Category: Freedom Of Speech

Understanding Freedom of Speech

This is my essay on freedom of speech, and for those who don’t know what freedom of speech is, it’s the right to speak your mind and the right to freedom of expression, even if it’s offensive. Freedom of speech is also the first amendment which is on the Bill of Rights. In today’s world, no one can get jailed or fined for what they say or write. The past or origin of freedom of speech dates back to a speech by U.S. President Franklin D Roosevelt in 1941 on the 6th of January. He mainly talked about the four different freedoms like freedom of speech, freedom from want, freedom of worship, and freedom from fear.

Rights and Interpretations

We are all fortunate enough to have the freedom of speech; it is given to us as Americans living in the US under the American Constitution. We find the right to speak out and say what we believe in the first amendment of the Constitution. Freedom of speech is taken in a couple of ways; some of these are positive, and some may not have the same positive spin as I was saying earlier. Some people think we can say anything we like, no matter how controversial it may be, without fear of punishment. Some think that freedom of speech only protects speech, whereas some believe it protects art, writing, and any type of expression.

Impacts on Society and Media

Freedom of expression tends to play a huge role for the press and media as it allows different points of view as far as political views, even though they are controversial. Another benefit that comes with this freedom is people can assemble for peaceful protests. This was true in 2017, which is when the LGBT community won the right to same-gender marriage. They had the freedom to celebrate publicly and express themselves. Along with positive opinions on freedom of speech, there is also another side, the con or against freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech means we are able to say what we like about others, which can sometimes lead to misleading facts published on the Internet or media. Freedom of speech lets us assemble if we would like for peaceful protests. Although the intentions may be to keep peaceful, it is not uncommon for protests to become violent or lead to a huge political issue. Another issue could be protecting our military; though they do have the freedom of speech, the operation security could be compromised due to this.

Historical Significance of the First Amendment

“The First Amendment played a crucial role in the epic struggles of the civil rights movement of 1950 when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and others engaged in sit-ins, protests, and marches to encourage social change.” Without the First Amendment, protesters could not have assembled and voiced their work toward the end of segregation laws. Without the First Amendment, the press would not have been able to report what they believed or wanted to write about on civil rights abuses. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr exercised his First Amendment freedoms by facing arrests multiple times, all because he challenged local officials and tried to push society toward social change. This is why freedom of speech is so important and why I think it’s the most important freedom.

References:

1. U.S. Constitution. Amendment I. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment (Accessed: August 15, 2023).
2. “The Four Freedoms.” Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum. https://www.fdrlibrary.org/four-freedoms (Accessed: August 15, 2023).
3. “Freedom of Speech.” American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech (Accessed: August 15, 2023).
4. “Freedom of Expression.” United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/freedomopinion/pages/freedomofexpression.aspx (Accessed: August 15, 2023).
5. “The Importance of the First Amendment.” NewseumED. https://newseumed.org/first-amendment-freedoms/lesson-plan/the-importance-of-the-first-amendment (Accessed: August 15, 2023).

This essay is to address the concern over the debate about policing free speech, which has intensified as 8chan, a popular forum website, struggles to stay online on being unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and freedom of having personal property, that being in the form of data, violating the rights of all of those that utilize the Internet and the businesses that offer their services on the Internet, which should be protected by the Constitution under the First Amendment of freedom of speech.

This news article is discussing whether to restrict or allow companies to restrict freedom of speech on the Internet. The message board platform 8chan faces a shutdown as its hosts and providers are backing out of supporting it because it housed the manifesto of the person who shot up at an El Paso Walmart. Senator Elizabeth Warren stated that she does not believe in government intervention as that would be breaking the rights of the people, and at the same time, the safety of the people comes to mind as well. Personally, I think that freedom of speech should not be infringed upon and that violating the freedom of speech will not do anything for protecting people and will only pave the way for further governmental censorship.

Besides the infringement of freedom of speech, there is another flaw in the plan to shut down 8chan. Often on the Internet, when censorship bans take place, it only causes the users to migrate to another platform on which they can express their beliefs. As Ali Breland of Mother Jones states, “But on the Internet, shutting down one community likely means that at least some of its members will easily go to another one that’s often more extreme than the place they just left, perhaps without anyone noticing”. This is proven by the fact that 8chan itself was created as an alternative to the more renowned 4chan.

While shutting down the website completely and abruptly is an infringement on the First Amendment right of freedom of speech, anyone should agree that something needs to be done about the toxic community that would promote acts of domestic terrorism on the website. As said by Brianna Wu, “If you want to stop future mass shootings planned on #8chan, the course of action is very simple. Get a warrant, and START PROSECUTING all the blatantly illegal actions taken there. It is a crime to post stolen credit card information. It is a crime to host child pornography”. I believe that law enforcement or the website should have the right to reprimand anyone who posts or encourages posts containing illegal content such as the aforementioned manifesto as it’s abetting a crime.

When looking at why political concepts are subject to contestation, it is important to first look at how they are contested. In W.B. Gallie’s journal article ‘essentially contested concepts’ (1956, p.167), he states that such a concept can never be agreed upon even by ‘reasonable men’ as they would argue interminably (Gallie, 1956) over its meaning. This essay will use the essentially contested concept of ‘freedom of speech’ to help show how and why such concepts are contested. It is important to note that under ‘freedom of speech’ I will include ideas such as hate speech and freedom. The essay will begin by looking at what makes a concept essentially contested and how this has a specific impact on political concepts. It will then look at the idea of conceptual stretching; the theory of norm violations, and how they affect opinion; the argument of cognitive science; the importance of concepts to back up a theory; and finally, how many political concepts undermine one another. Using these points, I will ultimately conclude that political concepts are subject to contestation because they are so important in backing up theory – people will always stretch a political concept (and indeed any concept) in a way that justifies any action or idea they have because concepts ‘validate’ ideas.

WB Gallie first introduced ‘essentially contested ideas’ to the Aristotelian society in 1956 and Gray provided more clarity to this idea by noting that an essentially contested concept is one that ‘can’t be settled by appeal to empirical evidence, linguistic usage, or the canons of logic alone’ (1978, p.344). Taken further by E. Garver (1978, p.156-172), the ideas of dogmatism, scepticism and eclecticism provide reasons as to why certain concepts are contested. This point by Garver provides an important insight in to why concepts are contested, being the human way of thinking. This is, and always has been, particularly relevant to political concepts because the people using political concepts are often very dogmatic (they believe they are right, and others are wrong). To put this into perspective, if we take “freedom of speech”, an American constitutionalist would likely say that speech is an inalienable freedom and would reject any other opinion due to their strongly held belief in the constitution as ‘supreme’; whereas others would argue that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence and claim this belief to be ‘correct’ and all others wrong. Being that there is no empirical evidence as to why one definition of the concept of freedom of speech should be one or the other, dogmatism ensues. This example shows why concepts can be essentially contested specifically when it comes to political concepts, which often revolve around highly contentious issues, enhancing peoples’ dogmatism, scepticism and eclecticism as suggested by Garver.

Another reason as to why political concepts are subject to contestation is because of conceptual stretching. An idea put forward by Sartori, conceptual stretching is where a concept is distorted so it can be applied to an idea (Collier. D and Mahon. J.E. 1993), and despite often being recognised as a invalid definition of a concept, many people still stretch concepts to meet their criteria. This idea is ultimately based on interpretation and how one can interpret a concept to the point when it lacks specificity. By adapting concepts to fit a criterion (stretching the concept), the concept itself becomes more and more vague and much easier to contest. This idea is of course in terms of political concepts as, once again, a concept provides validity to a theory so will often be interpreted in a way that supports said theory. If we use the example of freedom of speech, the definition is as follows: “The right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means.”. (Amnesty, 2018). In the US, one would say that this definition of freedom of speech is justification for verbal discrimination such as racism or homophobia, however in many European countries, freedom of speech would not be considered sufficient to justify racism or homophobia. This is because in the US the definition is taken for what it is under the 1st amendment. A very famous example of this is the 2011snyder vs Phelps supreme court verdict which ruled in favour of the infamous Westborough Baptist church’s picket lines outside of soldiers’ funerals. The Westborough Baptist church chants that God hates the US because of the country’s toleration of homosexuals (CBS, 2011). On the contrary, in the UK (and other European countries) the definition is ‘stretched’ to conform to the needs of society and protect groups from abuse – to conform to what is best for the people. In the UK laws are in place to entrench this interpretation of freedom of speech, such as the public order act of 1986 which outlines that there are certain protected characteristics including race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and transgender status (Gov.uk, 2020). Any verbal abuse based on these characteristics is deemed illegal. This is just one example of how concepts can be interpreted differently, thus allowing contestation over their definitions.

Introduction

Since the 19th century, there have emerged many changes pertaining to how human beings interact and live with each other. Human beings have been set at liberty to act freely in so many aspects of their everyday living. Some of these freedoms include freedom of religion, freedom of movement, and freedom of speech among others. Freedom of speech refers to the right of every human being to express their opinions without the interference by any quarters, especially government quarters (Cram 12). Freedom of speech has its roots dating back to ancient Greece (Lukianoff 39). Ancient Greeks started free speech for all its citizens as one of their principles of democracy. This principle became popular and very fundamental during the classical period in Athens. Politics, religion and the government were topics that got discussed and criticized openly by every other Athenian, philosopher, artists and leaders. This paper mainly focuses on human beings’ freedom of speech. History of Freedom of Speech This freedom gradually spread to other parts of the world and was quickly embraced and adopted. The journey to freedom of speech in German has been a long one and a turbulent one. The adaptation of the Weimar constitution came with it the freedom of speech, freedom of association freedom of the press and many protections of citizens exercising these freedoms from the state. However, with time, the freedom of speech has been subject to limitation owing to legislative laws that criminalize, incitement, defamation of the flag, the president, the state of the republic, the national anthem, and the federal republic (Lukianoff 39). These laws also criminalize incitement to hate and violence, holocaust denial and Nazism glorification. However, political criticism does not amount to incitement and is protected by the constitution.

Does Freedom Of Speech Give People The Right To Use Hate Speech?

Freedom of speech entails individuals conveying their information and speech without any interference. Everyone in society is entitled to relay opinions without limitations. This opinions can be relayed by word of mouth or written in both digital and analog platforms. When talking about freedom of speech, we cannot avoid talking about the element of hate speech in expressing this freedom. As much as people are entitled to free speech, hate speech is not anywhere close to free speech (Cram 45).

Hate Speech

Hate speech is speech aimed at evoking hate, violence. It is a form of attack and bullying using words. This kind of misuse of free speech has made people so insensitive and the society a dangerous place. It should be handled just like other crimes such as robbery or murder. The only difference is these other crimes is that hate speech uses words to cause harm. Hate speech is so harmful in that it can affect the victim or victims mentally, emotionally or even lead to physical harm. Contrary to free speech that promotes positive criticism and discussions. Issues Surrounding Hate Speech Hate speech has led to: The emergence of violence between individuals or communities. Psychological and emotional breakdown of victims. Suicide, especially due to cyberbullying. Bias opinions.

Free Speech In Relation To Cyberbullying

The emergence of digital platforms of communication and expression has created controversy on to what extent freedom of speech should be exercised. Cyberbullying which has been so prevalent in recent years is one of the factors that has led to many questioning the role of freedom of speech in society. Cyberbullying has become so prevalent among young people on social media and has led to the loss of the victims among other forms of harm. Social networks have enhanced bullying to another level that seems altogether difficult to control by the network’s users (Hamm et al. 771). Quite often, these bullies in their rude, hateful and demoralizing comments and posts often defend their hateful speeches by saying they are expressing their freedom of speech. According to Hamm et al. (774), most of the time, their bullying is only aimed at boosting their ego and evoking reactions from people. Others think it humorous teasing and other not taking into consideration the negative effect this teasing can have on the victims. There are people who have committed suicide owing to cyberbullying while others have fallen into depression and other psychological disorders because of this form of hate speech. The worse part about cyberbullying is that, unlike physical bullying, cyberbullying stays with you 24/7 (Hamm et al. 775). You get bullied whatever time of the day or night. Through these social networks. If freedom of speech accommodates such vices, then we need to rethink our virtues as a people. We cannot accommodate such criminals in the name of exercising constitutional freedoms. Social network users need to understand that, freedom of speech does not give them the right to hate speech. The government too should make it clear in the constitution, the limits to which this freedom is to be used. We are using a constitution that was passed way before the emergence of the digital era. Thus there is a need for a revision of the clause addressing the freedom of speech, to make it accommodate social media practices.

The Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz Law

However, the government has come up with laws to regulate hate speech and speech aimed at promoting intimidation. The German government ordered that sites that do not pull down posts that are obviously illegal will face a fine of up to 50 million euros (Zuckerberg & Wu, 11). This law applies to any social network with more than two million members. These laws give social networks a maximum of 24 hours to pull down any material considered to be against the law. That means any material evoking hate, violence or incitement. This law is known as Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG) (Zuckerberg & Wu, 11). Came to effect on October 2017 after being passed as law in June. The urge to establish these laws came especially after high profile social media pages were used to spread racist remarks and fake news. According to Zuckerberg & Wu (11), the government makes available forms on the government site where citizens get to report any content that goes against the NetzDG law. Derogatory material now has up to 24 hours to be pulled down while networks have up to a week to act on complex cases. Facebook in response to this law has recruited staff as well as artificial intelligence to help in the implementation of this law by reporting any content that breaks the law (Gollatz, Felix, & Christian, 21).

The Benefits and Disadvantages of The Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz Law

This law has evoked mixed reactions among citizens with others citing that this law will lead to adverse censorship on free speech. Others cite that this law will help reduce cases of cyberbullying, fake news, incitement, and intimidation through social networks. This law will help in controlling how individuals and groups use social media. Technological advancements should lead to more positivity in society and not create a platform for brooding criminals and facilitating crimes such as cyberbullying. This law will force social media network to actively fight hate speech and incitement. This law allows individuals or groups to take legal action on any groups or individuals that go against this law, by posting any offensive material. It also ensures that individuals get to engage with technology in a more responsible manner. Keeping into consideration everyone that gets to interact with their posts on social media. It should be noted that everything on social media is accessible to a large variety of people. These people come from different walks of life, perceive messages differently and thus, is quite important to be sensitive with any material that one gets to post online. Critics, on the other hand, argue that the short time frame allowed to pull down this material will lead to networks deleting huge chunks of data, even data that may be legal. To some, this law is aimed at curtailing free speech, which is a fundamental freedom of every citizen. There are those of the view that this law will curtail free speech and citizen’s freedom to express and criticize evils in society. This law may soon be used as a tool manipulate citizen’s minds. This law gives the government control over what should be shared. There are those that argue that every citizen has the choice to mute or block any individual that seem to pose a threat to their psychological or emotional wellbeing on social networks. The freedom of speech does not allow an individual or groups the right to hate speech (Waldron 55). While exercising their freedom of speech, citizens should be mindful of the words they use on social networks. They should be careful not to use speech that demoralizes, intimidate or harm other individuals mentally or physically. There is a need for the government to sensitize the public on the rightful way of exercising their freedom of speech. Most people do not understand where the limits to freedom of speech begin. Social network users should also be advice on how to use these platforms. These platforms are meant for connectivity and not for demoralizing, demeaning and inciting other users (Whittaker, Elizabeth, and Robin 25). Social network owners should also take the responsibility of tracking down hate speech posts and pull them down while taking the necessary action on the responsible parties. Freedom of speech can only be enjoyed and of benefit to society if you exercising your free speech does not intimidate, or cause harm to another. Hate speech is a crime just like any other crime. As much as free speech gives you the power to speak freely, it does not give you the right to use hate speech (Waldron 67). Hate speech causes violence and disruption of peace on or among the affected victims.

Conclusion

Freedom of speech is a fundamental liberty for every citizen. It is a constitutional right that every citizen must enjoy. However, there is a thick line between freedom of speech and hate speech. Freedom of speech is a virtue while hate speech is a vice. Freedom of speech gives individuals the liberty to express their opinion. These opinions might be likable or not likable to the person they are directed to. Everyone should learn to respect other people’s opinions, as long as those opinions are not hateful or ill-willed. There is nothing wrong with people expressing themselves through speech, written or spoken. However, while exercising this liberty of speech, hate and negativity should not be spread there in between. To ensure that citizens do not abuse free speech, social networks in collaboration with the government have come up with strategies to curtail hate speech through online platforms. The German government has put in place a law aimed at regulating what gets posted on social networks platforms. Despite this law evoking mixed reactions among citizens, it is a law that works for the good of every social network user and will minimize instances of cyberbullying and incitement.

Works Cited

1. Cram, Ian. Contested words: legal restrictions on freedom of speech in liberal democracies. Routledge, 2016.
2. Gollatz, Kirsten, Felix Beer, and Christian Katzenbach. ‘The Turn to Artificial Intelligence in Governing Communication Online.’ (2018): 21.
3. Hamm, Michele P., et al. ‘Prevalence and effect of cyberbullying on children and young people: A scoping review of social media studies.’ JAMA pediatrics 169.8 (2015): 770-777.
4. Lukianoff, Greg. Freedom from speech. No. 39. Encounter Books, 2014.
5. Waldron, Jeremy. The harm in hate speech. Harvard University Press, 2012.
6. Whittaker, Elizabeth, and Robin M. Kowalski. ‘Cyberbullying via social media.’ Journal of School Violence 14.1 (2015): 11-29.
7. Zuckerberg, M., and P. Wu. ‘Can the law effectively regulate social media? Should it?.’ Chicago Journal of International Law 16.1 (2015): 11.

Anything you put on the internet, is there forever. An unfortunate, but almost certain fact of life, but there is a chance it does not have to be. The United States of America is often seen at the forefront of change and takes pride in being a global superpower. Despite this, it sorely lacks important privacy and data protection laws to shield its citizens online. The European Union, on the other hand, has made strides in this regard, particularly with the right to be forgotten, and is paving a path that the U.S. is slowly beginning to adopt. While it is reassuring to see the U.S. slowly begin to take steps towards more comprehensive laws, there is a lot more that needs to be done. With their unique and complicated histories, it is understandable why the U.S. and the E.U. have come to have such different laws in regards to the protection of privacy. It is important to first explore exactly what the notorious right to be forgotten is, its impact in Europe, and America’s struggle to adopt similar laws.

The right to be forgotten stipulates that:

Personal data must be erased immediately where the data are no longer needed for their original processing purpose, or the data subject has withdrawn his consent and there is no other legal ground for processing, the data subject has objected and there are no overriding legitimate grounds for the processing, or erasure is required to fulfil a statutory obligation under the EU law or the right of the Member States. In addition, data must naturally be erased if the processing itself was against the law in the first place (“Right to Be Forgotten”). The legislation first took the world by storm in 2014 when it was thrown into the spotlight by the court case Google v. Costeja. Originating in Spain, Mario Costeja Gonzalez first brought the suit against Google when he discovered that all the top search results for his name returned old debts he once owed, which he claimed severely hurt his image. His cased relied on the fact that because the debt had since been resolved, it was no longer relevant to any discussion of who he was, and should be removed (Antani 1174). As it was catapulted onto the world stage, many scholars had and still have different opinions on what the right to be forgotten should mean, and the potential consequences. Those against the law passing, primarily pointed to the sheer difficulty and burden placed on Google and other search engines. The issue is further complicated by the fact that Google offers different search results per region, so if results were removed for Europe, would that inherently mean that the U.S. search results should also be removed? Especially when in America “the First Amendment’s free-speech provision usually trumps privacy concerns” (“On Being Forgotten”). Ultimately, Europe’s highest court, the European Court of Justice, or ECJ, ruled that the data controllers, e.g. Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc., are responsible for handling and executing the requests of its users to remove content. The original ruling for the right to be forgotten stipulates that data is only removed for the region the request originates from. For example, if the complaint originates from Spain and is approved by the data controllers, then it would only be removed from Google.es, and would still be visible in Italy with Google.it. This is, however, in contention, and many lawmakers believe that it is important for all regions, regardless of the origin of the request, to see the removal of the data (Antani 1176-1178).

Many critics point to the fact that right to be forgotten could be abused by criminals who want to erase their past, however, this would not fall under valid grounds for expulsion. In fact, not only have the requests for removing criminal records been in the minority, but Google also most commonly uses its discretion to say “no” to removing data. Google has received requests for over a million URLs to be removed, and yet has left close to 52% of the links untouched (Kernighan 202). Below, in figure 1, is a breakdown of the reasons why Google rejected removing a URL in question.

Fig. 1 – Refusals made by Google for removing a URL (Reputation VIP)

It can be seen that data controllers are diligent in making sure not to simply rubber-stamp approvals for removal requests. Criminals, untrustworthy businesses, and politicians trying to cover up their past are not immediately protected by the law, as many opponents were worried they would be. Diving deeper into what a “role in public life” means, it was found to include “TV presenter, journalist, politician, business leader, [or] famous artist” (Reputation VIP).

The United States was founded on core principles found in the Constitution and subsequently amended by the Bill of Rights. These amendments limit governmental power and protect the individual liberties of every American. The First Amendment is famously known for protecting freedom of expression, stating that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (US Const., amend. I). At its core, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, a “cornerstone of democracy,” and a point of contention that many have with the right to be forgotten (Weston 4). Critics claim that the right to be forgotten would never survive in America, as they see it in direct conflict with freedom of speech. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but not once it proves to be harmful towards others, as ruled in Schenck v. United States, 1919 (Alonso). The Fourth Amendment protects against unlawful searches and seizures, protecting an individual’s privacy (US Const., amend. IV). In colliding with the First Amendment, it is typically the case that these rights are in some ways limited to private individuals, and do not extend in the same way to those that live in the public eye. Take for example the case of James Sidis, a boy genius who was hounded by paparazzi so badly, he suffered from mental breakdowns, and chose to give up pursuing a Harvard professorship, to instead live a simple, private, life, outside the eyes of the public. Unfortunately for Sidis, even in a life of seclusion, he was still subject to an article published by The New Yorker, to which he filed a law suit in response. The Supreme Court set precedence, by supporting the Second Circuit’s opinion, where “Sidis was dismissed as a public figure with no right to challenge personal publicity” (Yanisky-Ravid and Lahav 982). Despite sympathizing for Sidis, given the public humiliation he faced in the article, Judge Charles Edward Clark claimed that it is not the place of the court to give “all of the intimate details of private life an absolute immunity from the prying of the press,” due to the “high value placed on freedom of speech” (Yanisky-Ravid and Lahav 982). This is an unfortunate case, but the precedence exists to prevent those such as politicians, reporters, or other public figures, from covering up their past, where it may be critical for the public to know their history and public actions.

The U.S. has long struggled with finding the balance between freedom of speech and an individual’s privacy. Often times, as seen in the example before, the Supreme Court will rule in favor of freedom of speech over matters of privacy. Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, says that “there has been little judicial protection for ‘informational privacy,’ the right to prevent one’s private information from public dissemination when that information is true” (Glazer). This been proven true by the numerous Supreme Court cases that “ruled against a right to informational privacy” (Glazer). Take, for example, Cox Broadcasting Corp v. Cohn in 1975, where a father of a rape and murder victim sued a newscaster for revealing his daughter’s name. The father sued under the grounds of invasion of privacy, but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the newscaster, as the information was obtained legally and reportedly accurately, as such, it was protected by the First Amendment. This tragic story highlights just how engrained freedom of speech is in American culture, no matter the harm it might cause others; if it was obtained legally and is truthful, it is protected by the First Amendment. There have, however, been cases where the U.S. government has favored privacy rights. Most notably, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection, which stipulates that online services must have the parents’ permission to collect the child’s personal information, this definition being expanded in 2013 to include geolocation (Glazer).

Of course, the Founding Fathers could not predict what the landscape might one day look like, and thus with the question of privacy at hand, the Fourth Amendment has had its scope expanded over the past century. In 1928, Olmstead v. United States was brought to the Supreme Court and revolved around federal agents using information drawn from wiretapping private calls as evidence. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis made history when he argued for a “constitutional right to privacy” (Glazer). The importance of this stems from the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is there any explicit call for a right to privacy. It is equally important to note the “cold reception” it initially received, because it borrowed from “aristocratic European ideas of the law of insult” (Glazer). Highlighting a stark juxtaposition between early American and European law. A pattern that one finds when studying U.S. law, is that many are not welcoming of new or elastic interpretation of laws that they feel should remain unchanged, which explains why more progressive measures often do not survive the lower courts. While many dismissed Brandeis and his arguments for a right to privacy, in the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice William O. Douglas “found that privacy was a ‘penumbral right,’” and established it to be “implicit in the Bill of Rights” (Glazer). If the Fourth Amendment is to continue to protect the citizens from government intrusion, then we cannot continue to “rigidly apply analog-era precedents to digital-era problems” (Cole).

The U.S. government is well known for its numerous surveillance programs, and those that defend them often claim that they are willing to sacrifice some freedoms if it helps catch threats to the country. The fact is, these programs have helped catch potential terrorists, that cannot be denied. There are times, however, when the Fourth Amendment is abused. Take, for example, the case of Agron Hasbajrami, where the US government admitted to warrantlessly spying. Only after reading his emails – without a warrant – was the government able to discover his plans of trying to help a terrorist group in Pakistan. Sacrificing privacy, in the hope of increasing security is a dangerous proposition, where citizens might soon find themselves with little of either. American’s must remain diligent about fighting for increased privacy rights (Toomey). While these incidences are primarily outliers, they can and should be achieved with strictly legal surveillance.

Ultimately, the right to be forgotten has changed the landscape of the digital space in Europe, and is slowly permeating into the U.S., influencing new laws and encouraging lawmakers to question what privacy means to their constituents in the digital age. The U.S. needs to revisit the numerous intrusive government programs it has that currently spy on its citizens both domestic and abroad. The E.U. has created a solid foundation for which the U.S. can look towards and begin to model its laws on, however, given the unique history of the U.S. and its struggle of striking a balance between freedom of speech and privacy, the U.S. will need to pursue new ways to seamlessly adopt these new ideas. In 2018, the E.U. passed the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which goes further than the right to be forgotten in the fight to protect E.U. citizens’ data and privacy online. By 2020, California hopes to emulate these laws with their own California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which was signed in 2018. Technology companies are currently working towards complying with these laws, as to not face hefty crimes. California, with its CCPA and Eraser Law, prove to be an example the U.S. should look towards when creating federal laws to protect all the citizens of the United States.

1. Introduction

Technology is developing so fast nowadays that the world is more and more covered by digital productions. However, not so many people actually consider security issues about computing fields while using software and devices. The most important problems in this study field are client`s privacy when using the software and devices, and freedom of speech in coding for programmers. Such security issues in computing field are always considered with ethics, because those problems are not only the clients` responsibility, but also programmers` responsibility to think about. Therefore, this article supports the ideas that, to discuss clients` privacy and freedom of speech in coding, we must combine both roles involved: as clients, and as program builders. Also, by many means, clients` privacy issues are closely connected to freedom of speech in computing. This paper will mainly discuss how the mentioned issues are involved in people`s life, how the two topics are connected, and how to treat those issues as both program builders and clients. Because this article`s intended audience are programmers and the general public. For ease of understanding and simplicity, the article will not mention most technically relevant information in detail.

2. Clients` Privacy

2.1 Clients` Right of Privacy

Since most people are considered as a user of those products, client`s privacy is not a new topic for the public now. News keeps coming out about digital companies trying to sell their users` personal data, and hackers always trying to attack servers of big companies` such as Apple and Google in order to steal information. These privacy violations could be from very little issues to huge problems. It could be some mobile games which will secretly upload users` address book information, or insurance companies which stole your information from other sources and evaluate you whether it is worthy to sell you services.

More and more people start to realize the potential threats of posting private information into the public website, and take actions to prevent the leaking of personal information form being exposed. This is a good reaction since people`s increased awareness of their own information has made their chances of privacy violations much smaller. However, most people still believe that privacy security means only to protect privacy information from leaking, and that users can only be the victims instead of the aggressors. The right of privacy is people`s right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are part of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity (Definition from the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution). The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose. Therefore, privacy violation can be reflected in many aspects: some apps for mobile devices would require you to uninstall other specified software in order to be installed, or some apps would forcibly ask clients to open their specific accesses in their devices, such as address book access, photo access, and message access, etc. These are good examples of violating clients` privacy without involving personal information. Obviously, privacy issues don`t only show in information field, it also means a control of the privacy holder over their domain. When software companies ask clients to uninstall an irrelevant software, they are violating the users` privacy by forcibly change the user`s belongings. Also, since now flash sales online are becoming so popular, some people would use illegal software to get instant access to websites to get what they desire before others get the chance. This is also a violation of privacy because this kind of software change the rules that everyone should obey, and by doing this it makes an unfair competition which will benefit only the aggressors.

2.2 Privacy Issues as Two Roles: Clients and Program Builders

As we discussed above, privacy is not only a client`s issue but also software companies` issue. Therefore, to discuss privacy as clients, we should pay more attention to evaluating how secure a software or website is, and choose whether to accept all requirements from the producer, which includes but not limited to personal information requirement, action requirement (to uninstall other irrelevant software, or to open some accesses). Also, clients should not use illegal or unethical software which may harm other clients benefits. While dealing with software and websites in the internet, we should always ask ourselves questions: what kind of software are we using? Do we know what information are we providing to them? What is the information asked for by the company? How certainly do we know that the information provided will be secured? By asking several questions, clients should be more clearly about how to deal with requirements given by the software, and this can, to some extent, prevent clients` right of privacy from being violated by ridiculous conditions posted by software companies.

However, it is not enough to have only the users` awareness of protecting privacy, program builders also need to take great care to protect the privacy of their users. I support this argument because for most users, the digital devices are “black box”. Due to Mario Bunge, a black box means a set of concrete systems which can be used in terms of its inputs and outputs, without any knowledge of its internal workings (346). In this context, some software companies may tend to secretly load some programs into software, that users may not be able to know, to do something beyond the expected function of the software on the user`s computer. For example, there have been news reports claimed that a programmer who worked in a bank put a backdoor program into the bank interest calculator system, that will transfer the except for incomplete decimals in calculations to the programmer`s account, and others would not even know about their loss since this action is totally taken under the shadow. Therefore, although users can prevent some of their right of privacy from being violated by others, whether the users` private security is guaranteed still mostly depends on whether the software company intends to protect the privacy of its clients.

As program builders, there are also two roles: programmers and software companies` decision makers. Decision makers should always treat issues in the long run instead of the short run. In short run, an abuse of clients privacy can bring short-term benefits to the company, but in the long run, this means fewer users trusting the system anymore and eventually much less profit or even a loss. Also, programmers of software should prevent themselves from installing irrelevant and unethical programs into their software. Also, according to Rachel Bridge, it will be better but not required if the software can be open source and transparent to the public, since this action is voluntary and will make no profit to the program builders. Therefore, compared to clients, program builders usually need to consider more ethical issues in protecting clients privacy.

3. Freedom of Speech in Computing

3.1 Codes as A Language

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right should include but not limited by any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. However, it confuses people when freedom of speech comes to computing field. What kind of speech can computers present and support? I will discuss this problem in the following content.

In August 2018, Cody Wilson, who is the founder of a Texas non-profit company, posted a set of free codes and blueprints about AR-15 rifle for 3D printer, which means anyone who has a 3D printer and those codes can build such deadly weapons. However, an argument came up about whether the government should prohibit Cody Wilson from uploading his code into the Internet, because on the one hand, these data could be extremely dangerous to be published, this action means the government will not anymore be able to track those deadly weapons and check the backgrounds of a gun holder, but on the other hand, this prohibition means a violation of both Wilson`s right to bear arms and his right of freedom of speech.

Obviously, people set this argument under the background that coding is also another kind of language, people can create not exact the same code but to achieve a same goal. Also, Allison Eck, author of “Is Code Free Speech?”, argued that since “code isn’t the only language that can point to the recipe for dangerous or illegal products”, prohibiting codes to deadly weapons and dangerous products does not mean the idea that code should be considered as “a mode of expression subject to protection under the First Amendment” is rejected.

3.2 Freedom of Speech and Ethics

The discussion above shows the supportive opinion of considering codes as a language, because like other languages, codes can be a kind of expression received by other people who understand specific kind of the code. This idea also proves freedom of speech in computing. However, to discuss freedom of speech, ethical issues are always involved in. The argument about Cody Wilson keeps existing due to the fact that people always consider laws and ethics together. This is extremely complicate because laws are subjective while ethics are more objective. Another issue also comes up that the public cannot have absolute freedom and absolute secure at the same time, since they are on different sides of a scale. It often depends on which side the public will choose, if people want tot defend more for their freedom, they should have to expect people like Cody Wilson keep showing up, which will indeed create serious potential threats to public safety. Also, if people choose to be more secured, they would like to ban this kind of people by having less freedom of expressing themselves, such as publishing intimidating speech.

Cody Wilson`s action may not be illegal, but he didn`t consider enough when he published those codes. The government is still considering solutions of this case, and I think the result will depend on the choice of the public: more freedom, or more safety?

4. Freedom of Speech and Privacy

For years, the FBI and US government had been fighting with Apple for implanting new protocols to users` phone, which will make the government to be able to unlock a particular iPhone without getting the user`s permission. On Tuesday, February 9, 2016, at a hearing at the US Senate Intelligence Committee, the FBI Director James Comey told the committee that a continuous investigation into the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, a few months ago, was still not completed, because the suspect Syed Farook`s iPhone 5c has not been unlocked, and the content stored in it may be used as evidence to help the case and other related terrorist attacks. This phone is protected by Apple`s iOS setting of erasing data after 10 continuous 10 error password inputs. Therefore, Sheri Pym, US Federal magistrate, issued a verdict against Apple asking them to work with FBI to unlock Syed`s phone.

However, the judge`s decision did not directly require Apple to unlock the iPhone involved, but asked Apple to provide full support when the FBI unlocked the device, such as writing a backdoor program that remotely or locally shuts down the feature in some way, which will create opportunity for FBI to brute force passwords. Considering the potential threats which will harm the clients` privacy if such program is created and used by official governors, Apple refused this decision, while FBI kept setting new motions that Apple should cooperate with no conditions. The FBI think their request of the backdoor program will only be used at designated situations, such as crime evaluations and evidence evaluations. However, Apple and other technology institutes believe that once such codes are published, there will be no guarantee that the program will not be in the wrong hands.

In the appeal, Apple treated the iOS software codes involved as a unique set of creative work, expressing one or a set of opinions, which means, to treat the codes as a statement. Therefore, in theory, freedom of speech in coding is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. According to US courts, freedom of speech includes both the right of expressing certain words and phrases to convey messages, and the right of not to speak. Therefore, Apple`s action of refusing helping the FBI build backdoor programs to unlock iPhones is a legitimate action of both protecting the right of speech free and their clients` right of privacy. Apple has the right and the obligation to protect the privacy of their users, and building such backdoor programs is obviously against this intention.

The argument between the FBI and Apple is still going, now the FBI had found a third party from Afghanistan to help decoding the device, and since they had successfully cracked the password, Apple believes that this action will seriously affect the privacy security of all users in the future, and appealed to the court to ask the FBI to publish the process and method of the crack. The FBI has now rejected the proposal and claimed that its actions are only based on investigations of the particular case, and there is no proof of violation of the privacy rights of Apple device users. At present, in addition to Microsoft, other technology companies like Google and WhatsApp have supported Apple`s position, this debate will still continue. However, this event strongly proves that clients` privacy rights are usually connected to freedom of speech in computing field. Rights of free speech in computing does not only mean the rights of clients, but also means the rights of software companies that whether they should publish some particular codes or programs.

Also, except of freedom of speech of human in computing field, there are also arguments about freedom of speech which machines might be able to hold, and should be protected by human. This argument will be detailly discussed in the following section.

Citation:

1. Bridge, Rachel. “Open Source Software: Advantages & Disadvantages.” Entrepreneur Handbook, Entrepreneur Handbook, 5 Sept. 2019, https://entrepreneurhandbook.co.uk/open-source-software/.
2. Eck, Allison. “Is Code Free Speech?” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 27 July 2018, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-code-free-speech/.
3. Rivkin, David B., and Andrew M. Grossman. “Apple, the FBI and Free Speech.” Cato Institute, The Cato Institute, 23 Feb. 2016, https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/apple-fbi-free-speech.
4. Massaro, Toni M, and Helen L Norton. “Siri-Ously? Free Speech Rights and Artificial Intelligence.” Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 110, 2016, pp. 1170-1192
5. “What Does Free Speech Mean?” United States Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does.
6. Bunge, Mario; ‘A general black-box theory’, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1963, pp. 346-358. jstor/186066

How has most part of the world changed since freedom of speech was allowed? The freeness of expression allows people to communicate more and made a lot of changes and developments. This paragraph will discuss why freedom of speech should be allowed. First of all, it maintains the right equality since people are able to give speech. As we know that we our appearances are different from one to one another; consequently, our perception couldn’t be the same at all due to the verities of the culture around the world. According to Arman J. Britton, “that do not necessarily coincide with the next person’s.

Should one person’s beliefs be discounted or prohibited because it offends someone else? I do not believe so. That goes against what the First Amendment to the constitution guarantees” (Arman, 2010). Based on Ross Walsh, beside this claim, he said that “Freedom of speech is an integral part of the foundation for democratic society. After all, how can the people hold the power if they can’t even hold a debate?” (Walsh, 2017).

Speech can be given to changes what going to be wrong. Sometimes, we have already seen it isn’t right but people don’t dear to talk or they don’t even have right to say but what if it affects their live? In the past it can be seen differently from nowadays. Regarding to Josie “free speech has always been important throughout history because it has been used to fight for change. When we talk about rights today they wouldn’t have been achieved without free speech. Think about a time from the past – women not being allowed the vote, or terrible working conditions in the mines – free speech is important as it helped change these things” (Josie, 2016). Since UN’s official haven’t changed the 30 sustainable goals we chose an article which was in 60th Anniversary of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of United Nation (UN) claiming that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (UN, 2008).

Although freedom of speech could lead to offenses toward some community or the leader of a country, however, it lets people debate freely. Regardless of who a person is, freedom of speech allows debates among people to find right and wrong idea. People is not simply right all the time. For instance, it would be helpful if a person speaks to one another honestly and openly then learns that his or her idea was wrong because of particular logical reason and this applies to every circumstances.

Conclusion

In conclusion, freedom of speech should be allowed because it has given rights to people to express ideas and made a lot of changes in the world and individuals. It should be suggested that freedom of speech is used respectfully and carefully.

References

1. Arman, J,J. (2010). . Freedom of speech should never be limited. The SouthEnd. Retrieved from https://www.thesouthend.wayne.edu/perspectives/article_cd17e232-9267-573d-9705- 181a467c1714.html
2. Australian Government: Attorney- General’s Department. (2005). Right to freedom of opinion and expression. Retrieved from https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Human- rights-scrutiny/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Righttofreedomofopinionandexpression.aspx
3. JOSIE T. (2016). Why is free speech important?. X INDEX: The voice of free expression. Retrieved from https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2016/04/free-speech- important/?fbclid=IwAR1f1E5W38Yc8RpkwBI0_FJk2kKAnwRRkTWOdsXYKBRB3VcIW07 ZQd1tz3w
4. Simply Philosophy. (2018). Reasons to Restrict Free Speech. Retrieved from https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/reasons-to-restrict-free-speech/
5. United Nation. (2008). Conference Room Paper # 6: Limits to the restrictions to freedom of expression. Retrieved from: https://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/opinion/articles1920_iccpr/docs/experts_papers/schmidt.doc
6. https://www.thesouthend.wayne.edu/perspectives/article_cd17e232-9267-573d-9705-181a467c1714.html
7. https://www.thesouthend.wayne.edu/perspectives/article_cd17e232-9267-573d-9705-181a467c1714.html
8. https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Human-rights-scrutiny/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Righttofreedomofopinionandexpression.aspx
9. https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Human-rights-scrutiny/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Righttofreedomofopinionandexpression.aspx
10. https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2016/04/free-speech-important/?fbclid=IwAR1f1E5W38Yc8RpkwBI0_FJk2kKAnwRRkTWOdsXYKBRB3VcIW07ZQd1tz3w
11. https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2016/04/free-speech-important/?fbclid=IwAR1f1E5W38Yc8RpkwBI0_FJk2kKAnwRRkTWOdsXYKBRB3VcIW07ZQd1tz3w
12. https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2016/04/free-speech-important/?fbclid=IwAR1f1E5W38Yc8RpkwBI0_FJk2kKAnwRRkTWOdsXYKBRB3VcIW07ZQd1tz3w
13. https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/reasons-to-restrict-free-speech/
14. https://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/opinion/articles1920_iccpr/docs/experts_papers/schmidt.doc
15. https://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/opinion/articles1920_iccpr/docs/experts_papers/schmidt.doc

With the emerging trends and the significant changes in the chain of thoughts, the present world scenario is in such a place, where we see that the voices of the common masses are not kept in the dark, rather they are show-cased in the best possible. Way out in the light where the overwhelming ‘reactions’ by fellow ‘netizens’ are something that takes people by storm and moves their sentiments and outlook on certain aspects in a manner where their main focus stands out to be one single objective that is: ‘Expressing Oneself.’ Being an active citizen of the 21st Century, I can confidently state that, social media is one of the best platforms, when it comes to expressing oneself. It is true that the vehement flow of thoughts can and have to be restricted at certain situations, but when it comes to the exhibition of the imperial standards of the skeptic society, social media is the game-changer and the miracle-worker in show-casing the discrepancies as well as the victorious engagements from which the society can benefit altogether. The malapropism used by the netizens can sometimes be challenging and it can be stated that it is extremely difficult to disabuse people out of their biases, especially when those biases have become cultural norms in the proper functioning of a society. The limited information obtained from the exiguous sources can sometimes be prohibitive in nature and that is exactly where a line must be drawn. Thus, in this particular accumulated research shall talk and showcase the different challenges before the Indian Law when it comes to the freedom of speech and expression in terms of social media.

Social Media

“Engage, enlighten, encourage and especially… just be yourself! Social media is a community effort and everyone is an asset” – Susan Cooper.

Social media – the most commonly used tool of the internet, the platform where one will find everything and more. The place where the promulgation of ideas and beliefs are openly declared and showed in front of a million eyes. Social media acts as a succedaneum for people to facilitate by placing their thoughts and opinions in an unblemished manner and this particular power possessed by the mankind makes us feel particularly ‘modernized’ and makes us resemble to a much superior and knowledgeable generation of awake citizens.

India is one of the many countries, where there is an extensive use of the social media and in this country nobody puts us down for expressing our views out on the Internet, our country’s situation in this particular situation might seem to be something that is dreamlike, but it is not as soothing, if we look into the technicalities and the hurdles that are placed and are existing are not very mesmerizing in nature to be precise. The Internet platforms make this world a minute place to live in. ‘User generated content’ is the name given to all of the innumerable ways in which an individual may use the social media. (Andreas M. Kaplan & Michael Haenlein (2010), ‘Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media’, Business Horizons, vol. 53, 2010, pp. 59-68, at 61).

A little technology, a little sociology but a lot more of psychology – that is how social media in today’s world can be defined in using just these three terms. Technology is the reason behind the creation of all of these flourishing platforms; sociology because there is development, there is a certain pattern which the human society follows in order to function in a systematic manner; and lastly – psychology because, the infliction caused by social media on an individual’s mind is relentless – it’s beyond measures. People are mostly ‘affected’ by whatever goes on in their screens and that observation has been proven through various studies and experiments by the experts. The tools and techniques for analyzing data and the strategies brought forward by the usage of social media is a life-changing development in our generation. It is a transformation that has taken the world by storm and thus, it is a fact that can be established and proven with life-changing facts and cases.

The liberty and freedom to post and upload everything and anything does not mean that one has the right to blurt out anything that can cause violation to the existing norms, ethics and moral code of the society. Certain stunts by individuals are highly disregarded and are not accepted by the people at any cost and that is where the line is been drawn and the freedom is been restricted and the need for it stands out to be very true because the human mind is capable of different kinds of malicious and defamatory thoughts. Often the amount of begrudgery offered by the people online is considered to be completely harmful in nature and that shall not be tolerated at any cost.

There are various categories of social-media. Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) classified social media into six different types: collaborative projects (e.g., Wikipedia); blogs and micro blogs (e.g., Twitter); content communities (e.g., YouTube); social networking sites (e.g., Facebook); virtual game worlds (e.g., World of War craft); virtual social worlds (e.g. Second Life).

1. Social networking. Social networking sites are those online portals that enable the users to connect virtually with friends, family and unknown people for that matter. It offers facilities such as chatting, instant and direct-messaging, sharing and uploading of photos, videos and updates from time to time. The social-networking sites that are extensively used world-wide by n number of people are: Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn. These are just a few out of the innumerable social networking sites that are upcoming on a daily basis by various app-creators.
2. Blogs. Blogs are simply a form of descriptive content created and maintained by individual users that mostly contain text, photos and links to other websites. The interactive feature of blogs is the ability of readers to leave comments and the comment trail can be followed by the creators who are specifically known as ‘bloggers’.
3. Micro-blogs. Micro blogs are similar to blogs with a typical restriction of 140 characters or less, which allows users to write and share content. For example, Twitter is a micro blogging site that enables its users to send and read ‘tweets’. It’s like a brief summarized take by an author on a chosen topic.
4. Vlogs and video sharing sites. Video blogs (Vlogs) are blogging sites that mainly use video as the main form of content supported by text. YouTube is the world’s largest video sharing site. On YouTube, the content creators create videos and through YouTube, the famous verified creators can generate an income too. In the present scenario, we see the emerging trend of ‘Tik Tok’ creeping into the modern entertainment genre. Also, there have been numerous raging battles in between some of the content-creators of these two platforms.
5. Wikipedia. Wikipedia and WikiHow are collaborative websites that allow multiple users to create and update pages on particular or interlinked subjects and topics at large. While a single page is referred to as ‘wiki page’, the entire related content on that topic is called a ‘Wiki’. These multiple pages are linked through hyperlinks and allow users to interact in a complex and non-linear manner.
6. Social bookmarking. This particular service allows an individual to save, organize and manage links to various websites and resources found around the Internet. The main kind of communication takes place by tagging websites and searching through websites bookmarked by various other people. Few of the most popular social bookmarking sites can be Delicious and Stumble Upon.
7. Social news. These are the kind of services that tend to allow people to post various news items or links to the already existing outside articles and pieces of information. Prevalent Interaction tends to take place by voting for the displayed and published items and commenting on them spontaneously. Voting can be considered as the core aspect because the items that get the most number of votes are prominently published. The feature is mostly referred to as ‘up-voted’. The most popular are Digg, Reddit and Propeller.
8. Media sharing. These services are created to allow people to upload and share photos or videos. Interaction is performed by sharing and commenting on the submissions by the user. There can be certain kind of overlapping among the above mentioned types of social media. For instance, Facebook has micro blogging features with their ‘status update’. Also, Flickr and YouTube have comment systems similar to that of blogs.

Freedom of Speech and Expression

“Without the freedom to criticize, question and challenge the dominant narrative, societies cannot make progress” – Elif Shafak.

A country can only progress and emerge out of the plethora of shackles only when the citizens are devoid of the existing ‘fear’ of speaking out their objectives and open up their mindsets on a larger platform. Being heard is one of the biggest necessities and without having the freedom to express generously – a country cannot be considered to be free at any cost. The alleviation of this freedom shall be the focus of our country and that shall be possible only when there is unison and zero level of agitation.

There can be certain aggravations to this particular freedom. The ‘restrictions’ have to be provided by the law in the necessary circumstances. As far as the restrictions are concerned – the freedom cannot be formidable in nature, for instance – the persecutions, the outraging threats, the constant interference – while exercising one’s freedom, one cannot be indifferent to these constant aspects. The society or the affected party does not turn a deaf-ear to the violation of his/her rights. Thus, even a trifle issue can take an exaggerated or an augmented turn.

The nature of this freedom cannot be considered as ‘absolute’ – it is entitled with different kinds of special responsibilities and duties of certain nature and those have to be duly validated and understood while proper reverence must also be paid towards them.

This particular right is not something that has come into existence a few days ago, it is an age-old essential concept which vehemently carried high importance and significant weight. We cannot deny the intensity or forcefulness of the term: ‘expression’. This term has the power to create the necessary turbulence that is possible on the face of Earth. The established expressions have the power to arouse certain nationalist fervour, which can be ecstatic and intense at the same time. The origination goes back to the Greek Athenian Era, which is more than 2400 years ago.

The following are some of the most frequently and commonly definitions of freedom of expression that are referred to and are considered as completely valid on the international statures as well.

Firstly, Article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR) – “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.

Article 19 (2), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (ICCPR) – “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”.

Similarly, Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. It also confers on the citizens of India the right “to freedom of speech and expression”. The freedom of speech and expression means the right to express one’s convictions and opinions freely by word of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or any other mode. It also includes the right to propagate or publish the views of other people. In its landmark judgment, the Indian Supreme Court in the case of the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting vs. Cricket Association, Bengal with Cricket Association, Bengal vs. Union of India has also recognized the ‘right to information’ as part of the fundamental right of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution.

The term ‘freedom of speech and expression’ includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Based on John Milton’s arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right including not only the right to express or disseminate information and ideas but also including the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas.

The elaborate and complete idea of freedom of speech and expression is intimately and ephemerally linked to the concept of democracy. Alexander Meiklejohn, one of the proponents of this link ethically states that democracy means ‘self-governance’ by the people and for the proper functioning of which, an informed electorate is indispensable which, in turn, requires that there be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. Democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism.

Again, Richard Moon proves that the value of freedom of speech and expression lies within social interactions. He says “by communicating an individual form relationships and associations with others-family, friends, co-workers, church congregation, and countrymen, by entering into discussion with others an individual participates in the development of knowledge and in the direction of the community”.

Stature of Freedom of Speech and Expression in the Era of Social Media

In the recent times, the most thoroughly used means of communication is undoubtedly, the social media. Now and then we witness this spirit among our fellow nationalists – they have the urge to have their voice out in the light and the true sense of solidarity takes a well-defined shape when the diverse school of thoughts are supported in an appeasing manner altogether. The natural ebullient reaction towards the functioning of the social media platforms by the general masses is not a small thing, perhaps, anything that tends to instigate the population, becomes a matter of importance. The feeling of ‘being connected’ which the social media platforms revive within the people makes us want to express respect or praise for; honor is vividly recommended.

Thus, when such an insightful medium which allows us to exchange vital information and also acts as our source of entertainment and breaks a smile on our boring schedules appears to be so appalling, it also deserves to be treated courteously or perhaps, respectfully. The nature of the usage of the Internet has been such a vital matter that it has been entitled as a human right. Yes, internet access is been declared a human right by the report submitted by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression which was submitted to the Human Rights Council. A plethora of proper pragmatic applications to freedom of opinion and expression in the radically altered media landscape have been given by the UN Human Rights Committee. The main source of the discovery of knowledge is been completely occupied by the internet and mobile telecommunication. New media as a global network to exchange various ideas and thoughts that do not necessarily rely on the traditional sources, the Committee stated that the States should take all necessary steps to foster the independence of these new media and also ensure access to them. Moreover, Article 19(2) of the ICCPR and Article 19 of the UDHR also provides for freedom of speech and expression even in the scenario of Internet and social media.

Malaysia is a democratic country. The Constitution of Malaysia is the supreme law of the country. It was proposed by the constitutional conference, followed by the Reid Commission, and finally came into force on the 27th August 1957. This led to the independence of Malaysia, under the circumstance that it was a country with a parliamentary democratic system and the Constitution of Malaysia was the supreme law. The citizens of the country have all the rights and power to help develop this country. Those who lead the country are selected by the people through the law, upholding parliamentary democracy through General Elections. This ensures that the people have all the right to vote for the leaders they desire. As stated in Article Number 10 of the Federal Constitution, “every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression, have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, and have the right to form associations”. The Constitution has stated clearly that no one should disobey the law and that rights, especially fundamental human rights, should not be taken away from the people of the country. However, according to prominent law group, Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), freedom of expression is compromised in Malaysia, although it is a democratic county. There are many faced with issues when freely expressing their thoughts and opinions. For example, Malaysia has a long history of enforced disappearances, such as that of Pastor Raymond Koh, Joshua Hilmi, Ruth and Amri Che Mat. This and other issues linked to freedom of speech and freedom of expression can be attributed to the draconian laws.

ISA

ISA was one of the most draconian laws in Malaysia. It allowed for detention without trial. It was the very act used in the infamous and inhumane ‘Ops Lalang’. On the 15th September 2011, The Prime Minister at the time, Dato’ Seri Najib Razak succeeded in repealing the law and replaced it with the Security Offence (Special Measures) Act (SOSMA). However, SOSMA also allows for detention without trial and perpetrators could face death penalty. This Act has been used to detain rights activists and also frame individuals unlawfully. Furthermore, in October 2019, many individuals were detained under SOSMA for being ‘LTTE Supporters’. LTTE is a defunct organization since 2009, but the individuals were still baselessly detained as the law was used as a way for certain political leaders to score their political mileage.

National Security Council (NSC) Act 2016

This act was enacted by Najib as well in 2016. This act is lengthy, but in short, the PM can gazette a particular area as a ‘security area’ and any civil liberties would be eradicated from that area and special authorities would have full power and control over the area. There is no transparency required, and arrests as well as the use of arms is permitted. Many international human rights organizations condemned that law, saying it was a draconian and “worse than the ISA”

The Communications and Multimedia Act 1998

This act is supposed to regulate communication and multimedia, especially online in social media. However, it is often seen that this law is impartial towards certain groups. Some are detained for making certain slurs, but others are found not to.

Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984

There are many questionable parts to this act, but one particular eye-catching bit is that, the Home Minister has the provisions to control undesirable publications. Obviously, this law seems important as controversial issues could be prevented. However, this law has been used to silence those who have strong views, which should not be the case.

Official Secrets Act (OSA) 1972

This act involves spreading of information and documents (official secrets). This act is a threat to whistle-blowers who may outline wrongdoings of top officials.

Sedition Act 1948

In the past, there was an uprising of communists in the country. Hence, this law was put in place to control them. However, in today’s context, this act still unfortunately remains and is often misused. This act takes action on situations and individuals who say/ perform ‘seditious’ acts. However, this law is often misused as an easy detaining tool and ‘sedition’ is very vaguely described.

Printing Presses and Publications Act (AMCP) 1984

This law functions as a control towards printed materials such as magazines and newspapers, an act which is seen in the past being used by the government to control opinions through these sources.

Anti-Fake News Act

Before the 14th Malaysian general election (GE14), former prime minister, Najib Razak, enforced a new law to stamp out ‘fake news’, which was the Anti Fake News Act. Those who were suspected or caught publishing ‘fake news’ would be punished or jailed. Najib Razak even went as far as to state that “even spreading bad news about the economy is bad. Fake news would be anything that is not substantive, and dangerous to the economy and security of the nation”.

It has been reported that in 2019 over 4 billion people use the Internet every day, and with every person having freedom of speech on it how they chose to use it can be very different. Many people chose to use their free speech to spread love, share inspiring stories and connect with people, but other people chose to use their speech very differently and decide to spread hate, bully and discriminate, especially in recent years. This essay will discuss the different sides to free speech on the Internet, how it can allow many positive things to happen, but it can also allow many negative things such as hate speech. This subject is a topical because it connects to what is happening in the world today as the Internet is such a big part of people lives.

Firstly, a positive side to freedom of speech is the #Metoo movement. This is a movement created to go against sexual harassment and sexual violence the hashtag Metoo was created to allow and help victims speak out, and it quickly became popular as it was used more than 4.7 million times in the first 24 hours of being created. This movement has helped many victims of sexual harassment and sexual violence speak out about their experience and know that they are not alone. In an article by the Insider 15 women spoke about their experience and how the #Metoo movement has helped them “The #Metoo campaign has really helped people to feel that they are not alone.” This shows how the Internet can be a great thing that helps many people that have gone through a traumatic experience and how it has helped them share their stories and connect with people who have gone through a similar experience.

However, there is a dangerous side to free speech on the Internet. In Florida Devon Arthurs, an 18-year-old Nazi, shot and killed two of his friends to thwart a terrorist attack by Atomwaffen, a neo-Nazi organization. Arthur was part of neo-fascist group, a terrorist organization which was developed through the internet. Arthur would take part in online group chats which included him and, around 60 to 70, other people talking about bombing places such as power lines and synagogues and killing people. Four days after the shooting the neo fascists group, that Arthur was part of, posted a video on YouTube telling people to join their local Nazis. This shows the how free speech on the Internet can be dangerous as is has allowed people to join hateful and dangerous groups that allows people to influence and push their hateful racist opinion onto others, which can result in deadly incidences.

Another example the positive side to free speech on the Internet is the Egyptian revolution. The revolution started when Wael Ghonim created a Facebook page and put up a post about a young man who was killed and how the young people in Egypt are being mistreated, the group gained 250,000 members in three months. Because of this online group people began to lead marches and demonstrations, such as silent stands, against the government. And in the end -300,000- people created a rally at the Tahrir Square protesting against the mistreatment and poverty in Egypt, this shows the positive side to free speech on the Internet as it allowed this man to connect with thousands of other people and inspire them to help make a difference, which would have not been possible without the Internet.

Furthermore, free speech on social media can also involve hate speech, in Charlottesville the leaders of white supremacy groups organized demonstrations against the removal of a confederate statue by creating a Facebook event. On 11 august 2017 around 250 white supremacist and neo-Nazis marched with torches and shouting chants as they walked toward the statue of Jefferson, the rallies then turned into violence with three people dying as the white supremist began fighting with students at the university. The events were organized through a Facebook event page and neo-Nazi websites and created memes, and propaganda, to make people join then and get people excited for the rallies. This shows how free speech is bad as it has allowed these people to organize such a big hateful rally by just using the Internet and the social platforms, and maybe if they did not have such freedom on the Internet this dangerous rally would not have happened and people would not have got hurt.

But free speech on social media can be a good thing that can help many people, in 2014 the ice bucket challenge went viral and in doing so helped many people. Over 17 million took part in the challenge and it consisted of people throwing ice cold water over themselves then donating money and nominating people to do it too, the challenge was created to get people to donate money toward a charity that would donate it to the ALS Association, to help research towards ALS disease. Because of this viral challenge people raised £115 million for the association and because of the money raised the association was able to make a breakthrough in the research of the disease, “It shows everyone who contributed to the ice bucket challenge that their donation had an impact on the research”, – Brian Fredrick, executive vice-president of communication and development at the ALS Association. This evidence shows how free speech can be good as it can bring people together and work together to help a good cause that will ultimately help the health millions of other people.

However, the Internet does have a dangerous and cruel side. With the Internet being so easy to access and many people using it cyber bullying is very common on many different platforms. Nobullying.com released a report that shows the statistics of the consequences of cyberbullying, the report showed that 23% of bully victims turned to self-harm and 10% of victims have tried to take their own lives. This evidence shows how free speech on Internet can be a very bad thing when people choose to use their free speech for hate and how when it goes too far it can result in people being harmed mentally and emotionally.

In conclusion, after looking at all the positive and negative things that have come from free speech in the Internet, I think that it is a good thing that people are able to express their feelings online and able to help make a difference but I also think that the social media can also be a place to spread hate and the creators of these platforms have to try and minimize these pages and people from being able to spread so much hate.