Freedom of speech is one of the most well-known fundamental rights in our modern-day society, used by every single member of our community daily. However, with the rise of the digital age, there have been increasing concerns over free speech being publicised for all the internet to see. Some argue that giving individuals the liberty to hide behind a computer screen may lead them to feel a sense of impunity and thus say whatever they like. However, some critics argue that this is well within their human right to freedom of speech and the way to counteract the possibility of hate speech is not through censorship. Thus, this essay will argue the notion that we should not have limits on free speech in the modern digital age and instead, we should look for alternative solutions to prevent hate speech and fake news.
Freedom of speech is intrinsic to a democratic society. It is this right, article 10 under the ECHR, which allows us to disagree with a friend, criticise a political system or merely show support for a cause we support. With respect to the modern digital age, has only given us a new platform to do so. Most social media networks like Instagram and Facebook have the primary use of communication with one’s family and friends, often talking about events in the news or ideas both parties may relate to. Of course, with any thing in a modern society, there is some misuse of these platforms for other purposes. However, surely it is unethical and unfair to censor the masses as punishment for the actions of a few internet trolls. Even if parliament were to somehow agree this is a fair solution, where would we place these limits? Censoring free speech creates an undeniable slippery slope, do we restrict all conversations on polarising topics or do we go further and ban chatting online altogether? These complications would undeniably create a lot of domestic controversy as people would feel as if they were being stripped of their personal autonomy, possibly leading to mass protests and revolts against the government. From an international viewpoint, countries who censor their civilians are often looked down upon or disregarded as a democracy, placing the UK under this category could do irreparable damage to our international relations. Thus, this reaffirms the fact that freedom of speech should not be limited in the modern digital age.
Instead, we could look for an alternative solution, one which respects freedom of speech whilst also preventing hate speech and fake news. One way of doing so is by increasing education on other cultures and other religious groups as a way of increasing tolerance. It is human nature to critique what one cannot understand, due to fear of the unknown and potential jealousy. By working hand in hand with human psychology, we can erase the long-term cause of hate speech, rather than suppressing it and taking the easy way out. This highlights how an alternative solution is the most desirable course of action to take, not limiting freedom of speech in the modern digital age.
However, hate speech and the other complications of freedom of speech burden our society and should be dealt with immediately. By having cruel and false information on the internet, it is available to be seen, shared, liked and viewed by millions of people. If this is a message of hate, it may easily influence young children and teenagers into doing the wrong thing. This is exactly what happened to Shamina Begum, a fifteen-year-old girl who stumbled upon videos of the terrorist group ISIS online and ran away to Syria to become a bride for one of the terrorists. Now this extreme example highlights just how much influence social media and the lack of legislation around free speech may impact our society, so much so it may recruit terrorism. This is largely due to the fact that by hiding behind a screen, people feel less accountability, as they are unable to directly interact with those they are offending. They use this lack of accountability to further their own narrative, going so much as to spread fake news. This concept was observed in the 20216 US presidential election, where a plethora of fake news about the Democratic and republican parties emerged, creating confusion for a large proportion of voters and ultimately swaying their votes. This notion of people using their freedom of speech to inhibit other’s freedom of belief is paradoxical, reaffirming that in order for both to work together in society, freedom of speech should have limits in the modern digital age.
To conclude, free speech should not have any limits in the modern digital age. Ultimately, placing limits would create an irreparable rift between the people and the state, creating mass protests as a result. Moreover, placing limits only addresses the surface issue when it comes to hate speech, education about other cultures and religious groups boosts acceptance and tolerance in our society, thus diminishing the possibility of hatred and prejudice against groups. Whilst some critics argue that the digital age may serve as a form of indoctrination for young children. This is undermined by the fact that it is the role of the parents to control their children’s internet presence and that the masses of society should not have to pay for the mistakes of the very few. It is thus imperative that in order to maintain a democratic society, we do not place limits on freedom of speech, even in the modern digital age.
By Aurore Lebrun
Comments