Earlier this week, Donald Trump became only the second sitting or former U.S. president, after Gerald Ford, to have survived two failed assassination attempts. Events in the United States over the last month have been a stark reminder of how political rhetoric can become dangerously charged.
They also occur at a time when governments worldwide are increasing pressure on social media companies to regulate speech which they deem harmful. But as these efforts intensify, we must ask: where should the line be drawn between restricting speech and upholding the right to free expression?
Undoubtedly, social media has transformed how we communicate and how news is disseminated, with words spreading faster than ever before via platforms which bypass the traditional mainstream media.
In response, governments around the globe are taking decisive - and often aggressive - action against social media platforms.
Last month, Pavel Durov, the founder and CEO of Telegram was arrested in France amid an investigation into crimes related to child sexual abuse images, drug trafficking and fraudulent transactions associated with the Telegram app.
Following his release on bail Durov stated, “Using laws from the pre-smartphone era to charge a CEO with crimes committed by third parties on the platform he manages is a misguided approach”.
In the United States, Tiktok is challenging an “unconstitutional” law that could result in it being sold or banned in that country. TikTok argued in court on Monday that the law would have a “staggering” impact on the free speech of its U.S. users if it were allowed to stand.
Sri Srinivasan, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and one of three judges hearing the case said that if the law in question targeted only US-based companies, “there’s no doubt that would be a huge First Amendment concern”. Even though that is not the case given that the law is concerned with TikTok’s links to China, Srinivasan still expressed concern “about the speech consequences on U.S. consumers” if the ban comes into effect on January 19 next year as the law stipulates.
Closer to home, the Australian government is currently trying to pass new laws on misinformation and disinformation which could see social media companies fined up to 5% of their annual turnover for breaches. Earlier this week, Elon Musk responded to news of the proposal by calling the Australian government, “fascists”.
However, in the midst of this titanic battle between governments and free speech advocates, those in favour of greater regulation are not having it all their own way.
In April, Australia’s eSafety commissioner issued an order to X requiring it to remove graphic content after clips of a Sydney bishop being stabbed remained on the platform. X complied with the order in Australia but declined to enforce it worldwide arguing that an unelected official in Australia should not have the authority to decide what citizens in other countries can see or read on social media.
Musk accused the commissioner of attempting to suppress free speech, prompting Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to hit back by calling Musk an “arrogant billionaire”. But despite all the name-calling and tough talk, the eSafety commissioner discontinued the federal court proceedings in an embarrassing retreat.
Earlier this week, France’s European Commissioner, Thierry Breton, who has been in the midst of a bitter and protracted battle with X over greater content regulation announced his immediate resignation.
In August, just after Musk had interviewed former U.S. president Trump on X, Breton issued a strongly worded letter in which he warned Musk of the “risk of amplification of potentially harmful content in the E.U. in connection with events with major audiences around the world”. It soon became public that the Commission’s President Ursula von der Leyen had not been informed about the letter and that other E.U. officials were concerned about becoming embroiled in the U.S. presidential race.
Linda Yaccarino, X’s chief executive, reacted to the news of Breton’s resignation by posting, “It’s a good day for free speech.”
Within days of Breton’s resignation another unrelated battle was also swinging in X’s favour as Brazil lifted a ban on the platform from operating in that country after X and Starlink agreed to pay $3.3 million in fines to the Brazilian authorities.
The ban had been imposed by Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes at the end of August after X had failed to comply with a court order. At the time Musk reacted by stating, “Free speech is the bedrock of democracy and an unelected pseudo-judge in Brazil is destroying it for political purposes.”
On Tuesday, the White House issued a rare rebuke to another country, criticising Brazil for enacting the ban in the first place.
“When it comes to social media, we have been very clear that we think that folks should have access to social media. It’s a form of freedom of speech,” press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a White House briefing.
Even Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg is having second thoughts about where the line should be drawn between censorship and free speech as he expressed regret at bending to government demands for greater censorship during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Last month, in a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee he wrote, “In 2021, senior officials from the Biden administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain Covid-19 content, including humour and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn’t agree.”
“I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it”, Zuckerburg concluded.
At the heart of this push for increased regulation lies a desire to broaden what is considered to be hate speech, and to create a new category of speech which is considered harmful.
This trend is perhaps best exemplified by our former Prime Minister, Dame Jacinda Ardern.
Speaking at the United Nations two years ago, Ardern argued that misinformation has become the new weapon of war, suggesting that words can be just as dangerous as bullets. Her view, that online rhetoric can be equated to acts of physical violence, has arguably been influential in the global debate seeking to justify greater control over speech.
At the end of last year, I had the opportunity to meet and speak to the former U.K. Supreme Court Judge, Lord Jonathan Sumption, when he visited New Zealand for a speaking tour arranged by the Free Speech Union.
Sumption was particularly critical of Ardern’s suggestion that words could be as dangerous as bullets, commenting that, “I think that that was a profoundly sinister thing to say. I don’t think she realised how sinister it was. I doubt whether she thought it through.”
“Words are not coercive, whereas violence is. And for you to equate them therefore, that seems to me to be a really serious mistake which leads to a vastly increased volume of pure persecution.”
Sumption’s view is that the Common Law countries, including New Zealand, already have a perfectly satisfactory answer to this issue. In his words, “the limit of free speech is when you reach the point where somebody is being deliberately provocative and insulting to a group who can reasonably be expected to respond with violence. That’s a very narrow test, but it’s the right test because it preserves the right to free speech.”
“When you advance on to hate speech, you’re advancing into territory that’s very poorly charted, because the definitions are extremely loose, and you’re moving into an area where the objective of curtailing free speech is not to maintain the public peace but to protect people from being offended. I’m afraid that in a democracy, we’ve got to accept that you will be offended by many things.”
Sumption’s critique hits at the heart of this issue: the over-regulation of speech isn’t just a threat to free expression, it’s a threat to democracy itself.
Lawyer and writer Philip Crump explores political, legal and cultural issues facing New Zealand. Sometimes known as Thomas Cranmer. This article was published HERE
Undoubtedly, social media has transformed how we communicate and how news is disseminated, with words spreading faster than ever before via platforms which bypass the traditional mainstream media.
In response, governments around the globe are taking decisive - and often aggressive - action against social media platforms.
Last month, Pavel Durov, the founder and CEO of Telegram was arrested in France amid an investigation into crimes related to child sexual abuse images, drug trafficking and fraudulent transactions associated with the Telegram app.
Following his release on bail Durov stated, “Using laws from the pre-smartphone era to charge a CEO with crimes committed by third parties on the platform he manages is a misguided approach”.
In the United States, Tiktok is challenging an “unconstitutional” law that could result in it being sold or banned in that country. TikTok argued in court on Monday that the law would have a “staggering” impact on the free speech of its U.S. users if it were allowed to stand.
Sri Srinivasan, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and one of three judges hearing the case said that if the law in question targeted only US-based companies, “there’s no doubt that would be a huge First Amendment concern”. Even though that is not the case given that the law is concerned with TikTok’s links to China, Srinivasan still expressed concern “about the speech consequences on U.S. consumers” if the ban comes into effect on January 19 next year as the law stipulates.
Closer to home, the Australian government is currently trying to pass new laws on misinformation and disinformation which could see social media companies fined up to 5% of their annual turnover for breaches. Earlier this week, Elon Musk responded to news of the proposal by calling the Australian government, “fascists”.
However, in the midst of this titanic battle between governments and free speech advocates, those in favour of greater regulation are not having it all their own way.
In April, Australia’s eSafety commissioner issued an order to X requiring it to remove graphic content after clips of a Sydney bishop being stabbed remained on the platform. X complied with the order in Australia but declined to enforce it worldwide arguing that an unelected official in Australia should not have the authority to decide what citizens in other countries can see or read on social media.
Musk accused the commissioner of attempting to suppress free speech, prompting Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to hit back by calling Musk an “arrogant billionaire”. But despite all the name-calling and tough talk, the eSafety commissioner discontinued the federal court proceedings in an embarrassing retreat.
Earlier this week, France’s European Commissioner, Thierry Breton, who has been in the midst of a bitter and protracted battle with X over greater content regulation announced his immediate resignation.
In August, just after Musk had interviewed former U.S. president Trump on X, Breton issued a strongly worded letter in which he warned Musk of the “risk of amplification of potentially harmful content in the E.U. in connection with events with major audiences around the world”. It soon became public that the Commission’s President Ursula von der Leyen had not been informed about the letter and that other E.U. officials were concerned about becoming embroiled in the U.S. presidential race.
Linda Yaccarino, X’s chief executive, reacted to the news of Breton’s resignation by posting, “It’s a good day for free speech.”
Within days of Breton’s resignation another unrelated battle was also swinging in X’s favour as Brazil lifted a ban on the platform from operating in that country after X and Starlink agreed to pay $3.3 million in fines to the Brazilian authorities.
The ban had been imposed by Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes at the end of August after X had failed to comply with a court order. At the time Musk reacted by stating, “Free speech is the bedrock of democracy and an unelected pseudo-judge in Brazil is destroying it for political purposes.”
On Tuesday, the White House issued a rare rebuke to another country, criticising Brazil for enacting the ban in the first place.
“When it comes to social media, we have been very clear that we think that folks should have access to social media. It’s a form of freedom of speech,” press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a White House briefing.
Even Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg is having second thoughts about where the line should be drawn between censorship and free speech as he expressed regret at bending to government demands for greater censorship during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Last month, in a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee he wrote, “In 2021, senior officials from the Biden administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain Covid-19 content, including humour and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn’t agree.”
“I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it”, Zuckerburg concluded.
At the heart of this push for increased regulation lies a desire to broaden what is considered to be hate speech, and to create a new category of speech which is considered harmful.
This trend is perhaps best exemplified by our former Prime Minister, Dame Jacinda Ardern.
Speaking at the United Nations two years ago, Ardern argued that misinformation has become the new weapon of war, suggesting that words can be just as dangerous as bullets. Her view, that online rhetoric can be equated to acts of physical violence, has arguably been influential in the global debate seeking to justify greater control over speech.
At the end of last year, I had the opportunity to meet and speak to the former U.K. Supreme Court Judge, Lord Jonathan Sumption, when he visited New Zealand for a speaking tour arranged by the Free Speech Union.
Sumption was particularly critical of Ardern’s suggestion that words could be as dangerous as bullets, commenting that, “I think that that was a profoundly sinister thing to say. I don’t think she realised how sinister it was. I doubt whether she thought it through.”
“Words are not coercive, whereas violence is. And for you to equate them therefore, that seems to me to be a really serious mistake which leads to a vastly increased volume of pure persecution.”
Sumption’s view is that the Common Law countries, including New Zealand, already have a perfectly satisfactory answer to this issue. In his words, “the limit of free speech is when you reach the point where somebody is being deliberately provocative and insulting to a group who can reasonably be expected to respond with violence. That’s a very narrow test, but it’s the right test because it preserves the right to free speech.”
“When you advance on to hate speech, you’re advancing into territory that’s very poorly charted, because the definitions are extremely loose, and you’re moving into an area where the objective of curtailing free speech is not to maintain the public peace but to protect people from being offended. I’m afraid that in a democracy, we’ve got to accept that you will be offended by many things.”
Sumption’s critique hits at the heart of this issue: the over-regulation of speech isn’t just a threat to free expression, it’s a threat to democracy itself.
Lawyer and writer Philip Crump explores political, legal and cultural issues facing New Zealand. Sometimes known as Thomas Cranmer. This article was published HERE
3 comments:
Ardern: any endorsement means the issue is super-toxic.
God help the world if/when she would ever head the UN.
If Ardern was still in power, would she have closed down Breaking Views ?
The minimum she would have imposed would have been a Government Censor.
Hate speech is that which a reasonable person would respond to with physical violence. Now there's a bunch of weasel words open to discriminatory interpretation.
Post a Comment