rebuttal-doglover

Freedom of Speech

The term “Freedom of speech”, is used as a lot of people’s defense when being offensive on social media. They make hateful comments about one’s race, sexual orientation, or opinions but then can “win” by saying “I can say what I want… freedom of speech”. Freedom of speech, or the “First Amendment” is “Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction”. Banning users based on what they say raises concerns about the freedom of expression. But in all actuality, freedom of speech doesn’t apply to social media. Sites like Instagram have their own set of First Amendment rules. This means that Instagram and other social media sites can moderate the posts without violating their rights. 

According to Instagram’s guidelines, ““We remove content that contains credible threats or hate speech, content that targets private individuals to degrade or shame them, personal information meant to blackmail or harass someone, and repeated unwanted messages. We do generally allow stronger conversation around people who are featured in the news or have a large public audience due to their profession or chosen activities.””. This rule goes against the First amendant , which is beneficial because  you shouldn’t be allowed to just say anything because you have the right to. 

Determining what is considered harmful can be challenging. Hate speech might not be physical, but can be mentally harmful and can lead to violence to a specific person or group. For example, take a look at “John Stuarts: Mill Harm example”, he states that “people should be free to act however they wish unless their actions cause harm to somebody else.”. Yes, that’s true but there is a fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech. 

Another rebuttal thrown out is “effective level of banning ”. Yes, Permanently banning hateful users does not necessarily solve the underlying issues, and we should be addressing  the causes of hate speech with lessons, and community, and links + articles. But, It’s hard at times to try to change someone’s mind or opinions+views. Especially if a person has a strong view on their opinion, you’re not changing anything. Putting out an article won’t lead that person to not do it, honestly, it might make them do something more hurtful. With the boldness levels of people on  social media, some people will say whatever they want knowing that they might not ever face that person. So, banning the users will help make the social media environment more clearer. It’s now the person’s issue as to whether they want to make themself more nicer. 

An important rebuttal that could be thrown at this argument is “Possibility for Unfair Punishment”. Banning users based on the number of complaints without an investigation into each case could result in unfair punishment. Innocent users might be penalized, while actual users could go unnoticed if they have fewer complaints against them. With this mechanism that would be added, it would be very selective of who is banned. We would not only look at the number of complaints lodged against them, but the content of what they’re posting that was flagged. So unfair punishment wouldn’t happen because of the selective banning process. 

In conclusion, while freedom of speech is a fundamental right, advocating for freedom of speech without considering its potential risks or lack of research, is a big issue. Freedom of speech does not combine with  It’s the reason why so many people use hate speech on social media. There is a very thin difference between freedom of speech and hate speech that people tend to defend their hate with “Freedom of speech, I can say what I want etc.). If Instagram contained  a mechanism for banning users who are mean to other users if the number of complaints lodged against them is credible and sufficient would help the social media community overall. The amount of hate speech and negativity would decrease. 

References

Alharbi, A., & Al-Sowayan, N. S. (2020, April 3). The effect of ketogenic-diet on health. SCIRP. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=99691

Centre, T. E. (2021a, December 15). What is the harm principle? ethics explainer by the Ethics Centre. THE ETHICS CENTRE. https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-the-harm-principle/#:~:text=The%20hard%20 principle%20says%20people,English%20 philosopher%20 John%20 Stuart%20mil. 

This entry was posted in DogLover, Rebuttal. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to rebuttal-doglover

  1. davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:

    Thank you for posting your Rebuttal Argument on time.

    NOW: Please Copy and Paste your content and References into a second post and call it Rebuttal Rewrite.

    Don’t forget to categorize the new post in Rebuttal Rewrite and your Username. Thanks again!

    —DSH

    Like

Leave a reply to davidbdale Cancel reply