social media freedom of speech essay

Freedom of Speech in Social Media Essay

What are the advantages, disadvantages, and limits of freedom of speech in social media? Learn more below! This paper focuses on the importance of social media and freedom of speech.

Introduction

Social media & freedom of speech, hate speech on social media, reference list.

The freedom of speech is one of the crucial features of the democratic society. The personal liberty cannot be achieved without the ability to express your thoughts freely. It also means the opportunity to participate in the discussions and debates. George Orwell said, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

The media is a powerful mean of social progress nowadays. It is said that social media’s worldwide audience gives individuals new rights, responsibilities, and risks. Joshua Rozenberg claimed, “A tweet is not an email, it’s a broadcast”. The aim of this essay is to present my own opinion on the expressions by Orwell and Rozenberg and to discuss the influence of media on the human rights, responsibilities, and risks.

The social media represents the source and the mean of the information dissemination. It is difficult to imagine what the world would look like if we did not have the media. The dissemination of the true information is one of the pillars of the free society.

Nowadays, the breakthrough in this process has been achieved due to the development and implementation of the new media and information and communications technologies (ICTs) ( IMS Conference on ICTs, 2008). I agree with the statement of George Orwell, who said that the liberty “means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

It goes without saying that all people are different and, thus, their views on the changes occurring in the surrounding world differ. However, the social progress cannot be achieved without the conflict solving and decision making. The availability of the different opinions contributes to the arriving at the best solution. The freedom of speech implies the opportunity of the unhampered expression of the opposite views.

How can we say about the liberty and personal freedom if we are afraid of protesting and arguing? The truly democratic society is the one, which encourages the independent thinking and the expression of the opposite views.

Katharine Gelber in her article ‘Freedom of Speech and Australian Political Culture’ considers the opinions of the Australian politicians, representing both the Coalition and Opposition in the beginning of the 1990s. Gelber tries to say that the history of the freedom of speech in Australia consists of the periods of the increasing public debates on the issue of human rights and their protection.

In 1992, the wide discussions contributed to the recognition of the freedom of speech in Australia (Gelber, 2011). Although the representatives of the various political parties have different views on the concept of freedom of speech, all of them indicate to its importance for the society.

Gelber says that the majority of Australians believe that the freedom of speech exists in the Australian society (Gelber, 2011). Undoubtedly, it shows that people feel their liberty in saying what the others do not want to hear.

There is a famous expression by Joshua Rozenberg, “A tweet is not an email, it’s a broadcast”. I think that he means that if the conversation includes more than two persons, it is public and it disseminates the information rapidly. In the context of the human rights, it can be said that the ‘tweet’ or wide discussions are vital for the dissemination of the information and contribute to the freedom of speech.

I agree with the statement that the social media’s worldwide audience gives individuals new rights, responsibilities, and risks. In this respect, censorship remains one of the most significant hazards. However paradoxical it looks at the first glance, the United States of America represents the bright example of the country with the freedom of speech, on the one hand, and the cases of censorship, on the other hand.

Patrick Garry in his book An American Paradox: Censorship in a Nation of Free Speech analyses the reasons for the existence of censorship in the country proclaiming the freedom of speech as one of the highest values. Garry finds the roots for this problem in the rapid dynamism of the American society.

The author also states that “as multiculturalism replaces the older, more traditional social model of Americanized homogeneity, speech and censorship will increasingly form the ethnic and cultural battleground of this change” (Garry, 1993, p. 14).

Undoubtedly, the freedom of speech is one of the most discrepant social and political issues. People’s words depend on their minds and their emotions. However, they are not always the positive ones and sometimes people are driven by hate. The history of mankind already has a lot of examples when the speech provoked the violence. The Nazi Germany is one of such examples.

The emotional speech of Adolph Hitler inspired millions of people to commit the crime against humanity. That is why it should be emphasized that the freedom of speech assumes the responsibility. It is said that “our most successful approach to defending our human rights and human dignity is to begin with the principle: Choose Love, Not Hate” ( Freedom of expression, no date).

Besides, it should be mentioned that the freedom of speech should not contradict the other human rights, including the intellectual property rights, the right to reputation, and others. The government intervention in the dissemination of the information should not go beyond the boundaries of the protection of the confidential information, reputation, public safety and order ( Freedom of expression, no date).

The debates provoked by the promulgation of the secret information by WikiLeaks shook the public. Although there were different views on the activity of the website, it is obvious that it made the confidential information public, thus, violating the right to privacy and supporting the freedom of speech.

According to Little, “there is a difference between disclosure of information relating to private lives of individuals and that relating to governments” (2013, par. 6). The European authorities support the freedom of speech but indicate to the importance of licensing of broadcasting and the verification of the information disseminated by the media ( Freedom of expression, 2007).

Connie Bennett and Rob Everett emphasize the importance of tolerance and understanding in the protection of the freedom of speech. At the same time, the authors state, “Free and open access to the universe of ideas not only enriches the lives of a country’s citizens; it protects them from the harm caused when ignorance and misinformation go unchallenged by facts” (Bennett and Everett, 2011, n.pag.).

The rapid development of the information technologies and the digital communication systems create the risks of inconsistent and false data dissemination as the role of the journalists and editors becomes vanished by the work of computers and Internet. At the same time, the modern technologies may help to overcome the bias in the information disseminated by the media.

There are a number of the social organizations aimed at protecting the freedom of speech and the activity of the journalists all over the world. In particular, Freedom House provides the support to the advocates of the human rights to defend the free media and the right to independent expression ( Freedom of expression, no date).

In order to sum up all above mentioned, it should be said that the freedom of speech is one of the main human rights. However, it remains one of the controversial social issues as well. The freedom of expression implies certain responsibilities including the respect to the privacy of other people as well as to the results of their intellectual activity.

The development of the information technologies changes the media and the communication systems. The new tendency creates both the opportunities for the facilitation of the freedom of speech and risks of the dissemination of the false information.

Annotated Bibliography

Bennett, C. and Everett, R. (2011) ‘Freedom of speech requires understanding and tolerance’, The Register Guard .

The authors touch upon the problem of the freedom of speech and the government restrictions. In particular, they emphasize the importance of the free libraries providing the opportunity to become familiar with the different opinions presented in the books.

Garry, P. (1993) An American paradox: censorship in a nation of free speech. Westport, CT: Praeger .

The book uncovers the paradox of the American society: the co-existence of the freedom of speech flourished by the public and the censorship, which restricts it. The author gives his own arguments explaining this phenomenon. In particular, he indicates to the significant changes occurring in the American society.

Gelber, K. (2011) ‘Freedom of speech and Australian political Culture’, University of Queensland Law Journal , 30(1), pp. 135-144.

The article is devoted to the recognition of the freedom of speech in Australia. It also encompasses the results of the survey aimed at investigation of the opinion of the Australians on their constitutional rights including the freedom of expression. The author presents the definitions of the freedom of speech given by the Australian politicians.

Freedom of expression.

The webpage is devoted to the freedom of expression as one of the basic human rights and describes the activity of Freedom House in its protection. The major branches of the organization’s support are mentioned on the webpage. Besides, it emphasizes the role of journalists and media in the realization of the freedom of speech.

IMS Conference on ICTs and networked communications environments: opportunities and threats for press freedom and democratization (2008).

The information presented in the source is devoted to the role of the information and communication technologies in the spreading of the freedom of speech and the facilitation of the democratic process in the different countries. It represents the report on the results of the IMS Conference. The advances in the technology and their impact on the media are discussed in the source.

Little, C. (2013) ‘Democracy depends upon free media and an informed public’, Miami Herald , 16 September.

The author of the article touches upon the controversy around the freedom of speech. She presents her own opinion on the collision of the human rights, which frequently occurs in the society. She also touches upon the activity of the much-talked-of website WikiLeaks.

Garry, P. (1993) An American paradox: censorship in a nation of free speech . Westport, CT: Praeger.

Freedom of expression (no date). Web.

Freedom of expression: a right with responsibilities (2007). Web.

IMS Conference on ICTs and networked communications environments: opportunities and threats for press freedom and democratization (2008). Web.

Little, C. (2013) ‘ Democracy depends upon free media and an informed public ‘, Miami Herald . Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 25). Freedom of Speech in Social Media Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-freedom-of-speech-in-social-media-essay/

"Freedom of Speech in Social Media Essay." IvyPanda , 25 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/the-freedom-of-speech-in-social-media-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Freedom of Speech in Social Media Essay'. 25 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Freedom of Speech in Social Media Essay." March 25, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-freedom-of-speech-in-social-media-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Freedom of Speech in Social Media Essay." March 25, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-freedom-of-speech-in-social-media-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Freedom of Speech in Social Media Essay." March 25, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-freedom-of-speech-in-social-media-essay/.

• Political Reporting: the Readings of Garry Wills and Katherine Boo
• Organization Policies and Bereavement Practices
• Leadership Issues: The Case of CEO Gary Kelly of Southwest Airlines
• Intellectual Property Issues on the Example of the McDonald’s Trademark
• Categories of Crime in Current Justice System
• George Orwell’s “Why I Write”
• Discussion of Tweets Influence on Society
• Censorship in the United States
• "Shooting an Elephant" by G. Orwell Review
• The Coopers v. G. Fox and Partners Inc. Case
• Print media is dead
• Printed Newspapers in US
• The Newspaper Publishing Industry in Australia
• Do People Believe Everything in the Internet?
• Media futures and new technologies

• Support Our Work
• Carr Center Advisory Board
• Technology & Human Rights
• Racial Justice
• Transitional Justice
• Reimagining Rights & Responsibilities
• Human Rights Defenders
• In Conversation
• Justice Matters Podcast
• News and Announcements
• Student Opportunities
• Fellowship Opportunities

Carr Center for Human Rights Policy

The Carr Center for Human Rights Policy serves as the hub of the Harvard Kennedy School’s research, teaching, and training in the human rights domain. The center embraces a dual mission: to educate students and the next generation of leaders from around the world in human rights policy and practice; and to convene and provide policy-relevant knowledge to international organizations, governments, policymakers, and businesses.

About the Carr Center

Since its founding in 1999, the Carr Center has dedicated the last quarter-century to human rights policy.  

March 25, 2024 Making a Movement: Gaurab Basu on How Climate Change Threatens Our Human Rights

February 22, 2024 How Feminist Foreign Policies Work to Enhance Gender Justice Kathryn Sikkink , Helen Clapp

March 18, 2024 Making a Movement: Yanilda María González on Police Violence Against Racialized Communities

March 08, 2024 Women's History Month: The Justice Matters Podcast

February 16, 2024 Game Over Albert Fox Cahn, Evan Enzer

February 27, 2024 Rights, Systematicity, and Misinformation

January 30, 2024 Does AI Understand Arabic?

December 10, 2023 Making a Movement Linda Bilmes , Soroush Saghafian , Iris Bohnet , John Donahue , Jay Rosengard , John Haigh , Jason Furman , Jeffrey Frankel , Mark Fagan , Archon Fung , Sheila Jasanoff , Henry Lee , Jane Nelson , Mathias Risse

A Human Rights-Based Approach to Mental Health

Bevin Croft and Ebony Flint from the Human Services Research Institute discuss mental health and human rights in the wake of new guidance issued in 2023 by the WHO.

Human Rights and Indigenous Rights in New Zealand

Claire Charters discusses the status of Māori representation in New Zealand's government, the right-wing pushback against indigenous rights, and more.

See All Justice Matters Episodes

View and listen to all of the  Justice Matters  podcast episodes in one place.

The Human Rights Violations of Abortion Bans

A discussion of the human rights violations caused by the reversal of  Roe v. Wade  and the move to ban abortion in the United States. 

The UN Business & Human Rights Forum

A deep dive into the United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights, which wrapped up its 12th iteration at the end of 2023.

A New Civil Rights Movement

Jill Collen Jefferson, a civil and human rights lawyer and founder of Julian, discusses drawing on international human rights movements to build a civil rights strategy in the United States.

Just Hierarchy

Daniel A. Bell, Chair of Political Theory with the Faculty of Law at the University of Hong Kong, discusses academic freedoms in mainland China vs. Hong Kong, China and the U.S. as global superpowers, and censorship in China.

The Age of Surveillance Capitalism

Shoshana Zuboff, author of the acclaimed book  The Age of  Surveillance Capitalism,  delves into the theory of surveillance capitalism, the harm of disinformation, and the future of democracy in the digital era.

“The Carr Center is building a bridge between ideas on human rights and the practice on the ground—and right now we're at a critical juncture around the world.”

Mathias risse, faculty director.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Freedom of Speech — Social Media and Freedom of Speech: Combating Misinformation and Hate Speech

Social Media and Freedom of Speech: Combating Misinformation and Hate Speech

• Categories: Freedom of Speech

About this sample

Words: 833 |

Published: Jan 29, 2024

Words: 833 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

The importance of freedom of speech, the challenges of freedom of speech in social media, balancing freedom of speech with responsibility, implications of limiting freedom of speech, case studies of social media platforms and their approach to freedom of speech, references:.

• Balkin, J. M., & Zittrain, J. (2010). A grand compromise to preserve a free and open Internet. Harvard Law Review, 124(6), 1333-1396.
• Cohen-Almagor, R. (2019). Freedom of expression, hate speech, and disinformation: The challenges of our time. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 7(1), 364-380.
• Forelle, M., Helderman, R., & Timberg, C. (2020). Zuckerberg defends Facebook as bastion of free speech against lawmakers' skepticism. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/07/29/zuckerberg-antitrust-testimony/
• Royakkers, L., & Timmer, J. (2020). Combating misinformation on social media: A review of the effectiveness of current solutions and recommendations for the future. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 28(4), 332-344.
• Tandoc Jr, E. C., Zheng, N., & Ling, R. (2019). Shaping and being shaped: The reciprocal relationship between media and society. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 96(2), 341-358.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1064 words

2 pages / 953 words

2 pages / 849 words

2 pages / 1011 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is a foundational pillar of democratic societies and a fundamental human right. It serves as the bedrock of open and inclusive societies, allowing individuals to express their thoughts, opinions, and ideas [...]

The Turner v Driver case has been an important and highly controversial legal battle that has sparked heated debates regarding freedom of speech, privacy rights, and the responsibilities of social media platforms. This case [...]

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that has been the subject of much debate and controversy in recent years. From historical origins to modern-day implications, the concept of freedom of speech has far-reaching [...]

Eric Foner, a prominent historian and author, explores the concept of American freedom in his book, "The Story of American Freedom." In this work, Foner delves into the complexities of freedom in America, examining its evolution [...]

In music, censorship can be defined as ‘the suppression or prohibition’, of any parts of music ‘that are considered obscene or politically unacceptable’ (Oxford University Press, 2019). This includes the editing of musical and [...]

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution gives us the right to freedom of speech and freedom of press. In my opinion, these rights have been abused in such a manner that the freedom of press has been pushed beyond [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Entertainment

The Freedom of Speech in Social Media Essay Example

On January 6, 2021, an insurrection occurred at the US capital in Washington D.C. Donald Trump, the president at the time, encourage his supporters to march to the capitol after one of his rallies. Twitter, Facebook, and a few other social media platforms banned him from their platform after Trump went online and made some Tweets implying an illegitimate US presidential election. There was a debate on whether social media platforms should have the power to do this. On one side people argue that it is a dangerous precedence to set and will limit freedom of speech in America while on the other side people argue that Trump should have been banned long ago for violating any of the platform’s policy for example spreading misinformation. The First Amendment of the United States protects freedom of speech for individuals from the government, but the First Amendment does not apply to social media companies because they are private businesses. In this essay, I will look at social media focusing on to what extent they should allow hate speech on their platform. I will argue for allowing social media to regulate speech on their platform.

What is freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is generally defined as the right of citizens to express their opinions on political and social issues without the fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction (Min, Chen, et al., 2021). The First Amendment protects most speech, but certain types of speech such as threats are not protected. It also does not protect against defamatory statements: slander and libel. Libel is a written defamatory statement while slander is an oral defamatory statement. It is difficult for in the United States to sue an individual for libel and slander defamatory statements because proof of intent is needed to prove libel or slander. It is difficult for individuals to be held accountable due to the anonymity of users. A question to consider is to what extent are social media platforms responsible for allowing certain types of speech to remain specifically hate speech?

Another term that will be used frequently in this essay is hate speech. It is defined differently depending on the social media platform. Hate speech is generally defined as statements intended to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group (Min, Chen, et al., 2021). One of the problems with hate speech for social media platforms is what is considered hate speech. For comedians, some have jokes are aimed at certain groups of people in a humiliating way, and should companies allow these jokes to remain on their platform? The definition of hate speech used by most social media companies is broad, so these companies need to consider what is hate speech on a case-to-case basis. The problem for social media platforms is should they allow hate speech to remain on their platform?

When companies are allowed to remove certain types of content there is an issue with censorship that arises. This can be abuse by governments who have weak freedom of speech in their country. Different governments can send a removal request form to social media platforms such as Google. Chen, et al (2021) show that governments with low levels of freedom of speech are more likely to make uncivil content removal requests based on data from “2017 Google Transparency Report”. There is an argument that giving social media the power to regulate speech allows them to censor people whose views do not align with the company’s view. Brain Berkey gives the analogy of Internet Service Providers and Web Hosting Services being like a Public Square. He argues it is objectionable for these private company to allow content which aligns with their view but prohibit hate speech which is not illegal from the online public discourse. Social media companies are like Internet Service Providers and Web Hosting Services however social media platforms are more visible, so a wider range of people interacts with them more often. Social media platforms need interaction between its user and one way is through online discourse. Banning hate speech on social media will create less online discourse. Is it inherently bad to banned hate speech and users for using it?

What are the benefits of eliminating hate speech on a social media platform? One of the benefits is that it creates a positive environment for all users when they use the platform. Users will be happy or at the very least less upset because hate speech will be difficult to find on the platform so there would be one less thing to be upset about. Parents would feel less concerned about their children using the social media platform for children 13 years old and above. It would also be more brand-friendly so it could attract more advertisers because they would worry less about the content that they advertise being next to a hate speech statement. Those who argue for banning hate speech on a social media website say that users who are banned can go to another website that allows hate speech.

Social media companies should be able to regulate hate speech on their platforms. There is no clear morally good or correct way to allow hate speech on a social media platform. Morality is placed on the user that chooses to use hate speech rather than the medium they use to express it. These companies are private businesses, so it does not make sense to force them to allow speech to be unregulated. The bottom line is that they are responsible to their shareholders and to what extent speech should be restricted should be up to them to regulate. Regulating speech is not a bad thing because it can allow social media platforms to attract as many people as possible to their platform. In an example, let say there are two social media companies; company A does not regulate hate speech on their platform, and company B does not allow hate speech on their platform. An individual goes on company A’s platform and sees some type of hate speech and goes to company B’s platform which regulates speech a little bit stricter. Company A missed out on a potential user because they did not regulate the speech on their platform. For company B, the users of the company will be happy that there is no hate speech on their platforms, but people who are more likely to use hate speech would be banned off this platform and they might choose to use Company A’s platform. Another thing that might be a problem for company B is that fewer ideas are added to the discourse, so minority opinions will not be heard at all. If companies are given the option to police hate speech on their platforms, then individuals can choose freely which social media platform they want to use. 

Some smaller social media companies do not have many restrictions on hate speech on their platforms. They often foster bad people and awful communities. For larger social media companies hate speech is regulated more strictly. Big companies have a reporting system where users can report someone who might violate their policy of hate speech. Some big companies also have an automated hate speech detecting algorithm to prevent hate speech. Ullmann and Marcus discuss the quarantining of hate speech where potential hate speech content will remain for an amount of time for a moderator to verify the content is or is not hate speech. These systems are effective in the removal of hate speech but might not be as effective in the prevention of hate speech from the platform. YouTube has a system where brand-friendly content is easier to be discovered so hate speech will be low in discoverability. Twitter has a system where it warns its users of content that may be sensitive, so users have the option to view the material if they want to do so. 

In conclusion, the First Amendment protects citizens’ Freedom of Speech, but it does not apply to social media companies since they are private businesses, because the First Amendment applies mainly to the federal government. Social media companies have a difficult time deciding what they would consider as hate speech and what to do with it if it not illegal. Companies who allow hate speech on their platform encourage discourse on their platform but leave content up that may be offensive to their users. Companies who banned hate speech from their platform create a positive environment but leave out minority opinions from the discourse on their site. It should be left up to the company to decide if they should allow hate speech to remain on their site or remove it from their site entirely. There is not a morally right or wrong way to handle hate speech on their platform because they must make the decision based on the opinions of their shareholders. Hate speech is somewhat regulated on social media already by a reporting system and by quarantine content an algorithm thinks could be hate speech.

Related Samples

• Mickey Mouse History Essay Example
• Essay Sample about Freedom of Speech
• Essay Sample about Gun Control
• The Changing Role Of Women In Today's Society
• Should our school participate in Shut Down Your Screen Week
• Modern Slavery Essay Example
• How Racial Lines Cause History
• Snowpiercer Movie Analysis
• Mississippi Burning Essay Example
• Essay Sample on Unethical Consumerism

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers