Should online free speech be regulated? If so, how much restriction is appropriate?

The majority of people now have an incredible opportunity to engage with one another via personal web pages or group pages thanks to the internet. More people than ever before may share their perspectives with the rest of the world audience over the internet, including cultural analysts, political debaters, and corporate dialogues, in addition to anyone who is prepared to express their opinions about anything. Internet users have seized that opportunity in greater numbers. Some of the observers find exhorting speech on social media platforms but still value it as the restoration of democracy in communities thus regulating speech becomes a rival of democracy (Johnson & Reuband). Other observers find the same kind of speech which internet has simulated as frightening and offensive. Hate speech, pornography, and lured threats flourish alongside the debates about the future of democracy and freedom of expression (Tsesis).

Internet has been used as a powerful platform for disseminating information and conducting business. However, some people have used it for a number of malicious activities much of which some are not acceptable in most of the jurisdictions. In addition, internet has become a front page for spreading hatred speeches, loose talks, and criticizing the government officials. Much as millions of people can be accessed over unencumbered and inexpensive social network, which has enabled fragmented and diverse groups to interconnect, internet threatens the collective identity and the sense of belonging in the communities.

Because of technological innovations, extremists propagate through their strategies and rhetoric, organise, recruit, and unify themselves through websites, emails, and private managed boards (Johnson & Reuband). The proliferation of online malicious speaking groups has been mirrored by the rise in a number of web based defamatory speech, bullying and discrimination, harassment all targeting the audience through blogs, forums and emails. The increase in online ill talks and reckless speeches is compounded by policing difficulties in such activities that looks at internet as unregulated. Unless a specific crime is reported, it is difficult for police to respond to any crimes related to online speeches.

The debate on regulation of free speech on the internet

The traditional balance between respect for feelings of others and free speech is becoming difficult to sustain. The voice of modern civilization and balance is politically dominated. In American society and politics, the main complaint about free internet speech regulation is due to the contradictions of speakers against the faith, ethnicity and poorly criticizing the government.

Internet operates differently from other communication platforms such as radios and televisions. Televisions and radios are mass media, they are limited from publishing violence inciting, discriminative, and pornography related information. In contrast, it is easy for everyone to access the website at any time anywhere.

For Americans, the freedom of speech is one of the cherished freedoms because free speech provides a guardrail for all other forms of freedom. Free speech keeps people connected, informed, and make them hold the government accountable on a number of issues. Each generation faces a renewed challenge to preserve the freedom of speech. The struggle today is for human rights activists against the government’s plan to ensure free speech on the internet (Revere 37).

In 2012, the congress finally approved two controversial bills namely, protect intellectual property act and stop online piracy act. Recently, the cyber information sharing and protection act have been also tabled before the congress. In addition, similar regulations have been worked upon though the struggle continues (Al-Qirim 36).

In reality, the main intention of all these bills may be good but they give the government a hard time to control over what may or may not be spoken online thus opening a door for more strict regulations. Regulating free internet speech is not enough to fight online piracy or protecting citizens against threats to privacy or security (Johnson & Reuband).

First, Americans have the right to free speech. According to the first amendment of the United States constitution, the congress shall not make any law stopping the freedom of speech (Clarkson 147). It included speaking or writing in private or public newspapers, books and the internet, an implication that Americans have the duty to preserve and protect this freedom for themselves and the future generation (Clarkson 156). Unless that law is amended, the congress will never succeed in regulating internet free speech.

To what extents can free speech on the internet be regulated?

The task of regulating free speech should be left for internet service providers. Because of the difficulties in the multilateral and unilateral legislative approaches to regulating internet speech, it is fair to question whether it is only the law that works to eliminate cybercrimes regarding offensive speeches on the internet. Because of technical regulations, both the server and user ends provide an effective avenue through which the reception and transmission of online speeches can be regulated. Internet service providers can play a significant role in reducing the level of offensive speeches among internet users.

The code of conduct enables internet service providers to remove all offensive web materials that are breaching their policies. The use of a voluntary code of conduct through which customers can comply provide an important mechanism for regulating all pirating websites which circumvent the first amendment of the United States constitution.

Through this mechanism, internet service providers can cancel or delete their services in case their code of conduct is breached. Some interest service providers have regulated defamatory speeches by removing any offensive content on the websites. For instance, in 2004, the America online removed the Neo-Nazi website because of violating all the terms of service agreement that prohibits all the contents which are ethnically or racially offensive (McGroarty).

Some organizations such as Simon Wiesenthal center and anti-defamation league (ADL) have continued to work closely with internet service providers in identifying and removing all hate-based websites and any contents that contravene the terms of service contracts.

Recently, Google responded to the concerns of anti-defamation league about access to the anti-systematic website called the ‘Jew watch’ by the introduction of offensive search results explaining reasons as to why some extremist websites appear in the search findings of users. Geographic location technology can further enable both the servers and states to control the flow of information on the internet. Geo-location tools can identify the users IP address and in turn track their location to restrict access to web pages and filter out abhorrent material. Web users can also employ software, such as firewalls to filter out sites containing unacceptable speeches (Clarkson 148).

Conclusion

Much as internet service providers have been suggested to regulate free speech on internet, there are few limitations for this option. It is so unfortunate that thousands of internet service providers in the United States do not regulate defamatory speeches on the internet because the section 230 of the communications decency act specifically states that interment service providers are not criminally held responsible for speeches made by internet users. Therefore, if service providers are to regulate speech on internet, this section of the law must be amended.

Sources cited

Al-Qirim, N. (2012). The strategic outsourcing decision of IT and eCommerce: The case of small Businesses in New Zealand. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 5(3), 32-56.

Corn Revere, Caught in the seamless web: Does the Internet’s global reach justify less freedom of speech? In A. Thierer & C. W. Crews Jr. (Eds.), Who rules the net?. Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2003 p.20-100

Clarkson , A. Dignity and speech: The regulation of hate speech in democracy. Wake Forest Law Review, 2009; p497–532.

Johnson, E. A., & Reuband, K.H. What we knew: Terror, mass murder, and everyday life in Nazi Germany. New York: Basic Books, 2006

McGroarty, P. Germany calls for ban of neo-Nazi sites abroad. The Sydney Morning Herald from http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/germany-calls-for-ban-of-neonazisites-abroad-20090710-devv.htm July-10- 2009

Tsesis, A. Destructive messages: How hate speech paves the way for harmful social movements. New York: New York University Press, 2002.