Social Media and Hate Speech: Who Gets to Decide?

Nadine Strossen, the former president of the ACLU, argues that censorship does more harm than good—especially when it comes to social media platforms. In an interview filmed at the 2018 Aspen Ideas Festival in June, Strossen explains that hate speech is not a recognized legal concept in the United States. “That said,” she continues, “speech that conveys a hateful message—along with speech that conveys any message—may, in a particular context, be punished if it directly causes specific imminent, serious harm.” Strossen goes on to demarcate the difference between free speech and hate speech. Ultimately, she makes a case for leaving the conversation about hate speech to citizens rather than government entities or privately-owned social media platforms.

[EdSmith]

"Hate Speech" is a concept too broad and too subjective to be censored without harming the principle of *Free Speech*

[MarkoKraguljac]

Who gets to decide?
Certainly not corporations and their "unbiased", narrative peddling consultants.

[jessehernandez]

Hate speech = SPEECH I DON'T LIKE BECAUSE IT'S MEAN...I NEED A SAFE SPACE!

[dougiequick]

One of the most hateful things one can do to a person is to silence them ....delete what they say, block em and ban em ...I mean sometimes there is such a line being crossed that it violates virtually ANY half way sane person's sensibilities but that is stuff SO ridiculously OFF that it almost needs no defense to crush it out

[kentholdett]

Q: Which camera is she looking at?
A: Both of them...

[kevinbautsch]

Who gets to decide? Some limp noodle freak show. That's who.

[ulyssesthepagan]

Controlling the modes of expression is the means to control the narrative. Control that and you control the entire society.

[Daniel-yhdz]

Supressing hatred with hatred usually, if not always, generates even more hatred. Shutting people up is not a long term solution. Personally, I think replacing hatred with love and kindness might work.

[ProudVigilante]

“Hate speech” is like the word “racist.” It can mean anything and everything that you want it to mean.

[hikingor]

When the people can't speak their minds they pick up pitchforks and torches.


"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson.

[Carneades]

According to her Wikipedia entry, Nadine Strossen is the author of “HATE: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship, ” a title which pretty much sums up her basic argument in this video (one of many by her that are available on YouTube). Educated citizens of the USA would probably agree that governments should not censor any speech at all, based on the principle that, given an opportunity to censor speech, government censors will inevitably try to extend their authority into every area of public discourse, not just the nasty stuff. Citizens of European countries might accept certain legal limits on speech, remembering how hate speech has, in the past, led to appalling acts of mass volence against hated minorities.

Unfortunately, Strossen (in this video, at least) tends to blur the line between government censorship and the exercise of the right of a person or corporation to accept or reject content for publication. She considers both as “censorship, ” and both as immoral.

Taking Strossen’s argument literally would lead to the conclusion that media corporations should not exercise ANY authority over content, since they have no moral right to do so.

To see how absurd this position is, imagine that you have set up a website for the exchange of information about some innocuous subject: gardening tips, for example, or favorite recipes. A hate group discovers your website, determines that posts to it are unfiltered, and spreads the word that this is a great place to exchange information of quite a different sort: bizarre conspiracy theories, obscene rants about the evil of a particular minority group, the addresses of certain members of that hated group, times and places to meet up, etc. In a very short time, you discover that you have lost your original audience and acquired a new, unwanted one.

Do you have a moral right to reject this content?—Do you have a moral right to block users who abuse your website in this way? Alternatively, do you have a moral responsibility to leave these hateful comments in place, and to post reasoned arguments against the vile absurdities expressed? The answers to all of these questions should be obvious.

To support her thesis that rejection of content by social media is immoral, Strossen cites several cases in which posts with ordinary political content were rejected as “hate speech.” The fact that some corporations made bad decisions regarding content is, of course, not a valid argument for disallowing ALL such decisions.

About one minute into the video, Strossen delivers an outright sneer at anyone concerned about the content of social media, when she says “I understand the MORAL satisfaction of calling for suppressing ideas that we hate, but experience shows that censorship does more harm than good.” Characterizing anyone who worries about the current flood of hate speech as a pretentious “Social Justice Warrior” is unfair and uncalled for, and Strossen, as a former president of the ACLU, should know that hate speech does have serious consequences. Just ask the friends and family of Mulugeta Seraw.

[jamesdorpinghaus]

Nobody gets to decide what "hate speech" is, because hate speech doesn't exist, it is just language. Stop with all the hate speech bs.

[Jagdkartoffel]

Free speech argument on the internet?

I am just gonna bash my head against a wall. All are welcome to join.

[beaugeste]

The internet allows people to insult others anonymously and say things they would never say in public. It’s a sad commentary on society that so much negativity goes into a tool that produces so many positive benefits.

[ThorsMjollnir]

Sort of ironic coming from The Atlantic considering their hiring and immediate firing of Kevin Williamson.

[a-khanation]

In the 1990s Who would have thought that text message on the Internet would count as SOCIAL.

[stevelenores]

There is no excuse for censorship left or right. When you do it gives government permission to be the clearing house for information. I can tell when I'm being lied to or manipulated. There is no defense to having information withheld; it leaves the public totally vulnerable.

[parkerevans]

So then why isn’t there a social media platform that allows people to say what they want

[ashkip]

One eye looking at the camera and the other watching a fly fly around the room😂😂😂

[chopstick]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HATE SPEECH, just free speech. You may not like what someone says but it still is free speech. 1st amendment was not created to protect speech that will be agreed with.