FREE SPEECH AND FALSEHOODS IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Social media has become a main form of communication, facilitating interaction and the sharing of ideas between family members, friends, and even strangers. With this spike in virtual interactions, new regulations should be established and norms expected from users on these platforms—especially when it comes to free speech. Social media platforms must now balance the principles behind free speech with transparency and protective measures in favor of the greater good. Since rights against abuse and misinformation can overshadow concerns about censorship, purely free speech is untenable on social media platforms.

Anonymity online breeds undesirable behavior, allowing social media users to clash with little accountability. Anonymity allows individuals to freely express their beliefs without having to fear judgment; however, conflicting opinions can quickly devolve into heated arguments online. Without in-person accountability, anonymous users may never reconcile with others, leading to more and more strife on the platform. Without consequences and a frame of reference grounded in real life, users may then develop drastic and hateful viewpoints, which can culminate in violence.

Various organizations have addressed the risks of total free speech online. In January, more than two dozen human-rights experts appointed by the United Nations urged social media executives to “address posts and activities that advocate hatred, and constitute incitement to discrimination” in a statement. The Human Rights Council pointed to a moral obligation to society and consideration of long-term interests as reasons for tech moguls to focus on accountability on their platforms.

Evidence of corporate failure to regulate free speech for the greater good includes the sharp increase of racial slurs on Twitter after its acquisition by Elon Musk. According to the Network Contagion Research Institute of Rutgers University, use of racial slurs increased by 500% on Twitter within a 12-hour period. Musk is no stranger to the free-speech debate.

In fact, he offered to buy Twitter to preserve free speech on the platform, and is a staunch advocate of the right “to speak freely within the bounds of the law.” Claiming Twitter as a “digital town square” and the bedrock of a free democracy, Musk intended for the platform to exhibit a full spectrum of viewpoints. Under his ownership, Twitter restored nearly all previously banned accounts, including those suspended for harassment or spreading misinformation. These accounts include those of former president Donald Trump, commentator Jordan Peterson, and the right-wing satirical news site the Babylon Bee. While Musk’s plans to diversify discourse across the platform are laudable, it is difficult to view his intentions as entirely in the interest of free speech. Several of the restored accounts had a history of targeting minority groups such as the LGBTQ+ community. For instance, the Babylon Bee refused to delete a post that declared transgender health official Rachel Levine to be “Man of the Year.”

Aside from the increase in hateful comments, the dangerous consequences of uninhibited free speech on social media were also evident in the 2020 presidential election and Jan. 6 riots, when online misinformation led to discontent and violence. Leading up to the presidential election, Russia attempted to use social media to manipulate public perception of the electoral process, the Democratic Party, and current president Joe Biden. The U.S. Intelligence Community found the campaign’s misinformation and “fake news” influenced voters, and its success was amplified by social media. Presidential candidate Donald Trump also used social media to circulate allegations against his opponent, Joe Biden, and criticize the voting process, including through his infamous “Stop the Count” tweet. Extremist groups such as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters communicate and recruit followers using social media apps like Facebook or the encrypted messaging platform Telegram. Threats against prominent politicians such as former vice president Mike Pence, plans for the attack on the Capitol, and QAnon conspiracies that stoked the flames of insurrection were circulated on such platforms. Despite their attempts to downplay their roles in fueling the attack, social media platforms did not fulfill their responsibility to the public of moderating political propaganda. Given the high-stakes nature of the election and threat the riots posed to American democracy, digital networks should have taken a more active role in restricting misinformation and potentially harmful material.

Proponents for total free speech on social media platforms often point to its protections under the First Amendment, believing that freedom of speech and expression cannot be prohibited. But the First Amendment only protects individuals’ speech from censorship from the government, not from private corporations such as Instagram or Twitter. This precedent was set by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2019 case Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck. Although free speech is a necessary right, not all speech can be protected on private platforms.

A large part of the appeal of social media is its diverse user base of all ages and backgrounds. However, this diversity means that harmful misinformation online can be spread to a wider group of people, posing a greater danger than ever before. Social media platforms run the risk of presenting misinformation to young audiences, who may not take the time to educate themselves on the truth. Recent events such as the Jan. 6 insurrection demonstrate that it is the responsibility of social media companies to take preventative measures against further dangers. Although free speech is a merit and a right in a court of law, it cannot be a guarantee on social media or held in higher esteem than the safety of consumers.

—Written by Maddie Cheung, a Writer.