Blog Entry #4: Internet and Freedom of Expression
How has the internet changed freedom of expression?
The internet has been a great tool for freedom of expression, yet it can also be weaponized to limit freedom of expression. As the internet is so new, the laws and limits surrounding free expression on the internet are constantly in question and changing. As Jeff Kosseff said, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is "the 26 words that created the internet." Overtime, critics are concerned with the amount of protection that platforms are provided under the act, while supporters argue that it's necessary for free speech. Many of these qualms about the amount of provided protections have only become evident in recent years, after controversies with Meta, X, and other platforms (specifically concerning misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech).
Free expression on the internet has been treated as a public forum or public space, which means that users are (technically) allowed to post whatever they want. However, as people are able to hide behind their screens, they can say and share whatever they want with (supposedly) fewer repercussions. This has lead to a toxic environment and lots of discourse on what is actually okay to be posted on the internet. This is new to society, as before, people would have to associate their face with the information and opinions that they share. It's brought up debates about how much platforms should be regulating content while also protecting free speech. It's also created a need for programs aimed at anti-misinformation in a world where any type of information rapidly spreads and perpetuates.
Essentially, while the internet has created a space for any voice to shine, it's also easily manipulated to diminish voices and control the narrative. Privatization and centralization, unlawful surveillance, and harmful algorithms can all be used to manipulate or control private actors, groups, and individuals (including discouraging investigative and truthful journalism through threats of privacy, emotion, physical, or financial). Free expression both thrives and shrivels in the realm of the internet.
Should there be a ranking of values and rights in the digital age? If so, what should that ranking include and what should the order of values be?
While I think it's difficult to create a ranking, as cyber civil rights, like physical civil rights, are arguably equal to one another. However, I do think there are some that should take up more concern or necessity. I've listed what I believe the three most important values are below.
Privacy - I believe privacy should sit at the top of priorities, as people can be vengeful and tend to disregard the consequences of their actions on the internet (specifically how their actions affect others, as people are removed from one another behind a screen)--which I find to be ironic, as the internet never forgets (providing yet another reason for an emphasis on privacy).
Accountability - While I believe in anonymity for reasons of safety and privacy, I also think people should be held accountable. If people are able to post whatever they want without repercussions, regardless of who it harms or infringes upon, online violence and dehumanization would increase, and nothing would be done about it.
Free expression - Free expression ranks third, as I believe people are more likely to freely express themselves under anonymity, as they don't fear the repercussions (as I discussed above). However, in cases of hate speech or disinformation, especially speech that incited violence (which isn't even protected under the First Amendment, per Brandenburg v. Ohio), it doesn't belong in a healthy society. A healthy internet is a healthy society, and people who seek to spread hate and violence do have the right to say what they wish, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't face the repercussions. Rather than banning hate speech and incitements of violence, I think it would be better to allow what has already been posted to remain, but suspend the user and/or explain why the speech is harmful and inaccurate below. I believe displaying explanations below misinformation would be helpful, as well.