Arguments Against My Position: A healthy sense
of free speech online is difficult to attain, especially when
censorship, surveillance, hate speech, and cyberbullying are all
widespread issues.
Argument #1: Problems such as
bullying and hate crimes are often sent through online means, with policies
varying based on location in question.
- Yu Wenguang's paper
explains that different nations, such as China, the United
States, and member-nations of the European Union, all have
different laws concerning hate speech. Thus, it can be
difficult to police hate speech should the instances be
between people living in different countries. (Yu, 2018)
- Michael Nekrasov
discovered that in some of the countries that he and his team
surveyed, such as Zambia, Turkey, and Mongolia, discussing
topics related to current events, religion, politics, and
health can lead to consequences from subtle admonishment to
legal persecution. (Nekrasov et al. 2018)
Argument #2: Governments and corporations may be able to
monitor users' activities, leading to increased censorship.
- Balkin's paper Free
Speech Is A Triangle" explores how governments pressure
corporations into monitoring users' Internet activity, while
social media moguls are able to manipulate the content that
they track down and collect. (Balkin, 2018)
- Similarly, in places
where net neutrality is not in effect, broadband and cable
businesses attempt to slow down websites and networks to lead
viewers in order to their own sponsored sites. This form of
censorship creates the "illusion of choice" by seemingly
giving the user many options whilst actually limiting the
accessibility of their rivals' (and possibly also
independently-owned) contents. (Timmer, 2018)
Sources
Balkin, Jack M. “Free Speech Is A Triangle.” EbscoHost,
Columbia Law Review, Nov. 2018,
web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.adelphi.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=2ad46c0f-4aa2-4411-8b4e-2ee4eea0d63c%40sessionmgr4007&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=133029108&db=bth.
Chander, Anupam, and
Uyên P Lê. “Free Speech.” Iowa Law Review,
vol. 100, no. 2, Jan. 2015, https://search-proquest-com.libproxy.adelphi.edu/central/docview/1686794628/8B25197DA8764BB3PQ/1?accountid=8204
Nekrasov, Michael, et
al. “A User-Driven Free Speech Application For Anonymous and
Verified Online, Public Group Discourse.” ProQuest,
Journal of Internet Services and Applications, Nov. 2018,
search-proquest-com.libproxy.adelphi.edu/central/docview/231477093/3FFAD1C8124445FDPQ/2?accountid=8204.
Timmer, Joel. “Promoting and Infringing Free Speech? Net
Neutrality and the First Amendment.” ProQuest,
Federal Communications Law Journal, Dec. 2018.
Yu, Wenguang. “Internet Intermediaries' Liability For
Online Illegal Hate Speech.” ProQuest,
Frontiers of Law in China, Sept. 2018,
search-proquest-com.libproxy.adelphi.edu/abiglobal/docview/2120787908/B2D66EB775A543FAPQ/45?accountid=8204.