Daniela Guáqueta (201314176)

English 8. Exam 2

LENG 1158-03

2018-2A

Option 2: What kinds of speech social media platforms can or may limit

We are living an epoch where using the cell phone or other electronic devices is a daily

dependence due to all the time we try to keep near it to take control about our social life through

social media. Moreover, we are living an age where the freedom of speech undoubtedly is considerate

as a right that nobody can refuse even though they are affecting the life of others. Thus, we consider

social media as a indispensable tool to share our thoughts, and actually we do not know how to live

without this. Nowadays, many apps conform the basis of social media, and they have their specifics

rules and laws for the users to provide their service. Furthermore, the management of this apps is

complex such as for the users and for the platforms owners because both have to take care of the

content that travel cross those medias. The users have rights and duties at the moment of using social

networks, using it in a correct way but it really do not occur because of the free speech request and the

possible confusion among have their thoughts and the way they share them. On the other hand,

platforms are incharge of obtaining more subscribers, and at the same time fulfil the terms and

conditions that they offer to guarantee their service proposed, avoiding illegal behavior. Currently, on

social media there are many groups of people that are agree or disagree about any topic, and most of

the cases there is a group of people that pretend through social media destroy the status of the entity

that they disappointment, insulting them by disrespectful speeches, planning polemic campaigns or

even attempting their safety by blocking their social media live. Therefore, although everyone in the

world legally has the freedom right to share their thoughts through social media speeches, there

should not be permitted the space for those ones that directly affect somebody integrity, either

promoting the human degradation or establishing extremely cultural differences by superimposing

their ideologies with violate content.

To begin with, according to The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights - UDHR

(1948), at any part of the world everybody have the right of freedom of expressión, and it can be

shared through any media without limits independently of social and geographical frontiers.

Nevertheless, it might not be permitted at all when we are talking about a tool which allow people that

exceed their rights over the others. Currently, there are some treatments that do not support at all

UDHR statement because of the consequences that it take on society. As Lang (2016) claims, social

networks have established their own rules to guarantee a space of sharing free content but in an

adequate way, considering the safety of others users if there is an offensive content that could affect

someone at any aspect. They fulfil it by doing filters and removing this inappropriate content because

their essential support is being a private company that from the beginning, when the user open a new

account, they propose their terms and conditions for the users to accept the access to their platforms.

Thus, this labor is correct because it will prevent unsafe events like suicides, spontaneous meetings to

fight or even psychological problems. Moreover, although platforms owners know that those

controversial content bring them more active accounts, their politics are routed to offer a peaceful

service and will not allow violate content. Therefore, all the apps of social media might have the limit

of not purchasing rude content that will disturb the social space of others due to they have the power

to select the content allowed in their platforms.

Second, there are some topics that we as society have to refute with free speech when they are acting

against our nature, and now as we are living the techno era, which give us the opportunity to spread

up the information, we can use the social media to do that. This is the point of view that Gandesha

(2018) proposed in the website ‘Opendemocracy’, and he basically named some examples like

expropriation indigenous people in America or the treatment that Palestinians have to live because of

the Israel state, to illustrate some critical events that the society can not keep quiet. It is true that we

have to maintain an humanizing behavior with all of the people due to all of us have the principal

right to live. Nevertheless, being exceedingly opposing to who are acting in a misguided way is not

the correct solution. In that cases, people is encouraged in a harmful way by planning social
revolutions that might carry bad consequences, and what is deeply important here is being conscious

that the human being do not know how to behave in front of this events. At the beginning of each

social disappointment there always be a group which will provoke strong opinions through social

media that may cause an undesirable acts, and most of the cases the principal intention will be

changing while the information is communicated. Therefore, we experiment the moment when the

group grows up, and they start to fight without strongly supports. At the of this point is where the

scenario get involved in a concerned way, and there is when those fake and risk publications might be

removed to the social media just to prevent a big social problem, till the bullying spreading rumors or

misunderstanding socio-political problems.

Third, due to the cultural differences that we have in the hole world, any human being have the right

to share their beliefs to the others. Therefore, if social media have an equal treatment for each person,

anyone probably can disseminate their opinion with the purpose to persuade and to encourage the

others to think the same things as they do. To refute this, is necessary to be clear the limit that

everyone have at the moment of proposing their opinion. Day by day it turns more complicated to

manage an adequate speech to keep in social networks and tolerate the social differences that we have.

For instance as Nott states, there is a tight line of confusing free expression with hate speech that

attacks people because of their sexual orientation, diseases, national origin, and others human

characteristics. Currently, certain percent of people states a racial behavior because of social media

influencers that spend more time trying to ruin the life of who do not bother anyone instead of taking

care of themselves. As a result of this disappointment situation, there is a reflexive question that

people, which respect the life and opinion of others, is trying to answer: what is the purpose of

requiring a human right to develop into society as you are if you do not tolerate whom already

accepted you?. At the end, all of us are human beings with the same opportunities respecting each

other. Therefore, hate speech makes unequal society more problematic, and it affects the integrity of

others, and it might not be allowed on social media because its meaning is against to the well-being of

others.
In conclusion, the freedom of opinion on social media is a controversial and complex topic that as the

users and as the private companies, which lend us those services, have to treat all the time because

there always going to be the space of discussing the limit of free speech. Nevertheless, the speech that

might not be allowed at any platform is which contains offensive material because the background of

this misunderstanding term such as critic social events, certain percent of unequal treatments and

untolarate society. If this aspect is not managed in a correct way, consequences as superimposing

safety, promoting social controversial movements and dehumanizing generation will be the result of

the free expected speech. Furthermore, at what point we as society will be disposed to tolerate for our

own generation? It is just a social media problem or our way of thinking is exceeding the real

meaning of the freedom of speech?. We are at time to think what world we want to let to the others

generations, and how our human right can prevalage through decades without passing over the others.

References

United Nations. (1948). Art. 19. Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948.

Recovery from: www.un.org/en/documents/udhr

Lang, M. (2016). Blocked and banned by social media: When is it censorship?. San Francisco

Chronicle. Recovery from: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Blocked-and-banned-by-

social-media-When-is-it-9193998.php

Gandesha, S. (2018) In defense of free speech. The “No-platforming” of speakers with whom we

fundamentally disagree can suggest that force ought to prevail over speech that is itself regarded as

“violent.” This suggestion is deeply corrosive. Opendemocracy.com. Recovery from:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/samir-gandesha/in-defense-of-free-speech

Nott, L. Free expression on social media. Freedom forum institute. Recovery from:

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/primers/free-expression-on-social-

media/