Free speech online - at what cost?
Free speech is a difficult issue; social media has made it a deadly one, argues Fred Ball
The right to free speech has long been considered as one of the most fundamental and basic human rights.
A trademark of dictatorship is the censoring of speech.
But should this right be extended to those who exploit it?
In recent years, the rise of social media has deeply affected the political and social systems in countries such as the US or UK. This year alone, political candidates and commentators have used free speech to spread misinformation and hate in order to gain either financially or politically.
Self-proclaimed journalists such as Alex Jones have exploited their right to free speech in order to blatantly spread lies - most famously that a school shooting was faked - in order to sell products and gain mass exposure online.
What Jones and other “journalists” of this kind do is legal - therefore they are allowed to continue to spread misinformation. In Jones’ case, this was until he was made bankrupt by a lawsuit surrounding the defamation of the families affected by his claims about the mass shooting.
Attempts to censor Jones by excluding him from mainstream social media only served to grow his audience and cause him to spout even more extremist views. It also caused his supporters to claim that the places that banned Jones were actively against free speech, at his request. What happened with Jones shows that attempts to censor those who spread bigotry and hatred online, using free speech, only validate their claims of righteousness as they can claim they're being censored for “angering the elites”.
This begs the question - why should we allow people to exploit their right to free speech in order to spread misinformation, when it actively restricts the free speech of others?
It appears that by trying to censor people who exploit free speech online, we simply give them ammunition to use against us. So, perhaps instead of censoring these people online, social media and governmental organisations should instead try to provide proof their claims are false.
If the point of free speech is that anyone can say whatever they want, people should then use this right as a weapon to dismantle the claims made by people online exercising the very same right. As it is not possible to restrict their speech, what’s stopping others from using their own tactics against them?
Well, this may be impossible.
It is far easier for someone to lie than it is to disprove one. Dramatic lies are far more likely to be shared and spread than mundane truths and corrections. People online do not require facts to weaponize free speech. To combat them, facts are required. It took years for someone to actually succeed in suing Alex Jones and, in that time, he was able to utilise this opportunity to say far worse things. If someone is taken down from a social media platform, where would all their viewers go? Thousands of people would then be left to find other sources of “news” - other people would simply take the place of the person who was forced to stop. What’s concerning is that their successors may have even more extreme views.
So, what is the solution to stopping people from exploiting their free speech? It is not as if their rights could be removed. Perhaps, viewing free speech as a right for people online is wrong. Instead, maybe rights should only apply to the real world - where facts can be checked, and people have to take accountability for what they say.
At the moment, the only power we have is as individuals. It is up to you to determine whether what you see online is the product of someone exploiting their right to free speech in order to gain from you, or a genuine piece of information. Double-check what you're seeing. Triangulate your sources.
If something you see is a tool of an exploiter you can make sure that people know that it is not real by reporting it or flagging it, or simply not validate it by engaging. Restricting free speech in any way goes against people's basic human rights, but ordinary people cannot be expected to be the authority of determining the truth of everything they read.
Is free speech that restricts the rights of others through misinformation and hate really free? Or does it come with a price?
Fred Ball, Year 12
The right to free speech has long been considered as one of the most fundamental and basic human rights.
A trademark of dictatorship is the censoring of speech.
But should this right be extended to those who exploit it?
In recent years, the rise of social media has deeply affected the political and social systems in countries such as the US or UK. This year alone, political candidates and commentators have used free speech to spread misinformation and hate in order to gain either financially or politically.
Self-proclaimed journalists such as Alex Jones have exploited their right to free speech in order to blatantly spread lies - most famously that a school shooting was faked - in order to sell products and gain mass exposure online.
What Jones and other “journalists” of this kind do is legal - therefore they are allowed to continue to spread misinformation. In Jones’ case, this was until he was made bankrupt by a lawsuit surrounding the defamation of the families affected by his claims about the mass shooting.
Attempts to censor Jones by excluding him from mainstream social media only served to grow his audience and cause him to spout even more extremist views. It also caused his supporters to claim that the places that banned Jones were actively against free speech, at his request. What happened with Jones shows that attempts to censor those who spread bigotry and hatred online, using free speech, only validate their claims of righteousness as they can claim they're being censored for “angering the elites”.
This begs the question - why should we allow people to exploit their right to free speech in order to spread misinformation, when it actively restricts the free speech of others?
It appears that by trying to censor people who exploit free speech online, we simply give them ammunition to use against us. So, perhaps instead of censoring these people online, social media and governmental organisations should instead try to provide proof their claims are false.
If the point of free speech is that anyone can say whatever they want, people should then use this right as a weapon to dismantle the claims made by people online exercising the very same right. As it is not possible to restrict their speech, what’s stopping others from using their own tactics against them?
Well, this may be impossible.
It is far easier for someone to lie than it is to disprove one. Dramatic lies are far more likely to be shared and spread than mundane truths and corrections. People online do not require facts to weaponize free speech. To combat them, facts are required. It took years for someone to actually succeed in suing Alex Jones and, in that time, he was able to utilise this opportunity to say far worse things. If someone is taken down from a social media platform, where would all their viewers go? Thousands of people would then be left to find other sources of “news” - other people would simply take the place of the person who was forced to stop. What’s concerning is that their successors may have even more extreme views.
So, what is the solution to stopping people from exploiting their free speech? It is not as if their rights could be removed. Perhaps, viewing free speech as a right for people online is wrong. Instead, maybe rights should only apply to the real world - where facts can be checked, and people have to take accountability for what they say.
At the moment, the only power we have is as individuals. It is up to you to determine whether what you see online is the product of someone exploiting their right to free speech in order to gain from you, or a genuine piece of information. Double-check what you're seeing. Triangulate your sources.
If something you see is a tool of an exploiter you can make sure that people know that it is not real by reporting it or flagging it, or simply not validate it by engaging. Restricting free speech in any way goes against people's basic human rights, but ordinary people cannot be expected to be the authority of determining the truth of everything they read.
Is free speech that restricts the rights of others through misinformation and hate really free? Or does it come with a price?
Fred Ball, Year 12