Free speech vs hate speech
These two terms have been faced off many times before throughout history and political debates. On one hand, one part of the population believes that free speech constitutes speech without hatred, and on the other hand, others believe that defining hate speech and condemning it is a barrier to free speech.
This political debate has been integrated differently around the world. For instance, in the US, according to the first amendment: “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” (https://constitution.congress.gov/). In other words, concepts such as hate speech do not exist, and you may express whatever you want, hence defining American free speech.
On the flip side, the European Commission defines hate speech as: “the denigration of the reputation of a social group, stereotyped by some particular national, racial or religious characteristics, accompanied by incitement to hostility, violence, and discrimination against that group” (https://ec.europa.eu/). In the case of the UK, such communication can result in fines, imprisonment, or both.
Throughout this article, I would like to make it clear that hate speech will be the European Union’s definition.
Unfortunately, such practice has become more and more popular, and with the rise of social media, and the digitalization of communication, this behavior can also be found online. The main issue is the fact that there are more chances that people experience it, as social media dependencies are rising, with 4.72 billion users and around 330 million people potentially suffering from internet addiction in 2021.
(Source: https://influencermarketinghub.com/social-media-addiction-stats/)
Furthermore, the internet’s access has developed to the point that children are easily exposed to it, 95 percent of 3 to 18-year-olds had home internet access, according to the American Community Survey (ACS). Probabilities to affect the younger generation through hate speech are therefore rising.
The question arises: should measures be taken by social media companies to prevent hate speech from happening? Or should these companies leave information untouched, so that users can learn from free speech?
The substantial effect of hate speech on children
To clarify potential assumptions, I do believe that internet exposure should be reduced, especially for children for hate information exposure, but also for other consequences, such as: “Children and teens who spend more time with social media or who sleep with mobile devices in their rooms are at greater risk for sleep problems. Exposure to light (particularly blue light) and stimulating content from screens can delay or disrupt sleep and have a negative effect on school.” (Source: https://www.healthychildren.org/)
Yet I also believe that the internet is a great place to educate yourself, and it would be a waste of prohibiting internet access for children. As defined by Ofer Malamud, Santiago Cueto, Julian Cristia, Diether W. Beuermann: “Internet access can potentially affect a range of skills including academic achievement and cognitive skills. If children lack educational materials, internet access may improve the development of academic skills by providing access to educational websites with subject-specific content and exercises (e.g. Khan Academy).”
(Source: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25312/w25312.pdf)
Concerning the dangers of hate speech vis-à-vis the youth, the effects are considerable and should never be neglected. Childhood or primary socialization for sociologist Emile Durkheim, is the process of when a person learns how-to live-in society, build his own identity, and integrate social norms. Furthermore, according to Rishi Sriram, an associate professor for the School of Education at Baylor University: “This first critical period of brain development begins around age 2 and concludes around age 7. It provides a prime opportunity to lay the foundation for holistic education for children.”
With such a learning ability, hate speech would therefore disrupt a child’s personality, ultimately making him a hateful (or “deviant”) individual. Hence, social media, search engines, online media firms need to act to restrict this sort of content.
Lack of government regulation
In a recent article from The Verge, a school has canceled classes because of Tik Tok threats: “Districts in California, Texas, Minnesota, and Missouri have said they plan to close down Friday in response, according to the districts and local media reports.”
The main issue, other than the threats made towards the schools, is that the schools are adapting themselves to social media. If these threats were regulated and traced back to the originator, the government could then punish the culprit.
International law should therefore be considered and would force internet platforms to regulate their content, therefore, preventing them from being a means of hatred spread. It is important to note that firms in the US, do have the right to censor content if they wish to do so: “The First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship. Social media platforms are private companies and can censor what people post on their websites as they see fit.”
What are the technical solutions companies can use today?
The traditional solution is the use of moderators (or “modos”) that can check and remove hostile comments. With the continuous development of Artificial Intelligence and Deep Learning, solutions are also being worked on to counter the threats of malicious online users.
Facebook is currently using an AI that prevents such comments. It is important to note that these tools are still in development, meaning that the margin of error is higher today than it will be tomorrow. Furthermore, the main issue with moderators of an AI algorithm is bias. It is therefore important that through these solutions, biases such as political inclination should not be considered. Ultimately, the main goal is to reduce the risks of online threats while keeping free speech.
(Source: https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-ai-hate-speech-improves-unclear/)
I strongly believe that as much as we do have the right to voice our opinion we do not or should not have the right to hurt other people, threaten them or voice untrue, harmful statements about them. The Internet and social media has made it way too easy to hurt other people and it has lead to many tragedies, often involving young people. So again you have the right to say what you want as long as it does not violate others right to the feeling of personal safety and dignity.