Introduction
In recent years, with the development of technologies, the Internet environment has become an irreplaceable source of information and communication. Through various online platforms and social network sites, a substantial number of people all over the world communicate with their friends and relatives, follow the news, and share their opinions concerning the latest events daily. At the same time, the increasing authority of online platforms currently raises a highly significant question concerning the application of the First Amendment’s regulations to modern online social networks (“Executive order on preventing online censorship,” 2020). The majority of counties all over the world regulate their traditional media’s content based on taste, honesty, truth, religious, cultural, and racial harmony, and national security. However, as a substantively comprehensive environment that may be characterized by multiple private sources and public interaction, online space may be regarded as more sensitive to the freedom of speech and press.
Criteria for Censorship
In general, the censorship of online material and online behavior that may be defined as the deletion or banning of inappropriate content has already been debated for several decades by American community members and lawmakers. From a personal perspective, the potential harmfulness of online material to people’s property and well-being should be the guiding motivation for its censoring. The First Amendment guarantees every citizen a constitutional right to express his or her opinion free. According to the current official position of the US president, “in a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet” (“Executive order on preventing online censorship,” 2020, para. 3). Consequently, the practice of online censorship is regarded as fundamentally anti-democratic. However, under specific conditions, online censorship may provide public safety that is guaranteed by the country’s legislation as well. Inappropriate information may be illegal and potentially harmful to people’s property, health, and lives; it may be misused for criminal activities. That is why, regarding the potentially hazardous consequences of its practical application, the following information should be censored both by governmental agencies and private social media companies:
- Terrorist activities, for instance, the instructions on bomb-making;
- All forms of violence;
- Incitement to hatred based on race and religion;
- Pornography;
- Racial discrimination;
- Illegal drug production;
- Instructions on fraud or illegal operations with credit cards;
- Instructions on cybercrimes.
Regulation and Moderation
The First Amendment protects the right of citizens and mass media to express their opinion and share various kinds of information. However, the government should be responsible for setting standards on the material’s acceptability based on its unsafety in terms of legislation. As all citizens have a constitutional right for safe living, potentially hazardous materials should be censored in terms of legislation. In other words, the government should establish the standards of appropriate and inappropriate material on the highest level.
At the same time, large social media companies, such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram, may currently censor information and opinions that they identify as inappropriate (“Executive order on preventing online censorship,” 2020). Their authority is determined by the inability of the First Amendment to protect a person from repercussions from companies or private individuals as a result of public statements. Consequently, social media online platforms have an almost unprecedented power to shape public opinions through the interpretation of events and control over what individuals will see and define the appropriateness of material on their local level.
As previously mentioned, the government and private online companies do the actual censorship bot on the federal and community levels. At the same time, social media affords a specific social space that may be characterized by considerable social influence, increased peer-to-peer monitoring, and immediacy (Kwon, et al., 2015). That is why, from a personal perspective, users should have a right to moderate online services and websites in relation to appropriate and inappropriate material with the help of specific tools provided by companies, as well. In other words, similar to the government and private companies, they should have an opportunity to monitor the platforms and censor information on the microcosmic level. For instance, users may filter out an inappropriate or undesirable content, complain about the propaganda of racial, cultural, or religious discrimination, violence, and hate, or block aggressive opponents. Moreover, in the case of the spread of illegal materials related to terroristic activities, governmental agencies should be provided with the right to monitor social networks as well. In addition, network companies may be responsible for the imposition of penalties on people who humiliate others without obvious reasons to reduce the demonstration of disrespect, aggression, and hate.
Potential Outcomes
Freedom of speech and press is the fundamental principle of American democracy. When social networks abuse their authority with or without governmental agreement and start to ban and delete non-hazardous materials and block their authors or other people who express their points of view, civil rights are violated to some extent. However, all people have a civil right for safety and protection against invalid and offensive materials and comments. According to Hawdon, et al. (2017), “the Internet is a forum for the best and worst of humanity” (p. 1). On the one hand, it is filled with various materials that inform, educate, and inspire. On the other hand, the Internet may be regarded as a source of transmitting hate globally (Hawdon, et al., 2017). Cyberbullying is currently a highly disturbing issue of the online space that has an immeasurably strong impact on the victims’ emotional state.
Unfortunately, the Internet environment may become more negative in the following 10 years due to impunity and permissiveness in this sector. The opportunity of staying anonymous, the absence of responsibility and legal punishment for words and actions, and negative personal characteristics frequently lead to people’s inappropriate online behavior. That is why I believe that the decision of the censorship of online materials and behavior will result in substantial benefits in the future as it will help to improve the citizens’ safety and reduce the demonstration of bad behavior in the online space.
Conclusion
In general, the First Amendment guarantees to every citizen and press a constitutional right to express opinions, criticism, and share information publicly. At the same time, potentially hazardous information and aggressive behavior should be censored in all levels of the governmental and social organization as people have a civil right for safety and protection against invalid and offensive materials and comments. The censorship in the online space may protect the individuals’ health, lives, financial state, and emotional well-being.
References
Executive order on preventing online censorship. (2020). White House. Web.
Hawdon, J., Oksanen, A., & Räsänen, P. (2017). Exposure to online hate in four nations: A cross-national consideration. Deviant Behavior, 38(3), 1-13. Web.
Kwon, K. H., Moon, S., & Stefanone, M. A. (2015). Unspeaking on Facebook? Testing network effects on self-censorship of political expressions in social network sites. Quality & Quantity, 49(4), 1417-1435.