Are Facebook and Twitter justified in taking down content that they deem to be abusive, hateful or likely to promote violence, even if such posts might enjoy free-speech protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? That question touched off a feisty debate today at the South by Southwest (SXSW) conference in Austin, Texas. <\/p>\n
Theres no end of controversies oncerning what people can and cant say on the two giant social-media sites. Government in India, Turkey and Pakistan last year submitted a total of more than 8,000 requests for Facebook content restrictions in the first half of 2014, chiefly because of posts that ran afoul of local political or religious strictures. (Facebook complied with some but not all of those requests.) Twitter, meanwhile, is being urged by U.S. lawmakers to delete accounts that have been associated with terrorist activities. And both Twitter and Facebook have signaled a willingness to clamp down on personal postings, targeted at specific users, that fit into a pattern of menacing behavior. <\/p>\n
In a panel discussion at SXSW, George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen urged Twitter and Facebook to allow just as much free speech as the U.S. government permits under the First Amendment. He argued that 21st century social media should stick to the standards expressed by Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeis in the 1920s, in which stifling measures should be taken only in the event of an imminent risk of evil. <\/p>\n
(Credit: mhkmarketing.com via Flickr\/Creative Commons) <\/p>\n
Rosen went on to voice concern that Facebook and Twitter because of their sheer size now have more power over what people can say, or what can be heard, than any king, politician or Supreme Court Justice. Facebook has about 1.4 billion active monthly users around the world. Twitter has288 million. Rosen observed that Facebook allows more restriction of hate speech than the U.S. government does. He deemed that problematic, saying it reminded him of Brandeiss concern about the biggest U.S. banks many decades ago taking actions that curtailed peoples liberties. <\/p>\n
Monika Bickert, Facebooks head of global policy management, rejected the notion that her company is trying to act like a quasi-government, seeking to decide whether content is in the public interest or not. Instead, she said, Facebooks overriding goal is to make sure that members feel safe on the site, and feel safe sharing. That means creating a system where members can report what they regard as hate speech, with Facebook then taking down objectionable content as warranted. <\/p>\n
Bickert noted that Facebook is willing to keep some graphic and violent content on the site, if it was posted in an effort to draw world attention to some injustice. But if people are sharing to make fun of the victim, or to encourage violence, we will remove it. Refereeing such situations is difficult, but Facebook believes that with the help of outside advisers and local experts, it can make correct judgments. <\/p>\n
Matt Zimmerman, Twitters senior product counsel, added that his company wants to make sure people arent disuaded from coming on the platform. As a result, Twitter will take down posts or restrict offenders ability to keep using the site, in situations that involve illegal activities, harassment and abuse. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See more here: Are Facebook and Twitter justified in taking down content that they deem to be abusive, hateful or likely to promote violence, even if such posts might enjoy free-speech protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Continue reading
\nFacebook, Twitter -- And A Tussle At SXSW Over First Amendment<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"