| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| | | -- By JayTongkak - 11 Oct 2019
| |
<
< | Though, the right to the freedom of speech is recognized and endorsed in the law of many countries throughout world, many issues still arise out of content posted on the Internet. Given the speech can be controversial and people start to realize their right to freedom of speech more and more, the focus on freedom of speech has been increasing significantly, especially in this digital age. I would like to think that the Internet plays a big part in that, both positively and negatively. | >
> | Given that amount of data transmitted over the internet nowadays, we have access to information all over the world with a single touch of our fingertips. News, rumors, updates, travel photos, personal feelings are being shared and updated on a real-time basis. A post can go 'viral' within seconds, with the power of the internet. In some circumstances, the internet can be helpful. People can be heard widely and quickly. With the internet becoming more and more accessible, anyone can posts almost anything. I can go online and learn about news from all over the world even faster than turning on a television or reading it from traditional physical newspaper. This begs the questions as to whether the popularity of the Internet promotes and supports the freedom of speech, or does the internet do the opposite and limits what people say online. | | |
The Involvement of the Internet on the Freedom of Speech | |
<
< | Advantages of the Internet | | | | |
<
< | Prior to the Internet era, ways to communicate between people were (1) verbal communications such as; in-person talk, phone calls, and (2) document-based communications such as; letter, fax. Therefore, the communication circle was very limited. The discussion could only include limited amount of people with limited amount of range, with a much slower pace of dissemination. The Internet has changed that completely. Nowadays, we can talk to a person or a group of people or even the whole world within a second or less. I can Skype with my family from a faraway country. The conference call system makes it easier for people to conduct a meeting without having to travel and meet in person. Social medias are also a platform for people to voice their opinion and get the responses in real-time. News can also travel fast. | | | | |
<
< | Given the benefits of the Internet, its popularity rose as quick as its speed and the Internet is now part of almost everybody’s daily life. In the political aspect, social medias have been a platform for the citizens, activists, political parties, or any person to publish their opinion, whether it is supporting or criticizing the government. Without the Internet, some people’s opinion may not have been heard at all. Once a story goes on the Internet, it is there. In many cases in developing country such as Thailand which is my hometown, people without access to the Internet cannot be heard by the outside world and may be silenced by the Thai government via inhumane methods. On the contrary, with the Internet, the affected party or government may not act recklessly against the publisher because there are people watching. As for the government, they can publish the public news faster and also promote their party or their propaganda via social medias. The Internet significantly helps spreading the voice and inherently supporting the Freedom of Speech.
| >
> | From a regulatory perspective, in the USA, a free speech is protected under the First Amendment, which also covers free speech on the internet. Therefore, people are generally entitle to speak freely, whether it is offline or online. People in the US tend to have more freedom of speech than most of the world. As the US has not issued many regulations over content on the internet, popularity of the internet does not negatively affect the freedom of speech, but rather promotes it more as people can enjoy their rights under the First Amendment. This results in people being more open on the Internet in the US and the Internet becomes the biggest platform for everyone to voice their opinions. Even the public sector can enjoy the liberty of freedom speech on the internet and promote their party or their propaganda. | | | | |
<
< | Disadvantages of the Internet | >
> | Not all type of content, however, is allowed on the Internet. There are some limitations of content we can put out on the Internet such as prohibitions on child pornography, copyright infringing content, fake news, etc. In some countries, the government may come up with content regulation specific to their country. China, which has been known as one of the most strict on its surveillance and content screening also recently came up with additional content regulation. | | | | |
<
< |
Every coin has two sides. With the benefits of the Internet that we are enjoying, comes the cons of the Internet on the freedom of speech. Once a person publishes a post, article, blog, or any content on the Internet, a whole world can generally access that content, including the government, which makes it easier for the government to take action against the person. With technology, it is easier for the government to identify the person digitally (e.g. from the I.P. address, online database of the citizen) than physically. There have been several attempts of the government to get data from business operators as well, which could give huge chilling effects on freedom of speech. | >
> | In addition, the First Amendment only protects the freedom of speech from government censorship such as federal, state, public schools, police, but not include private individuals or organizations. Therefore, those private actors may limit the freedom of speech further than the First Amendment allows. In practice, the scope of what content we can post on the internet is also often decided by the tech companies, owning social medias. The terms and conditions and discretion of each tech companies vary and can sometimes be controversial. For examples, Facebook was criticized about its approach to political speech content screening, Facebook bans Myanmar activists account, Social Medias Censorship.) Twitch has also been criticized for its unequal bans on content creator on its real-time streaming platform, for example, a streamer was recently ban for vomiting online. These companies act as a monitoring entity to ensure that their platform is in compliance with the laws and terms and conditions.
To say the least, the Internet could introduce more challenging issues to freedom of speech online as a result of its open but monitored nature. | | | | |
<
< | While for US law, freedom of speech is generally recognized under the First Amendment and the cases brought to the Court are generally on hate speeches.
I would like to take this change to give an example on Thailand since, in my opinion, freedom of speech is almost nonexistence due to the Lèse-majesté law. A person is prohibited from defaming, insulting or threatening the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent or they will be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years according to Section 112 of the Thai Penal Code. This law has been the root of many political issues in Thailand. It silences the public entirely. Saying one bad thing about the royal family, even if the statement is true, you can go to jail for a long time. What is worse is that the Court endorses this law and usually send a person to jail because they do not want to go against the royal family as well. Given the background, although Thailand has access to social medias, unlike China, the citizen may not fully enjoy the right to freedom of speech. There has been many cases in which the government has arrested a person for posting Lèse-majesté content as the content is easily access by the government as well thanks to the Internet. This chilling effect has been covering the freedom of speech in Thailand for decades. Apart from Thailand, there have also been several politic cases (e.g. Facebook bans Myanmar activists account, Social Medias Censorship) where the right to freedom of speech is breached. | | |
Conclusion
| |
<
< | Freedom of speech is often controversial. Internet is an open space for the voices to be heard. Though, it can be a double-edged sword since the Internet also empowers and weaponizes the government to penalize those posting content against them, despite the facts that the right to freedom of speech is recognized and endorsed in the law. Therefore, the Internet both inherently promotes and limits the Freedom of Speech at the same time.
Given that the right to freedom of speech is rather vague and open to interpretation and the Internet is a free space involving various stakeholders, the solution should be contributed by every party. For example, the Court or the legislators may come up with a new law to further defines the scope of the right and exceptions to the right. The government should also develop a guideline on prohibited content and allow third-party intervention to ensure that its procedures are in accordance with the international standards. The tech companies should issue a clear guideline or reasons when censoring or banning content on their platform. The users should also be cautious when posting content online to ensure that the rights of others is not breached by the content. As the technology advances, it is important to establish a society where we are controlling the Internet to create a free and welcoming environment, not the other way around where the Internet leads the way freely. | >
> | Freedom of speech on the Internet can often be controversial. One might argue that the Internet should be a free space, without any boundaries or regulation, as supported strongly in the EFF's Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. While to some extent, content regulations can be useful against criminal content. Those aforementioned content regulations could potentially give "chilling effect" over the content on the Internet. There is also a study on chilling effects under several scenarios including online surveillance showing negative impacts of such activities. The Internet allowing information to be spread and received throughout the world could potentially expose the users to more government enforcement. A clear example would be talking verbally and in-person with one of your friends about criticizing the government may not result in any negative legal enforcements. On the other hand, discussing the same topic and conversation online could distract more engagement and government may also be knocking your door because the conversation becomes more public and accessible. | | | | |
<
< |
This draft is entirely too general. The subject is unfocused: the literature in the area of "free expression and the Internet" is immense, but you refer to none of it. The digression on Thailand's lese-majeste statute, which has nothing to do with the Internet in particular, further diffuses focus.
The next draft should begin with a specific idea of your own, subtending a small enough arc that you can interact in a meaningful way with other sources of information and analysis. Those materials should then be used, after the introduction to your own idea, to show how you came by and support it, as well as your view of the primary objections that knowledgeable readers might entertain. Then you can have a real conclusion, from which the reader can carry further on her own.
| | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: |
|