Free Speech

Media and Protests have changed and now with cell phones, they can happen almost at any point. How do we define what change in protests looks like? What needs to happen for a protest to gain traction on media? In other countries what has the government done to help or hurt protests? These are some questions that this section will try to answer. This is also tightly related to free speech. Free Speech as defined is the right of expression, voicing ideas and opinions as granted by the First Amendment in the Constitution. But does this right apply to us when using social media as well? Free speech in social media also brings about question of regulation as well, should there be more regulation? Less? Continue reading to find out!

Free Speech - Social Media and Protests Worldwide
Modern protest movements around the world have been fueled by social media. Nobel Prize winning political scientist Elinor Ostrom, studies collective action theory and focuses on why some groups self-organize. Some sociologists believe that humans are self-interested and will only act if there is something in it for them. Ostrom believes that humans are likely to do something if the action helps or benefits the entire group. Social media is a low-cost way to increase the size of a protest and to coordinate collective action. It fuels protests movements because it makes it easier for people to talk to each other regarding their response to events worldwide. Social media has a large impact on the ability of organizers to scale quickly with little cost. Social networks around the world include Facebook, Qzone, Odnoklassniki, Instagram, WeChat, and V. Kontakte (VK). Facebook is the leading social network in 154 out of 167 countries (92%). VK is most popular in Russia and WeChat is used in China. It is notable that protest movements increased worldwide, country by country, as Facebook added new languages to its platform. The Russian social network called VK is based on Facebook and was created by college students in St. Petersburg. Facebook is also popular in Russia and people are generally split between the two social network platforms. Scholars studied protest movements in 625 cities and were able to discover something interesting. There was a relationship between the size of the city and how may users were on VK. Larger cities had 10% more people on VK than smaller ones. So, if a larger city had 70% of the population using VK and a smaller city had 40% using VK, the larger city would have an increased probability of a protest and the protest size would be larger, too. They found that 10% increase in penetration increased the probability of 4.6% of protest and size by 19%. Some cities had Facebook and VK. They called the split of users between both platforms “fractionalization” which has a negative impact on the number of people taking part in a protest. The overall conclusion was that social media penetration of a city or town makes a significant difference in protest participation.

Social media can predict street protests and uprisings. # Euromaidan Movement in Ukraine began with 40 million retweets of the tweet: "The people decide our leaders, not you." Thousands of Twitter posts connected to the Tahrir Square uprising in Egypt predicted the size and number of protests in cities around the country. The demonstrations took place over 18 days. The Twitter posts continued to help with organizing protests and informing the participants of what was happening on the ground. Social media predicted the end to President Mubarak's government and he resigned on February 11, 2011. Researchers have looked back to study the stock market activity that took place in the weeks before and after Mubarak's resignation. They wanted to see whether the stock market predicted the fall of government supported companies. It would be expected that companies concerned about a change in government would sell off its stock. The stock prices for these corrupt companies remained strong indicating that the social media fueled protests forced the resignation of one corrupt leader but paved the way for a corrupt replacement. Social media has had a major impact on the ability of organizers to scale quickly with little cost. Compared to old school protesting, they can motivate thousands of people in a short period of time. Organizers can mobilize people with a twitter feed, but they must have a concrete action plan.

Protests movements are generally stronger in some countries and weaker in others. Scholars describe a U-shape pattern of representing the participation in protests that depend on the type of government; weak democracy, strong democracy, or authoritarian government. Weak democracies are at the bottom of the U and strong democracies and authoritarian governments are at the top of the U. Weak democracies do not have the same number of protests or participants as the protests in strong democracies and autocratic governments. Social media-fueled protests in emerging (weak) democracies like Turkey have been censored and there are legal restrictions and these are represented by the bottom of the U. In autocratic countries, cheap cell phones with cameras agitate ordinary people who already suffer under the restrictions of government in everyday life. Motivated citizens are prepared to take risks to protest bad government, fight against injustice, or to demonstrate support for better leaders. Governments around the world respond differently to protests occurring in their own countries. An autocratic or weak democracy can shut down protests they do not like. In a digital age, anyone with a camera phone can post a video that brings people together on the streets demanding change.

Free Speech - Def., Racism, Hate Speech
Free Speech is the right to express yourself without the government having any power to restrict your speech. The First Amendment of the Constitution grants us this right; however, there are still some instances where free speech is limited on social media.

 Some of them are: 

- Child Pornography (there are some exclusions made)

- Obscenity

- Misinformation

- Harassment

However, social media is a whole different spectrum. Social media platforms are private organizations that control what can and what can't be posted on their platforms and are protected by the First Amendment. Hate Speech, unless it "encourages or incites violence", pornography, unless it's child pornography, misinformation, and harassment are all permitted on Reddit. Pornography has also been shown as a form of speech that silences women and denies their right to speak in society- it also incites sexual arousal. However, other platforms, like YouTube, do not condone this and aim for the protection of all races, genders, and POC. According to Zachary Laub, about 59% of Americans think that online hate and harassment make hate crimes more common in real life. Additionally, Twitter and Facebook have a strong influence on racism and hate speech being spread on social media and the way both are portrayed in the real world. These platforms are hate-filled alternatives and have been labeled as "substantial and problematic." The irony is that both platforms are advocates against hate speech and online hate but somehow seem to condone such actions. For example, when a post is reported it can take weeks to be taken down. Twitter is not consistent with its regulations as a post can be taken down but not the whole account itself. Twitter also has a large influence over society as shown through the significant role it played in the 2016 election. Furthermore, in 2009 Youtube changed its algorithm because some people were praising neo-nazi's in videos posted and soon had taken them down.

Anything posted on social media is permanent and about 65% of posts on all platforms are hate speech. Hate speech, however, is not only shown through common words and basic posts, but also more through irony, humor, and play. Nowadays, meme culture has been a source of hate speech. Cyber racism has been spreading more quickly as people tend to violate the regulations on social media. There is a lot of uncertainty when it comes to the First Amendment and what protects social media; social media has not been accountable for all the racist acts such as hate speech.

Most importantly, free speech has been used for conservatives to spread hate or for minorities to have a voice in this country. For example, Trump used his platform to tell Ilhan Omar and Alexandrina Ocasio-Cortez, both (D) House Representatives, to go back to where they’re from and fix their “crime-infested” place they left behind, targeting two women of color and calling them out publicly. Social media has been adopted as a primary source to amplify racist ideas and, in the end, there must be a balance between free speech and us saying what we want to without offending anyone. The Amendment has also been shown as a way to curve the power of the government, which protects individuals against any infringement.

A lot of questions have risen throughout time about the clear line of free speech and our basic human rights. There is still no clear line to this day. There are simply restrictions according to each platform and how the government perceives it. Because, surprisingly, burning a flag in a protest or in any other instance is legal and is free speech according to the 5-4 ruling of the Supreme Court Case Texas V. Johnson. As time goes on, there will be more cases and questions that rise, but there will never be a clear line that people follow or details about what everything is supposed to be. All of this matters because as generations go by we are becoming more aware of situations. We should not be restricted to our speech nor should we be afraid of it being taken down because it goes against the views of the platform. There should also be no fear of us going online, especially POC, or going outside and being threatened by what's going on in social media platforms. Above all, we live in a "free country."

Why Should Free Speech in Digital Media be Protected? Regulated?
There has been a constant debate regarding free speech in digital media, primarily concerning how it should be regulated and to what degree it should be regulated. Within this debate, there are naturally two groups consisting of those who support a more relaxed form of regulation and those who feel that additional regulation by digital media companies is necessary. As mentioned previously, digital media companies are not bound by the First Amendment since they are private companies. This allows them to regulate their content however they choose. While it seems that users are wholly subject to a company's regulation, users of platforms still hold some power when it comes to policies.

Those who are committed to free speech have a variety of reasons for their thinking. One of the main arguments is the benefits that the internet and free speech provide. It is often regarded as “the marketplace of ideas” where modern, revolutionary thoughts and solutions can come into existence. More restrictive regulation of free speech could hinder the ability of users to generate innovative ideas. Additionally, by protecting free speech there are other essential benefits, such as protecting efforts to spur social change and create awareness about certain issues. When socially progressive content and speech are removed, it is difficult for social reform to take place. It further suppresses marginalized voices and their honest, sincere efforts to create social change. Specifically, it protects the voices of marginalized groups who rely on digital media to support their communities and express themselves. Such groups might use more explicit, though not illegal, means of spreading awareness and showcasing support. However, because of the authority that private digital media companies possess over free speech on their sites, such content might be flagged or even taken down due to their worry of scrutiny from other users. This leads to the voices of such groups to be silenced.

However, there are others who advocate that regulation of free speech in digital media is really what is best for online users. The main approach to this argument is regarding the dangers and misuse/inappropriate use of digital media . Generally, some feel that people abuse their existing digital freedom and less regulation would only exacerbate the situation. Specifically, some feel the freedom within digital media leads to exchanges of harmful language or one-sided abuse where the victims are powerless. For example, digital media being so accessible, students often times use platforms, like Twitter, to bash and criticize their teachers. Teachers are then overcome with emotional distress and schools can rarely do anything about it. This indicates that harm a more loose form of regulation can create and why there are people advocating for further restrictions.

There are many ways that platforms have tried to regulate speech, although they have either been met with criticism or are simply not feasible. For example, there is manual post and pre-moderation where moderators are able to review content before or after it has been published. While this seems to be a good idea, it proves to be very inefficient and can be costly. Additionally, it can be very taxing on the moderator as they would have to view all content, no matter ow explicit or harmful. There are also other forms of moderation that rely mostly on users, but companies may not use this method as often as it puts the power within the hands of the users and is, once again, inefficient. Finally, there is automated moderation, like using artificial intelligence. Though likely one of the fastest methods to go through content, machines and algorithms are unable to make mindful decisions and can overly restrict content.

Generally, you should not be relying on private companies to fulfill your free speech needs- they are far more concerned with generating income and staying afloat. If you feel that your free speech is being infringed upon, one of the best things you can do is is speak up against the platform and generate awareness about the issue. Advocating for a more user-based moderation is also an effective way to ensure that users have power over the platforms they choose to be a part of.

What does this all mean for us?
Protests have changed dramatically over the years, or at least how they are organized. Social media fuels protests by spreading information faster, to more people and worldwide. Worldwide protests can change hearts and minds, but can also increase the number of people who believe in the opposite point of view. Do modern protests create real change? We may have to redefine change and what change looks like to us. Protests can happen at anytime, but we have to look to the ones that actually have the power to create real change. It appears that over time and with sustained effort protest movements can lead to incremental change that may eventually lead to lasting change (BLM).

All of this should ignite something from within us. As more cases of police brutality arise, our rights should be the main concern. WE should be able to speak up against the system and not be scared of whatever we say being censored. Our freedom of speech should be the one right that the government should not revoke from us. The Constitution rightfully states that in the First Amendment. Don't live with fear or else we will always live oppressed by the flawed system the U.S. has put to us.

We also should be aware of why people need advocate for more/less regulation of free speech within digital media. It's important to understand these arguments and realize for ourselves what we support, and make sure we advocate for it. While it is unlikely that a wholly successful solution for regulating free speech will be found, not being aware and speaking up could result in an overly restricted or overly loose form of regulation that you are not comfortable with.

Related Links
Social Media and Social Justice

Online Social Movement