If you've been keeping up with the news, then you may have heard that Facebook is starting to remove posts dealing with "white nationalism". This new policy strikes me as being overly broad. To explain this, let's examine free speech and hate speech; what is generally permissible to say, and what isn't?
Personally, I believe that any discussion on speech begins with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This article reads 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".
This means that generally, Americans are free to say and publish what they wish, without fear of retaliation by the government. However, this freedom is not absolute.
Let me explain the oft-quoted example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre where there is no fire. This action may produce a stampede for the exits, which potentially would be deadly. In a similar manner, our courts have ruled that any speech which expresses a "true threat" to others (that is, an actual physical threat against the well-being of others) is "hate speech", and may have legal action/censorship taken against it.
As another example, let's take expressing anger against the government. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that somebody says that the governor should be hit with a car. As there is no obvious intent to take the action, this statement is not a "true threat" (at least, not on its own), and is permitted. However, if the same person were to say that he is going to run over the governor, that is regarded as an actual threat to the governor's well-being (since actual intent to commit such an act appears to exist). As such, the person making the statement can be arrested for making a "true threat" against a public official. One can also be arrested, or have legal action taken against them, for the incitement of "imminent lawless action" (such as a riot).
This brings me to the matter of Facebook's "Community Standards" (as defined on the site). According to Part III Section 12 of the Standards, Facebook defines hate speech as any
"direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation".
Now, certain types of speech have a general attitude of contempt and/or disrespect to them. An example of this would be ethnic slurs, such as the term "spic" to describe Hispanics. These terms have the effect of insulting and demeaning their targets. However, they are not on their face physical threats against anybody's safety.
In the same way, let's examine the opinion that "all Muslims are terrorists". Such an expression, whether agreed upon or not, would (according to Facebook) be defined as an "attack" on Muslims. As such, Facebook says such a statement is not allowed on their site. Nevertheless (and as in the previously explained statement), expressing this or a similar opinion cannot be construed as a physical threat against Muslims; there is no intent to harm them that is evident.
Knowing this, I take issue with Facebook on their latest action. As I previously explained, I believe this action to be too broad in its scope. How long will it be before an innocuous comment like "God bless America" is banned? After all, this remark could be described as "offensive" to those who don't believe in God/America (right, liberals?).
Obviously, my concern relates to that of freedom and liberty. If Americans don't have the freedom to express controversial ideas, or even not-so-controversial ones, then I believe we have no freedom at all. And that idea, to me, is "offensive".
No comments:
Post a Comment