Wheres the line?

“The censor’s sword pierces deeply into the heart of free expression.”
– Earl Warren

This weeks topic of freedom of speech is certainly one that I’m sure ignites a few fiery debates. Most people believe in the power of free expression, but unfortunately some people can abuse this power.

Although all the readings were interesting this week, I’d like to primarily focus on Gillespie’s reading discussing Facebook. Now, I’m sure that with our generation being such active Facebook users, we’ve all felt were fairly aware of what Facebook determines as suitable for the public eye. However what the reading brought to attention was who is censoring the content.

The employees who spend hours going through content on Facebook and removing pictures or comments, why is their judgment of what is suitable superior than anybody else’s? As in, what does it take to be hired by Facebook to do that job? “How do those involved, from the policy setter down to the freelance clickworker, manage the tension between the rules handed to them and their own moral compass?”

One would think you’d simply need to follow Facebook’s guidelines for moderators. However just as an example of how confusing it can be, one of the first things mentioned in the Facebook guidelines is that they will not tolerate homophobia, however in one instant Facebook removed a picture of two men kissing which caused an uproar, accusing Facebook itself of being homophobic, they later stated it was an error and apologised for the confusion.

“Facebook has fashioned itself the clean, well-lit alternative to the scary open Internet for both users and advertisers, thanks to the work of a small army of human content moderators “

So, as it stands, it looks like on social networking sites such as Facebook, the freedom of speech is encouraged, but not unlimited. I think when it comes to the real world, most people can agree on the fact that just because you can say something doesn’t mean you should. However, place trust in that statement online, and you’d be in for quite the surprise. Over the Internet people feel powerful; I think they feel like it’s a space for them to express whatever they want without limitations or responsibilities. But the fact is, unfortunately, there are some twisted people in the world, and posting videos or pictures of hate crimes, animal cruelty, or even child pornography does unfortunately happen. Although with this in mind I have to wonder, what if some content is posted with the intent of raising awareness?

Speaking very technically here, Facebook for instance would remove it if someone posted a video of themselves being cruel to an animal, but if someone shared a video of animal cruelty with the message that this sort of behavior had to be stopped, would that be removed? Technically its still sharing similar content, so that raises the question that would, or should, horrible things be censored if the overall aim is to stop that kind of behaviour?

“How much is too much; where are the lines drawn and who has the right to draw them; how do we balance freedom of speech with the values of the community, with the safety of individuals, with the aspirations of art and the wants of commerce.”

I mean maybe the way forward in all this is simply to control what you individually view on the internet, rather than the internet trying to control what everyone views. But when it does come to the freedom to say whatever we want, what percentage of people abuse that power and use it to hurt others? It says in Facebook’s guidelines “Freedom of speech does not include freedom to be abusive with language.”

However many people do this, I don’t think that kind of behavior can ever really be stopped, but perhaps Facebook’s moderators are just a handful of people who are willing to try.

On the other side of things, there is the argument that if you find something inappropriate or offensive then you can simply ignore the content without getting yourself involved in online debate. Stephan Fry Sums up this side of things fairly bluntly, but not without a good point:

“It’s now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights. It’s actually nothing more… than a whine. ‘I find that offensive.’ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so fucking what.” – Stephan Fry

Fry doesn’t make a bad point here, I mean, this may be less relevant when it comes to bigger issues like child pornography or hateful acts, but if we see a video or picture put up that we deem inappropriate, or read a very opinioned discussion we don’t agree with, there is the argument that there doesn’t have to be an argument. In hindsight encouraging any type of free speech, and to those who may be hurt by the content, well, Simply ignoring something sometimes is a forgotten option. Some might say that we should always speak up about things we disagree with, but I think on some level the Freedom of speech on the Internet also includes the Freedom not too.