1994, Baker who was an undergraduate in Michigan University contributed sexually explicit and sadistic short stories to the public through the internet. In one of the stories Baker described how he and his companion sexually abused, tortured and killed a young woman. This text was termed to be troubling to some readers. Another internet user by the name Arthur Gonda joined baker in his speech where they shared and discussed sadistic fantasies and methods they could use to kidnap as well as torture a lady in the Baker’s dormitory. When this conversation came to light, Baker was found to have violated 18 U.S.C. 875(c) which indicates that any person who communicates threats of kidnaping or threatening to injure another person shall be liable to imprisonment of not more than five years. Baker moved and quashed the indictment claiming that his statements were not true threats. Baker’s case, however, failed to rise to the level of prosecution due to lack of serious intention to inflict a bodily harm (Lunt & Livingstone, 2012). It is hence evident that enough has not been done in regulating free speech on social media. However, some nations have started appreciating the necessity of regulating free speech and hence started proposing laws and amendments that will facilitate regulation of free speech. A Russian Duma for instance have made a proposal of enactment of a law that will be against making speech which will insult others on the basis of their religious beliefs or making abusive remarks against a given religion. Analysis The above two discussions, the factual and legal backgrounds have clearly indicated where the society is as far as controlling free speech on social media is concerned. As far as freedom of speech is required, decent and upright speech through internet is also essential hence greatly required (Michael, 2014). It is clear that the First Amendment or the available statute of controlling the free speech on internet does not have the enough parameters to ensure that speech conveyed through internet is decent and does not violate the community value or violate threat any one. The provisions in the statutes are limited to a great extent. The case that was filed by CDA was to the community interest and hence it could have been embraced since it was to the advantage of the entire society. However, the proposals of the statute were found to violate the first amendment and the statute ended up being struck down. This reveals how the amendment is limited since it could have accommodated that statute on the basis of community’s interest. Similarly, Baker’s case reveals a clear threat of kidnapping. However, under the interpretation of the first amendment Baker’s case did not rise to have him prosecuted. It is in context to argue that Baker was supposed to be prosecuted. His speech reveals a sense of the threat of kidnapping (Kovacs, 2014). Although, his speech was not true, it gives room for other people with ill intentions to spread threatening speech confidently. This is because he or she has the assurance that the first amendment does not have power to prosecute him/her. Prosecution of Baker would have warned other people with such intentions to avoid them since they are assured of facing the law for conveying speech with content threatening some members of the society. Similarly, members of the society are not also conscious of the possible effects of free speech on social media which does not incorporate the public or community interest. This is because they were the first group to criticize the CDA over their statute over conveying pornographic materials to the society (Lunt & Livingstone, 2012). It is essential for them to realize the possible effects of such speech since they are corrupting the morals of these young members of the society. This is a significant problem because the society which will be raised will be of corrupted morals and hence the worst is definitely cooking. These aspects points to the document’s point of interest free speech need to be regulated just as public forums are under regulation. It is very clear that the available law does not have enough provisions to regulate free speech effectively. This is because some individuals are able to violate community values and go free since the first amendment does not have enough power to prosecute them. Similarly, some aspects that are very essential to the well-being of the society can fail to be implemented on the grounds of violating the first amendment or the available statute (Michael, 2014). This clearly reveals that the available statute need some review so that it can be able to incorporate aspects that promote community well-being. Conclusion The above discussion has revealed the exact status of the free speech on social media. The first amendment offers some prohibitions like law defamation and incitement. However, other crucial aspects like conveying indecent speech or content have not been covered by the available laws and statutes. This has given people room to convey speeches of any nature which are imposing negative effects to some members of the society and go unpunished. This is because the available statutes do not have provisions that can prosecute someone on the basis on his or her speech. Democracy which has been keen to ensuring people has freedom of speech and expression, failed to cater for the effects that can arise once this freedom is violated. Lack of sufficient laws to make sure that rights of every individual are well protected is very dangerous especially in this generation. This is because a certain group of people will be advantaged while the other will be marginalized.This clearly reveals that the available statutes need to be amended to incorporate definition of objectionable texts legally and socially so as to regulate free speech comprehensively. References Fisher, W., (2001).Freedom of Expression on the Internet. Harvard law school Hana, S. N. A.-D., & John, A. H. (2013). Social Media and Strategic Communications. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, GB. Kovacs, A., (2014). Regulating social media or reforming section 66A? Our recommendations to the Law Commission of India.Internet Democracy. Lunt, P. K., & Livingstone, S. M. (2012). Media regulation: Governance and the interest of citizens and consumers. Los Angeles: Sage. Michael, T., P., (2014).Social Media: Legal Challenges and Pitfalls for Law Enforcement Agencies. FBI Law Enforcement bulletin. Read More