Freedom Of Speech And Intolerance In Social Media
According to Carr and Hayes, social media could be defined as “Internet-based channels that allow users to opportunistically interact and selectively self-present, either in real-time or asynchronously, with both broad and narrow audiences who derive value from user-generated content and the perception of interaction with others”. More simply, it can be defined as a platform which has enabled one to perpetuate their ideas. It has undermined boundaries and diminished long distances for people to connect with one another. However, its transition from the latter to a forum where opinions of other people are not tolerated and often met with hate and backlash is something to be appalled by. Suffice to say, this increasing level of intolerance can be associated to unregulated communication and lack of concrete set of rules of ethical conduct over social media. Lately, the demarcation between hate speech and free speech has diminished which has led to intolerance.
To begin with, one must first of all try and define the boundaries between the two, although, the distinction between them is hard to establish. Freedom of speech, according to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of law, is “the right to express information, ideas and free of government restrictions based in on content and subject only to reasonable limitations”. It is one of the very basic rights that are guaranteed to human beings. There is no denying that free speech is crucial; However, this right is not unlimited or sacrosanct. Whereas, hate speech entails expression of hate or incitement of violence against a particular individual or racial, ethnic and religious groups.
Owing to complexity of the concept of free speech and lack of set of rules of ethical conduct on social media, level of intolerance has risen over the period of time. According to findings of a study from Poland, hostile content on social media indirectly shapes people’s prejudices. Research team led by University of Warsaw psychologist Wiktor Soral states that increased exposure to hateful commentaries on an individual or group breeds intolerance for that particular individual or group amongst the people. The very example of this is Qandeel Baloch who fell prey to hate speech on social media which eventually took her life. She happened to be a Pakistani social media star who was famous for her bold, risqué posts which were not in alignment with the norms and conservative values of the society. Later on, she was found in a controversy involving Mufti Abdul Qavi. Following this incident, she was killed by her very own brother who thought of her as a disgrace to the family. Amongst all the reasons, what had primarily triggered her brother was the hate she had been receiving on social media and in real life.
Only if hate speech is filtered out, there lies a possibility that such events could be prevented. Social media has enabled it’s users to share different content online which has resulted in it’s culmination into an echo chamber. An echo chamber is a situation where “certain ideas, beliefs and data points are reinforced through repetition”. People form strong opinions in a situation like this. Shannon Fisher who has studied Political Leadership at University of Virginia talked about this dire situation by referring to a meme which was forwarded to him by his relative. The meme had a completely fabricated quote associated to Senator Elizabeth Warren. Since it reinforced his relative’s already negative opinion about her, he assumed it to be true. This is an example of how social media shapes strengthens one’s opinions. This may have dire implications.
As mentioned by Shanon Fisher, “Conspiracy theories like the ones frequently espoused by the website Infowars are fed to a hungry political base looking for another reason to be angry at the opposing side. Once an echo chamber is formed, just about anything can be believed as news if it disparages a political enemy”. This is an example of how unregulated communication on social media may actually spark hatred amongst people and make them more intolerant towards a set of ideas that do not reconcile with the beliefs they hold. Absence of rules and regulations regarding ethical conduct on social media has also given rise to the culture of insensitive mockery or humour. People happen to conceal their identities and treat vulnerability of others with contempt, irrespective of the implications it might have. In some cases, there are things that one may find humorous and may make fun of it, while, others might have a sense of emotion attached to it which one must not disregard. Even though, ethics may not allow anything like this; there have been many such instances. One of the many examples one can look up to is of Logan Paul, a famous Youtuber. According to BBC, he had posted a video filming a dead body at the Aokigahara forest at the base of Mountain Fuji which is known to be a frequent site for suicides. For many, Logan was not only intolerant towards the emotional sentiment attached to the situation; in fact, he had disrespected and devalued the suicide victim and all those suffering from mental illness.
Referring to an article in Daily Mail, recently, one of the biggest Yotubers, Felix Kjellberg who is known as PewDiePie, posted an insensitive meme about Demi Lavato’s drug overdose. Apparently, in the original meme the character asked for money which was supposed to be used in buying a burger. Instead, the character buys heroine. In his version, Felix replaced the character with Demi’s face. This act was not only insensitive but it also trivialised the struggle of Demi Lavato and many others out there who are in a similar condition. Owing to public’s reaction, he deleted the meme. However, the meme should have been removed way before PewDiePie deleted it, due to its content that was in violation to the ethical code of conduct. As a result of lack of set of rules of ethical conduct, such measures could not be undertaken. It provided opportunity for people like PewDiePie and Logan Paul to display their intolerance towards emotions and acts of vulnerable people like Demi Lavato more than often.
Conservatives believe that regulating social media to address the rise in intolerance undermines democracy and the right to freedom of speech. Proposing regulation of social media as a solution is far worse than the situation itself and not justifiable. However, one must keep in mind that social Media is a platform where daily multiple debates take place. In other words, it’s a place where people exchange views about differing beliefs and ideas. The set of rules only intend to filter out speech that crosses the boundaries of free speech. In no way it undermines the freedom of speech. If introduction of rules is not justified then how is the lynching of Mashal Khan justified who was killed on the basis of an allegation that he had posted blasphemous content on facebook, an allegation which was not been proven later in in the judicial court. In this case, Mashal Khan was denied his right to free speech. In this scenario, social media had proved to be an echo chamber where this false allegation was reinforced to an extent that it incited hate which resulted in the murder of a man who was not even given the chance to prove his innocence. These set of rules will only ensure that these debates do not take life of another Mashal Khan and take place in an environment where conflicting ideas are respected.
In light of aforementioned arguments, it can be concluded that intolerance in the form hate speech and insensitive mockery is a consequence of absence of concrete set of rules of ethical conduct. It is true that it will be hard to define the sphere in which these set of rules will operate. However, the current situation calls for such measures to be undertaken so that incidents like lynching of Mashal Khan and creation of insensitive memes such as the one made by PewDiePie as the news of Demi Lavato’s overdose emerged could be avoided.
