Freedom of Speech on Social Media
If you ever need a reminder how important freedom of speech is, all you need to do is look at other countries’ actions. Many countries, including The United Kingdom, which doesn’t have a First Amendment, has slowly seen citizens’ free speech rights eroded—and now may soon start imprisoning people for what they have to say on the internet.
At question is pending legislation called the “Online Safety Bill,” which punishes social media companies that allow harassment. Yet it may be expanded to include new criminal penalties for individuals who engage in mean speech online.
“Trolls could face two years in prison for sending messages or posting content that causes psychological harm under legislation targeting online hate,” the Times of London reports. “The Department for Culture, Media & Sport has accepted recommendations from the Law Commission for crimes to be based on ‘likely psychological harm.’ The proposed law change will shift the focus on to the “harmful effect” of a message rather than if it contains ‘indecent’ or ‘grossly offensive’ content, which is the present basis for assessing its criminality.”
Other offenses will reportedly be created for “knowingly false communication,” applying to those who “send or post a message they know to be false with the intention to cause emotional, psychological, or physical harm to the likely audience.” The new offenses will also include punishment for social-media “pile-ons,” where groups gang up and are rude to people online.
This blatant attempt at the censorship of online speech is deeply concerning. The government has absolutely no business punishing people for words that “cause others harm,” such a subjective and slippery standard that it beggars belief. This vague standard could be used to silence just about any speech that one finds offensive. It surely stifles the free exchange of ideas that leads to social progress. Ideas like allowing women to vote, ending racial segregation, and legalizing same-sex marriage were all once considered “harmful” by many. If subjectively harmful or disruptive speech is stifled, progress is drastically held back.
Moreover, the government punishing “knowingly false” speech is deeply disturbing. Firstly, it’s not a black-and-white matter to actually determine what is “true” and what is “false.” There are a million shades of gray and robust debates over factual reality across countless subjects. No one who values freedom should want a government Ministry of Truth determining what speech is “false” and punishing those who spread it.
All speech is a matter of perspective. Perspective is merely a derivative of experience and education. Take for example this statement:
Water is blue. If you look from a distance it appears to be so, but if you hold it in your hands it may be clear. If it is a puddle in dirt, then it is brown. If you are blind, then you are fully reliant on what you are told the color to be.
Why must everything be true or false? Why can we not except the position that there maybe multiple truths to the same question? The more concerning issue is who is the appointed truth teller? For they have the power to determine the trajectory of all discussion and to define ‘likely psychological harm.’ This is not actually harm, just LIKELY. So saying “You like nice” – may harm someone. So saying “Look at that outfit” – may harm someone. Saying “America the Great,” – may harm someone. Who gets to define “likely?”
This would all have a chilling effect on speech that questions the status quo or the government itself. After all, free speech doesn’t exist to protect popular or uncontroversial speech; such speech is in little need of protection. It’s dissident voices and information that threatens centralized power that is crushed under the guise of “protecting people” from “harmful” speech.