The Government Should Not Have the Power to Punish Online Speech

Do we really want the government to be able to fine or jail people because of their online speech? Art: Sasha Smolansky

The Midwood Argus is an open forum and welcomes a diversity of student opinion. The views expressed in the paper should not be taken to represent those of the administration, faculty, or the student body as a whole. To submit a letter to the editor, click the button on our homepage.

By ELLIOTT ZHANG

with contributions by Daniel Huang

Imagine this: You’re home after hanging out with your friends, and you decide to post your pictures on Instagram to share the fun you had. Soon, you receive a notification: Someone left a hateful and demeaning comment on your post. You could block and report them or delete their message. But what if you could call the police on them, too?

In a survey conducted by Pew Research Center in 2020, 41% of U.S. adults said they’ve experienced online harassment and 55% of them said it was a major problem. Up until now, the job of moderating online hate speech and misinformation has been left up to social media companies, not the government, because freedom of expression is protected under the First Amendment. But might that soon change?

Progressive political parties around the world, as well as many colleges and corporations, have been increasingly advocating for the elimination of harmful language from daily life and for punishing those who post hateful content and misinformation online. In April, Scotland enacted the “Hate Crime and Public Order Bill,” which criminalizes expressions of prejudice. While Scotland already has laws protecting ethnic groups from hate speech, the new bill adds age and gender to the list. People convicted of hate speech in the country could see a hefty fine or be sentenced to seven years in prison.

Canada is considering passing a similar “Online Harms Bill,” which states that a person who is suspected of committing a future hate crime could be put under electronic monitoring and house arrest. The bill also punishes online hate speech with prison time and fines of up to $15,000. 

Before these laws gained momentum, many colleges and organizations took similar, smaller steps by creating language guides for their students or staff to follow, banning or discouraging potentially insensitive words. Stanford University’s 2022 “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative,” for example, is a 13 page list that suggests alternatives for many possibly offensive terms. The document covers ableism, colonialism, ageism, and other topics. Instead of “handicapped,” it suggests “person with a disability,” instead of “Hispanic,” it suggests “Latinx,” and instead of “webmaster,” it suggests “web product owner.” 

Although the intentions here are good-natured, in the end, they’re little more than lip service that makes a mockery of important issues, turns people against progressive policies, and, as we are now seeing, can eventually lead to legislation that undermines free speech.

According to a 2023 survey by Pew Research, 55% of Americans believe the U.S. government should take steps in restricting misinformation and violent content online, a stark and frightening increase from the 39% who agreed in a similar survey done in 2018.

While false information is dangerous and violent content can be disturbing to many viewers, having the government take steps to restrict online speech would be a gateway for further attacks on our freedoms. It sounds good on paper, but having the government choose what is false information would prevent us from thinking for ourselves and deciding what is right or wrong. We would come to rely on the government to feed us information that could possibly be propaganda. 

Restricting violent content online may prevent children from seeing things they aren’t supposed to, but it also ultimately prevents us from seeing the effects of harmful foreign and domestic policies. This in turn could stop us from taking action against these policies; it might make us complacent and ignorant of issues affecting the globe.

And again, though the intentions are good, the focus on sensitive terminology won’t mean much in practice to the people we are trying to help. An immigrant generally won’t care whether they’re being referred to as a “person who has immigrated” — a “people-first” phrase suggested by language guides that tries to avoid labeling a person based on their immigration status. What they care about more is finding a job and making a living. 

Furthermore, the actual legislation in Scotland and Canada’s laws is way too ambiguous. Scotland defines punishable speech as anything “a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting.” Every part of this phrase is subjective. In fact, people can have differing opinions on what a “reasonable person” is, and one “reasonable person” may have a different opinion from another. When an act deals with making a person a criminal, it should really be crystal clear what a person has to do to violate that law.

So with all that said, what should we actually do about potentially hateful online language?

Well firstly, we shouldn’t be hyper-fixated on controversial terminology. We should be focusing on the issues that have put people in disadvantageous positions and offer them genuine support through legislation. Write a petition, call your representative or senator, or spread awareness online. 

Secondly, the issue of online content should largely be left up to tech companies, and they should be investing more in moderating this content objectively. Their policies should be fair, easy to understand, and easy to follow. They should not have arbitrary rules that they can bend or that are full of loopholes people can abuse with ease. 

In February of last year, 250 Midwood students gave their thoughts on social media censorship for an Argus poll. While most of the students thought users should be punished for making threats of violence or racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or anti-semitic statements, the students were split on whether the punishment should be a temporary suspension or a ban from the platform. Jail time was not suggested. Our poll showed that while most teens believe in repercussions for offensive speech, they feel the punishment should fit the crime and not completely ruin someone’s life.  

Third, we need to focus more on critical thinking and literacy in our education. Our teachers and parents are responsible for teaching us how to think for ourselves, read between the lines, and show discretion. We should not rely on the government to police our language and our expressions. 

The dystopian regimes in the novels 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 maintain their power through extreme policing of language and thought, creating environments of cognitive dissonance where people rely on the government to shape their thoughts. The current push to eliminate controversial language through legislation takes a big step in that direction, and we should stop it here before it makes those fictional nightmares a reality.