https://www.freedomforuminstitute.

org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-speech-
2/internet-first-amendment/hate-speech-online/

HATE SPEECH ONLINE

By David L. Hudson Jr., First Amendment Scholar, and Mahad Ghani,  First Amendment Center Fellow

Last updated: September 18, 2017

The Internet revolutionized the way in which people share information and communicate with each
other. But by providing an open forum for people to communicate with each other, the Internet also
paved the way for speech that is usually reserved for the edges of society. Racists, misogynists,
xenophobes, and terrorists have used the Web as a haven to communicate their noxious views,
harass others, and even plan nefarious deeds.

Some Web sites deny that the Holocaust occurred. Others promote the beating of gays and lesbians.
Still others rail against Muslims and Islam in the United States, or are anti-Christian. The 2016
election illuminated the extent that “fake news” had infiltrated society, resulting in incidents like an
man armed with an assault rifle entered a family pizza restaurant because of false reporting he had
read online in the “Pizzagate” incident. Many such sites target young people and seek to promote
their hateful ideologies.

“From cyberbullying to terrorists’ use of the Internet to recruit and incite, Internet hate speech is a
serious problem,” said Christopher Wolf, immediate past chair of the International Network Against
Cyber-Hate, in an e-mail interview. “The most notorious hate crimes of late — such as the shooting
at the Holocaust Museum (in Washington, D.C.) — were committed by individuals who used the
Internet to spread hate and to receive reinforcement from like-minded haters, who made hatred
seem normal and acceptable.”

Some contend that hate speech infringes on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection
under the law. Alexander Tsesis, for example, wrote in a 2009 article that “hate speech is a
threatening form of communication that is contrary to democratic principles.” 1

However, the First Amendment provides broad protection to offensive, repugnant and hateful
expression. Political speech receives the greatest protection under the First Amendment, and
discrimination against viewpoints runs counter to free-speech principles. Much hate speech qualifies
as political, even if misguided. Regulations against hate speech are sometimes imposed because
the government (at any level) disagrees with the views expressed. Such restrictions may not survive
constitutional scrutiny in court.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court in Reno  v. ACLU (1997) noted (albeit in a non-hate speech
context) that the Internet is entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection, akin to
the print medium. In other words, online hate speech receives as much protection as a hate-speech
pamphlet distributed by the Ku Klux Klan.

Given these factors — high protection for political speech, hostility to viewpoint discrimination and
great solicitude for online speech — much hate speech is protected. However, despite its text —
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” — the First Amendment does not
safeguard all forms of speech.

 UNPROTECTED CATEGORIES
Unless online hate speech crosses the line into incitement to imminent lawless action or true
threats, the speech receives protection under the First Amendment.

  INCITEMENT TO IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION

In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court said that “the constitutional guarantees of free
speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of
law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless
action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Most online hate speech will not cross into the unprotected category of incitement to imminent
lawless action because it will not meet the imminence requirement. A message of hate on the
Internet may lead to unlawful action at some indefinite time in the future — but that possibility is
not enough to meet the highly speech-protective test in Brandenburg.

For this reason, some legal commentators have urged that the Brandenburg standard be modified
with respect to online hate speech. One commentator wrote in 2002: “New standards are needed to
address the growing plague of Internet speech that plants the seeds of hatred, by combining
information and incitement that ultimately enables others to commit violence.” 2

Another agreed, writing: “Although Brandenburg may be suitable for the traditional media outlets,

which were well-established when it was decided, Internet speech and many unforeseen changes
have made such a standard outdated.” 3 Still another called for a revised imminence requirement in
Internet hate-speech cases to update Brandenburg and make it applicable online. 4

TRUE THREATS

Some online hate speech could fall into the unprotected category of true threats. The
First Amendment does not protect an individual who posts online “I am going to kill you” about a
specific individual. The Supreme Court explained the definition of true threats in Virginia v.
Black (2003) — in which it upheld most of a Virginia cross-burning statute — this way:

“‘True threats’ encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious
expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of
individuals. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on
true threats protect(s) individuals from the fear of violence and from the disruption that fear
engenders, in addition to protecting people from the possibility that the threatened violence will
occur.”

The Court in Virginia v. Black reasoned that crosses burned with an intent to intimidate others could
constitutionally be barred as provided in the Virginia law. (But the Court did strike down a part of the
law that said there was a presumption that all cross-burnings were done with an intent to
intimidate; for instance, in the consolidated cases the Court considered, one involved a cross-
burning with a property owner’s permission.) Thus, online hate speech meant to communicate a
“serious expression of an intent” to commit violence and intimidate others likely would not receive
First Amendment protection.

A few cases have applied the true-threat standard to online speech. In Planned Parenthood v.
American Coalition of Life Activists (2002), the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that some
vigorous anti-abortion speech — including a Web site called the Nuremberg Files that listed the
names and addresses of abortion providers who should be tried for “crimes against humanity” —
could qualify as a true threat. The 9th Circuit emphasized that “the names of abortion providers who
have been murdered because of their activities are lined through in black, while names of those who
have been wounded are highlighted in grey.”

Similarly, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in U.S. v. Morales (2001) that an 18-year-old
high school student made true threats when he wrote in an Internet chat room that he planned to
kill other students at his school.

Even in the speech-restrictive world of the military, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
ruled in United States v. Wilcox (2008) that a member of the military could not be punished under
the Uniform Code for Military Justice for posting racially offensive and hateful remarks he made over
the Internet about white supremacy. The court wrote that the service member’s
“various communications on the Internet … are not criminal in the civilian world … [and] did not
constitute unprotected ‘dangerous speech’ under the circumstances of this case. No evidence was
admitted that showed the communications either ‘interfere[d] with or prevent[ed] the orderly
accomplishment of the mission,’ or ‘present[ed] a clear danger to loyalty, discipline, mission, or
morale of the troops.’”

 SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD 

The Supreme Court turned their eyes towards social media to determine whether speech online
could constitute a threat in Elonis v. United States (2015). The case involved an individual that
posted rap lyrics on his Facebook page in which he threatened to kill his ex-wife. He was charged for
conveying threats across state lines.

When the case arrived to the Supreme Court, the case revolved around determining whether a post
on social media crossed into the realm of the True Threat standard. The Court chose to apply a
reasonable person standard to determine whether the threshold had been met. They ultimately
ruled that a reasonable person would not have found the rap lyrics to be a true threat, and reversed
the decision.

Since the Supreme Court decision, there have been cases filed when children have used things like
bomb emojis and have faced penalties. The Supreme Court choosing to apply a reasonable person
standard will likely guide these cases moving forward.

CONCLUSION

If hateful Internet communications do not cross the line into incitement to imminent lawless action
or a true threat, they receive First Amendment protection. The First Amendment distinguishes the
United States from other countries. Alan Brownstein and Leslie Gielow Jacobs, in their book
Global Issues in Freedom of Speech and Religion, write that the U.S. is a “free[-]speech outlier in the
arena of hate speech.” Many other countries criminalize online hate speech.

With social media and the Internet increasingly resulting in real world acts of violence, and as a
recruiting tool for terrorists, it is likely the law will change to address the changing times.

Wolf, chair of the Anti-Defamation League’s Internet Task Force, said much could be done to counter
online hate speech besides criminalizing it. “There is a wide range of things to be done, consistent
with the First Amendment, including shining the light on hate and exposing the lies underlying hate
and teaching tolerance and diversity to young people and future generations,” he said. “Counter-
speech is a potent weapon.”

With where the law currently stands, hate speech is protected so long as it stays in the realm of just
speech. The great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that “if there is any principle
of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of
free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we
hate.” The Constitution ensures freedom of speech for all by fighting to protect even the most vile
speech of all.

NOTES
1
 Alexander Tsesis, “Dignity and Speech: The Regulation of Hate Speech in a Democracy,” 44 Wake
Forest L. Rev. 497, 502 (2009).
2
 Tiffany Kamasara, “Planting the Seeds of Hatred: Why Imminence Should No Longer Be Required to
Impose Liability on Internet Communications,” 29 Capital University  L. Rev. 835, 837 (2002).
3
 Jennifer L. Brenner, “True Threats — A More Appropriate Standard for Analyzing First Amendment
Protection and Free Speech When Violence is Perpetrated over the Internet,” 78 North Dakota L.
Rev. 753, 783 (2002).
4
 John P. Cronan, “The Next Challenge for the First Amendment: The Framework for an Internet
Incitement Standard,” 51 Catholic University L. Rev. 425 (2002).
https://connectusfund.org/17-freedom-of-speech-pros-and-cons

17 Freedom of Speech Pros and Cons

Feb 24, 2019 by Editor in Chief

When a person or a corporation has the right of the freedom of speech, then they are able to
express any opinion without restraint or censorship. This approach to society is a democratic
institution which dates back to the ancient Greek culture.

In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech for all people.
Through this fundamental right, Americans have the freedom to protest, practice the religion they
want, and express opinions without worrying about the government imprisoning them for criticism.
It was adopted on December 15, 1971, as part of the Bill of Rights.

As with all modern democracies, even the United States places limits on this freedom. There are
specific limits placed on this principle that dictate what people can or cannot say legally. The First
Amendment does not specifically say what is or is not protected, but the Supreme Court has ruled
that there are some forms which are not allowed.

Here are the freedom of speech pros and cons to consider with this element as part of a democratic
society.

List of the Pros of Freedom of Speech

1. Freedom of speech protects each of us from the influence of special interests.

When people have power, then they do whatever they can to retain it for as long as possible. That
may include a change in the government’s constitution, a shift in a company’s Board of Directors, or
the suppression of a minority group that threatens the way of life for the people involved. Having
the freedom of speech reduces this power because it allows individuals to express criticism of those
who are in power. There is no fear of losing personal freedom with this right because your opinion
contributes to the overall conversation.

2. Freedom of speech eliminates compelled actions.

When you have the freedom of speech, then the government cannot compel your actions in such a
way that you are required to speak a specific message. You stay in control of what you say and how
those words are expressed to the rest of society. Even if the government attempts to alter your
words to their advantage, you will always have the opportunity to address the situation and correct
the “mistakes” that others create in your work.

3. Freedom of speech promotes the free exchange of ideas.

When a society operates in an area where free speech is given to all, then there is a more significant
exchange of ideas that occur. It becomes almost impossible for those who are in power to suppress
truths that they may not want to let out in the open. This process allows for progress to occur
because people can learn from the experiences and perspectives of one another without worrying
about the dogma of a “Big Brother” element in society, either corporate or government-based.

4. Freedom of speech can expose immoral or unlawful activities.

When Edward Snowden decided to leak numerous state secrets to the press, he created an
interesting question about the freedom of speech that we are still attempting to resolve in our
society. Was such an action inflicting damage against the legitimate actions of the government? Or
was the information he offered a way to bring light to actions that the government shouldn’t have
been performing in the first place? It is tricky to find the line which exists when you must protect
information or protect others. Having this right in society allows us to at least have that
conversation.

5. Freedom of speech prevents the requirement to behave specific ways.

Some people today might say that any speech which someone finds offensive should be banned.
Imagine then that someone became offended by the mention of same-gender marriage – or the
opposite, that they were offended by the mention of opposite-gender marriage. Freedom of speech
allows people to make up their minds about what to share with others. Some people might be
brazen with their approach, but that also means they might not have as many friends because of
their attitude.

6. Freedom of speech advances knowledge for a society.

When you have a chance to ask questions or share perspectives, then it creates more learning
opportunities in society. This right makes it easier for all individuals to make a new discovery,
suggest ideas, or exchange information freely without worrying about potential political
consequences. Even if some of the ideas do not work after you get to try them, the process of
testing contributes to the advancement of society as well. Thomas Edison famously made 1,000
unsuccessful attempts at the invention of the light bulb – each idea was a new step toward success.

7. Freedom of speech allows for peaceful changes in society.

Some people use their freedom of speech as a way to incite hatred or violence. Others use it as a
way to create the potential for peaceful change. Providing facts to individuals while sharing your
opinion can persuade them to consider your perspective, even if they do not agree with it at the
time. When this is your top priority with this right, then you are less likely as an individual to use
violence as a way to create change. Although this process requires patience from all of us to be
successful, it will usually get us to where we want to be.

8. Freedom of speech gives us an opportunity to challenge hate.

Peter Tatchell is a human-rights activist who suggests that the best way to move forward as a society
is to challenge the people who have differing views. He told Index in 2016 this: “Free speech does
not mean giving bigots a free pass. It includes the right and moral imperative to challenge, oppose,
and protest bigoted views. Bad ideas are most effectively defeated by good ideas, backed by ethics
and reason, rather than bans and censorship.

9. Freedom of speech creates resiliency.

Although exposing people to hate speech is hurtful and creates fear in some individuals, it also
creates a resiliency in the debate. Instead of making your voice louder when confronting these ideas,
you are improving your argument. When this action occurs, the action of observation and counter-
observation make it possible to create an outcome where progress toward the greater good occurs.
When we lack tolerance for differing, uncomfortable opinions, then it weakens the rights that so
many people take for granted when there is something that they want to say.

List of the Cons of Freedom of Speech

1. Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to have “all” speech.
The concept behind the freedom of speech is that you should be able to express anything in a way
that does not create legal consequences for you. Even if your opinion is unsavory, rude, or
unpopular, this right gives you the option to express it. In the United States, there are four forms of
speech which are not protected under the First Amendment.
• You cannot make an authentic threat against another individual.
• It is illegal to defame others, including libel and slander.
• You cannot plagiarize any copyrighted material.
• It is illegal to share some obscene material, such as child pornography.

If you say something in the United States which insights illegal actions or solicit others to commit a
crime, then your speech is not protected by the First Amendment either.

2. Freedom of speech can spread false information.

Thanks to the rise of the Internet, the freedom of speech makes it easier for individuals to spread
false information and outright lies, but then still pretend that this data is true. Research does not
prove that vaccinations increase the risk of autism in children, but you will find “information” online
that says this is true. Even though it is protected speech when this right is present, it could also lead
to people getting or transmitting a preventable disease. In 2019, over 60 people in Washington and
Oregon contracted the measles, with almost all of the cases being unvaccinated children.

3. Freedom of speech can incite violence against other people.

People must be held responsible for the personal choices that they make. When someone commits
an act of violence against another because they were incited by hate speech to do so, then they
made the choice to break the law. The person who created the outcome through the
encouragement of their language holds some responsibility here as well. If online radicalization
causes people to join ISIS, then shouldn’t political radicalization that causes individuals to attack
journalists be treated in the same way?

4. Freedom of speech creates a paradox.

When we look at the modern idea that creates the foundation for freedom of speech, it really isn’t
free. The government is still dictating some of the things that we can or cannot say. This freedom,
and this writer, cannot exist if people are not allowed to make assertions that are distasteful to the
majority, even if the statements are hurtful to other people.

5. Freedom of speech can create a mob mentality.

In 2012, Oatmeal and FunnyJunk had a dust-up over the use of images that author Matthew Inman
did not authorize for distribution. Charles Carreon made a public splash as the attorney for
FunnyJunk, which created a back-and-forth which eventually led the Internet to turn against him. In
return for those actions, Carreon labeled everyone he thought of as an “instigator” as a
“rapeutationist.” When one person offers an opinion that others find to be believable, it creates a
mob mentality on both sides of the equation. When this happens, it can destroy a person’s
livelihood quickly.

6. Freedom of speech can cause people to endure verbal abuse.

Voltaire’s biographer summed up the views of the philosopher like this: “I don’t agree with what you
say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” When freedom of speech is treated this way,
then it creates a situation where people must endure sexist or racist verbal abuse. Is it really
beneficial for society to allow individuals to use derogatory terms for the purpose of causing
discomfort?

We already know that there can be poor health outcomes associated with the fear of violence and
crime. Dr. Erin Grinshteyn of UCSF conduced an online survey platform that asked students to rate
their fear of experiencing 11 different crimes that included physical assault, hate speech, vandalism,
and microaggressions among others. Her findings showed that students in racial minority groups
feared violence more than Caucasians. Ongoing fear is a risk factor for mental health declines as
well.

7. Freedom of speech will eventually polarize society.

When people are allowed to express their opinions freely, then it creates three primary outcomes.
Some people will agree with the statement, others will disagree, and a middle group won’t care one
way or the other. People tend to hang out in circles where others think and feel in similar ways,
which means they will gather around like-minded individuals to spend most of their time.

Pew Research found as early as 2014 that 92% of Republicans are to the political right of the median
Democrat, while 94% of Democrats were to the left of the median Republican. 36% of GOP
supporters even felt that members of the opposite party were a threat to the wellbeing of the
country. When there are ideological silos created from free speech, it eventually polarizes society
into groups that struggle to get along with each other.

28% of people say that it is important to them to live in a place where most others share their
political views. For people who label themselves as “consistently conservative,” that figure rises to
50%, and 63% of that same group says that most of their close friends share their political views.

8. Freedom of speech reduces the desire to compromise.

Pew Research also discovered that when people are consistently liberal or conservative with their
freedom of speech, their idea of what compromise entails begins to shift. Instead of believing that
both sides must have a give-and-take to create an outcome, the definition becomes one in which
their side gets what they want while the other side gets as little as possible. This perspective makes
it a challenge for society to function because those on each extreme are consistently battling the
other extreme because each views themselves as being the superior contributor to society.

A Final Thought on the Pros and Cons of Freedom of Speech

The pros and cons of freedom of speech suggest that there should be some limits in place for the
general good of society. Allowing people to say or do whatever they want at any time increases the
risk for harm. Do we really want to live in a world where the creation and distribution of child
pornography is a protected right?

Once we start deciding “good” and “bad” speech, it opens the door for abuses to occur. That is why
the Supreme Court in the United States has worked hard for over 200 years to create rigid
definitions of what is helpful and what is harmful. The goal is to allow people to express contrary
opinions without the threat of legal reprisal. This structure promotes an exchange of ideas, which
then encourages the learning processes for everyone.
http://www.globalmediajournal.com/open-access/digital-media-and-freedom-of-expression-
experiences-challenges-resolutions.php?aid=87596

Digital Media and Freedom of Expression: Experiences, Challenges, Resolutions

May Chidiac1 and Mireille Chidiac El Hajj2*

1
Department of Media studies, Faculty of Humanities, Notre Dame University- Louaize, Lebanon
2
Department of Management, Faculty of Business and Economics, Lebanese University, Beirut,
Lebanon

*Corresponding Author:

Mireille Chidiac El Hajj

Department of Management
Faculty of Business and Economics
Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon
Tel: (+961) 5 463 624
E-mail:[email protected]

Received date: February 08, 2019 Accepted date: February 27, 2019 Published date: March 08,

2019

Citation: Chidiac M, Hajj MCE. Digital Media and Freedom of Expression: Experiences, Challenges,
Resolutions. Global Media Journal 2019, 17:32.

Visit for more related articles at Global Media Journal

Abstract

The advent of the digital media has brought new challenges and opportunities. It has flattened the
hierarchies of communication and reshaped the relationship between the authorities and the wider
public in society. Access to all sorts of new technologies has made it possible for anyone to engage in
public debate. As a result, although it may be perceived differently, threats to freedom of speech are
becoming increasingly apparent. Based on interviews with prominent political and social figures, this
qualitative study found out that the existing structures of communication are challenging democracy
and the human rights. The findings shed the light on some of the tools used by certain malevolent
actors whose objective is to silence free media, create a threatening environment for journalists, and
use democratic digital platforms for violent behavior and infiltration. Discussions focus on social
media threats in a hostile and divided environment. Some strategies and policies are therefore
suggested as they can be useful to increase awareness, control and prevent the influence and extent
of e-violence while promoting freedom of expression. The spiral of violence is to be remedied by the
spiral of Action and non-silence.

Keywords

Digital media; Freedom of expression; E-violence

Introduction

The Internet has changed our culture significantly and has found its way straight to our homes and
into our personal lives and everyday habits. Social media in particular has offered opportunities for
figures such as political candidates, media scholars, business owners and regular citizens to express
their views about any emerging topic. In other words, social media outlets allow people’s thoughts
to be available to a wide and diverse audience. However, even though it can constitute for many
people a great opportunity to foster democracy and the freedom of speech; it can be detrimental
when used by forces that long to suppress opposition or spread their retrograde agendas. Therefore,
the issue of the internet and the rise of advanced technologies are controversial. Over the past few
years, for instance, intolerant and extremist terrorists are driving all forms of racism in society,
causing terrible harm to a number of families around the world, be it through hate speech online or
online calls for infiltration and violent campaigns. It comes as no surprise that Isis’s and Daech’s, for
instance, main tool for recruitment was through their online platforms and e-magazine such as Al
Dabiq, in an injurious effort to recruit both men and women to their global war of beliefs, which led
to negative behaviors.

In this paper, we discuss the dimensions of digital media and its effects on the freedom of
expression. Relying on different interviews, conducted from March 2012 to November 2017, we
explore how far digital media has aided malevolent forces to attain some of their objectives and how
“Modern freedom of expression” is helping them appropriate new ways to reach their target
audiences and spread their values and beliefs. In this respect, the research question that guided our
search was the following: What is the role of social media in the process of violence and extremism?

While discussing the present conditions of the effects of social media on freedom of expression, this
research will also suggests some recommendations that can be useful for the fight against terrorism.

Literature Review

The new field of Journalism

The U.S. Department of Defense publication defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of -- or
threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate
governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

In today’s environment, terrorism, violence and crimes are facilitated by the use of digital media; as
it is a cheap, easy and faster way to communicate and spread terrorist groups’ ideological thoughts
and propaganda [1]. Its online effect can be considered as the extension of extremist groups’ military
methods [2] or the equivalent of the off-line effect, as it can promote identity formation and can
help build communities [3].

Shutting down the criminals’ ability to communicate may seem the solution to control it. Yet, it
should be recognized that closing them down, would have consequences on the freedom of
expression, as controlling the internet interferes with it. This issue creates a dilemma, which leads us
to define freedom of expression, as elaborated in article 10 of the European Convention on Human
Rights. It reads:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions
and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and
regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of
broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises…The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with
it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties
as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national
security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime”.

Nevertheless, while some observers see in freedom of speech the revival of democracy, others find
in it a platform to arise risks and controversies [4]. Nowadays readers are exposed to different types
of blogs and social media platforms including but not limited to Facebook, twitter, Whatsapp,
Instagram, YouTube and others. They are animated by three philosophical rationales: search for
truth, self-governance, and self-fulfillment, as argued by Feldman [5]. The author hence suggests
that people like to exchange ideas to identify truth and false issues. Free discussions of political
issues are a prerequisite for democracy. Self-fulfillment identifies a person’s potential and ambitions.
Searching for the truth is therefore the main objective for journalists. However, the word
“journalism” is changing dramatically. The profession is shrinking, since everyone, without even
being a journalist, can express his or her ideas on any social media platform in what is essentially a
form of self-expression [6,7]. In addition, any ordinary citizen journalist can send pictures and videos
to broadcast media, or any other media outlet to be broadcasted to the world. In this context,
extremists do not lack ideas that can serve their extremism. “One innovation, noted by terrorism
expert JM Berger, was an app designed for Twitter called The Dawn of Glad Tidings, which allowed
Isis to build up huge surges of re-tweets around particular topics” [8]. To note that new waves of
propaganda had prompted debate about the degree of the media itself and its role in providing the
“oxygen of publicity” needed by certain groups who exploited the latest technologies for
unprecedented purposes [8]. In parallel, they also prompted another debate about people’s reaction
and the way they perceive medieval propagandas. The question here is whether the public react or
just stay silent.

The spiral of silence in the digital media sphere

Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann [9] sheds the light on the theory of “the spiral of silence”. She stressed
that the “Cumulation, ubiquity and consonance of mass communication combine and produce
powerful effects on public opinion” [10]. As a matter of fact, humans need a sense of fellowship but
they fear isolation. Therefore, they always try to determine whether they belong to the majority or
the minority, when they sense that public opinion is changing. If they sense that they belong to the
majority, they will speak up their opinions; if not, they will not express it. In the same context and
according to Seitel [11] attitudes towards any subject are positive, negative or neutral. Studies
confirm that most people tend to be neutral. They are called the silent majority. While the theory of
cognitive dissonance suggests that people seek information that supports their points of view and
avoid that which challenges their opinion, most people, especially the neutral majority, have latitude
of acceptance within a range of opinions concerning any particular issue of public interest. It is
within this range that social media can operate to sway people’s opinion in order to gain more
support of whatever is advocated.

Hence, the objective of the spiral of silence theory is to explain how the media can influence opinion
expression and how the “spiraling” effect of the majority can silence the minority opinions, in new
digital interactions [12] and incorporate usergenerated content into their offer.

In an increasing digital world, people can connect with each other, no matter who they are or where
they are, as smartphone data allows identifying users’ specific location. The Internet is allowing
people to create new platforms where they can publish their stories. And here is the problem. The
vast quantities of Data generated by digital platforms contain information and details about the
context of the user. This can be translated for some, as “a modern freedom of expression”. Yet it
reveals users’ behavior, which can simply mean a “good hunt” in some cases. Predators are in search
for isolated souls. They hunt them and offer them similar platforms and communities to share their
lives with. Ability to capture their target is becoming easier, as individuals are poor judges of their
own interest [13] but also because social media and all technology companies are openly permitting
a 24/7 Networking.
Poor judgment in the face of danger

People do participate in the production of news, of messages and of information. They “report news,
expose wrong doing, express opinions, mobilize protest, monitor elections, scrutinize government,
deepen participation, and expand the horizons of freedom.” Yet those same people do not always
know what is right for them and do not depend on the entities that have had countless years of
experience in facing security threats. They just go with the flow, as they are afraid of the “isolation
effect”. Therefore in an extremist world, democracy fighters may use the Internet to change
democratic countries into authoritarian ones. Islamic terrorism 1 for instance follows three different
steps to tighten the grip on the neck of young people. The process to push the young to join their
ranks is as follows: Firstly: they use the Internet as a first tool to radicalize. Secondly, they move on
to face-to-face encounters. They use a method called Dawa to proselytize and extend their reach
beyond borders [14]. Dawa is their tool to inspire, indoctrinate, recruit, finance and mobilize the
youth; which forms the biggest challenge the United States faces in combating political Islam. “As
agents of Dawa can exploit the constitutional and legal protections that guarantee American citizens
freedom of religion and freedom of speech— freedoms that would of course be swept away if the
Islamists achieved their goals” [14]. Thirdly, they establish a spirit of “Us” against “Them”. Their
mentality is therefore incompatible with our freedoms [14], as they seek to replace freedom with
“strict Shariaa”.

The first component of Dawa is Tarbiyyah. Its targets are the educational, political and legal systems
of a country. Hiding their activities through humanitarian aids and NGOs such as the notorious Holy
Land Foundation in Washington DC, fundamentalist extremists launder millions of dollars to fund
their activities. A corporate example is eBay, the online commercial platform that was recently
condemned for unknowingly aiding in the funding the Islamic state. Fake eBay transactions were
moving money, according to the Wall Street Journal [15], through PayPal, after pretending to sell
certain products. By using alternatives to banks, extremists raised enough terror funds and made
huge sums of money through means of money laundering [16]. The Wall street journal also reported
that “some of the cash was spent on a laptop, a cellphone, and software to set up a virtual private
network that can mask a user's internet usage, which the FBI believed was so he could communicate
with Isis operatives overseas”.

All efforts are used by Jihadists, Ikhwan, Isis and others to disseminate hate against the western
ideology, to destroy the political institutions of the West, and replace them with extremism and
strict sharia’a. To do so, they deploy the Internet and all its tools to seduce the youth and hunt “Non-
believers”. This brings us back to the fact that digital media, via its vast reach and inherently
democratic and borderless essence is being accused of being the ultimate tool for extremists to
insure the right networks as a means to facilitate reaching other potential recruits. By referring to
the wassatiyya2, they deploy all efforts in order to conquer the West not by “The sword or armies,
but by preaching and ideology”.

Methodology

This qualitative research is largely based on data gathering, supplemented by interviews with people
who recognized similar situations and had to deal with the dark side of networking, in a way or
another. The methodology used in this paper is concentrated on two different axes. Firstly, a web
search allowed the researchers to ensure that the database was as complete as possible. Secondly,
in depth-interviews, some through panels, enabled the researchers to get access to large and diverse
data. Baker et al. [17], referred to the panels that can serve this type of data collection as “one of the
most compelling stories of the last decade” (p. 175). Those who passed through similar experiences
showed the strong effect of digital media on the society. Interviews that were recorded during
different gatherings, conducted from March 2012 to November 2017, helped reveal untold stories
and events that took place in the aggressive environment of the Mediterranean region. They helped
exploring how far digital media has aided some forces to attain their objectives and how “Modern
freedom of expression” is helping those, appropriate new ways to reach their target audiences.

The Findings

This section is divided into three main parts: the interviews, the panel and the so-called free space
where chaos reigns, which is partly related to our web search concerning the tech companies’
impact on spreading and/or restricting extremists’ believes and ideologies. Interviews were
conducted separately with eminent figures from different countries, while the panel gathered 5
mothers whose sons followed extremist groups.

The interviews

For the purpose of this study, different interviews from different panels conducted between March
2012 and November 2017, were gathered, analyzed and discussed to shed the light on the effect of
the digital media on freedom of expression. These indepth interviews were the major source of data
for this paper, as they served to describe the discussants’ opinions. Two distinct approaches were
detected, one related to the bright side of the social media while the other explored its dark side:

When interviewed in 2012, former British ambassador to Lebanon, Mr. Tom Fletcher stressed that
people could use a “super power” such as social media in political campaigns in Lebanon to discuss
what Lebanon can be or become in the year 2020. While Alec Ross, former senior advisor for
innovation office of secretary of state Hillary Clinton argued that social media did not instigate the
revolution by itself. He stated that social media tools could be powerful in an electoral context. He
gave the example of former president of the United States Barack Obama who technically had less
money than his competitor Mitt Romney during the 2012 elections to spend in media campaigns. Yet
he masterfully used specific information about people through social media in order to have
conversations with target audiences.

In controversy, our interview with John Carlin, assistant attorney general for national security at the
Department of Justice of the United States, revealed that terrorists are using social media to target
young people at a frighteningly alarming rate. 29 years old Omar Mateen who opened fire in a gay
nightclub in Orlando was inspired by online jihadi materials to murder apostates and members of
the gay community, basically anyone who is considered to be a Kafir (Kafeer) or unbeliever. Isis is
capable of recruiting hundreds of young men and women from France, Canada and other nations, he
said. Yet it was mostly able to target Egyptians, Tunisians, Yemenis, and Libyans who were either
quelled under their respective government suppression or influenced by numerous mosques calling
for the campaigns for global Jihad. As a result, Isis’s attempt to use social media for propaganda and
recruitment is successful.

It is essential to mention that although Isis is defeated today, it was growing in terms of number and
influence everywhere, but especially in the Middle East. Although current armed struggles against
them have stripped them of a large swath of their territory and income, to many, the damage has
already been done and has infiltrated the Internet and global networks of influence. Their highly
visual and professional means of communications allows them to master content and messaging on
social media, which others have emulated with a high rate of success. Although many argue that the
Jihadi threat- Isis, Al Qaeda and beyond- is but one of the many facets of fundamentalism appearing
on global scale to quash freedom of speech, as countless online campaigns of accusations labeled
under islamophobia and racism are undermining the space for real debate and criticism of
extremism under the banner of Islam. This phenomenon is extremely dangerous and has negative
consequences for users and practitioners of journalism.

In the same context, Benoit Thieulin, Founder and CEO of Netscouade, in France stated - that two
months before the revolution in Tunisia, hundreds of people started registering on social media
platforms such as Facebook and Twitter in order to speak out concerning the political situation and
the Ben Ali’s regime, yet the real revolution was executed in the streets.

Yet when it comes to the gap left by users online, which only journalists and media professionals can
help fill, Ali Jaber, Group TV Director of MBC, revealed that traditional media does not provide a
platform for everyone to express her/his own views. Media outlets in the Middle East are not
independent. They follow a previously set agenda by politicians, businessmen and other influencers.
He also stressed that under the guise of security, social media is passing through a dark phase,
because smart phones used by the people in the Middle east and North Africa (MENA) are subject to
the authorities’ surveillance. Hence, social media can effectively be used to also topple dissenters
and critics.

According to Ghassan Hasbani, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Health of Lebanon, journalism
can be practiced either through traditional media or through social media. What is even more
important, he said, is to provide people with the tools to judge the accuracy of news pieces and
therefore to choose which journalists, channels or bloggers to trust.

Elias Abu Saab, Former Minister of Education of Lebanon, argued that sometimes people can create
fake news or incite a rumor then spread it like wildfire through social media and websites. This
would render fact from false news difficult to discern. Moreover, according to Abou Saab, social
media is not journalism.

As witnessed by several incidents involving organizations such as CNN, New York Times, and the
Washington Post, due to the fast paced revelation of information online, practitioners are not given
the luxury of checking the facts for fear of being overridden by competition. Yet the more evident
incident attributed to this reality is the Hilary Clinton email scandal and Russia’s alleged interference
in the elections through fake news. This shows how powerful a tool social media can become in the
hands of a state or governing entity that has the power to manipulate the masses. Although
websites have arisen, such as Project Veritas founded by New York Times Bestselling author James
O’keefe, to negate fake news, they are essentially considered biased in their investigations. Hence,
the role of newspapers that have stood the test of time is still a positive force in discerning the fact
from false and are still heavily depended on through traditional print media or their respective social
media platforms. They are the cushions of concerned citizens. In the MENA region’s case, social
media and their respective daring media outlets are considered the cushion against fake news
propagated by their governments and online corresponding loyalists.

An interview with Julian Assange, Founder and editor in chief of Wikileaks, in 2016, revealed that
Wikileaks never reveals the source of its information, which is always factual and accurate.
According to Assange, Wikileaks got it right 100% in all times. It’s an art to get it right over the last
ten years, and they are proud of this accomplishment. Assange said that his work is noble, as by
increasing transparency, governments can be forced to act in more accountable ways.

Thus, while people have the ability to participate in upholding beliefs and values, gathering
information and evidence to either negate or support an event on social media, the role of
traditional journalism cannot be overridden by social media and the people’s collective power
cannot be overrun by online platforms. All is dependent on the political status of the country and the
freedom of its citizens, not to mention the cultural and social forces, to express their opinions and
beliefs freely and not a logical fallacy that applies all models to all. It can safely be said that social
media is not the new field of journalism as there are still so many practices that govern the internet
community which intend harm and manipulation to users, contrary to the mission that numerous
news outlets have successfully proven to have upheld.

Given that the Internet is a rapidly evolving phenomenon, rules that govern networks are also in
constant need of change, which also contributes to the supposition that social media cannot form a
new field of journalism since the latter is depended on for the ends and not the means. Thus in
relation to social media, journalism and laws, there are certain inherent attributes that are
considered a breach to the integrity of society.

Another interview that was conducted with Korieh Duodu, Advocate with Bentsi-Enchill Letsa and
Ankomah (Accra, Ghana) and trustee of the Media Legal Defence Initiative, revealed that traditional
laws require modifications when it comes to the Internet and the crimes committed online. She
argued that the Internet is a reflection of the society, thus everyone has to think of the primary
issues related to the social behavior and the social interaction; and of the ways that allow organizing
the process of sharing ideas and thoughts.

Alison Bethel Meckenzie, Executive Director International Press Institute explained and we quote:
“When we say the freedom of speech must be protected, we have to provide freedom for everyone.
We have laws related to hate speech; therefore crimes of the Internet can be condemned under
those laws”.

Converting as many people as possible is their ultimate objective. The movie “Heaven can wait” shed
the light on the effects of Facebook on the youth. Extremists try to find, exploit and convince young
isolated women, to turn into extremist Islamism. Succeeding in brainwashing them, they push them
to commit suicide bombing, as they will be heavenly rewarded above all ordinary mortals.

The panel

For the purpose of the study, we gathered in the year 2016, a number of women from Lebanon and
Jordan, of whose sons joined extremists groups. For privacy reasons, we will keep them anonymous,
and instead will refer to them as case numbers. Their testimonies depicted the sons’ characteristics,
the channel through which sons contacted mothers, the channel through which the mothers knew
about their children’s death and the way they reacted.

Table 1 shows the reaction of jihadists’ mothers and how they reacted to the death of their sons. It
is of value to add that these mothers suffer as they cannot burry their sons. There is no death
certificate. They received the “Bad news” through a Whatsapp or via Facebook.

Table 1: Testimonies of women whose sons joined extremists groups via the social media platforms.

Case Son’s characteristics Movement  son followed Communication How m

number news o

1 Young jihadist in Syria: 18 years old; “Call to Islam”. Objective: Firstly through Viber Throug
autist-isolated boy. to do something with his messages. Then: messages private
life stopped with no response. posted
Case Son’s characteristics Movement  son followed Communication How m
number news o

2 Young jihadist in Syria: 22 years old. Salafist Unknown GSM numbers Throug
Shifted from Catholicism to Islamic messa
religious practices

3 Young jihadist in Syria: 26 years old. Isis No communication. Throug

Shifted from Islam to extremist
Islamic movement out of poverty

4 Young jihadist in Syria Age: 20 years Islamic group, radical No communication. She do
old. Used to be a rapper, enjoying recruiter is alive
life.

5 Young jihadist in Syria: 20 years old. Joined an Islamic radical Social

group

Trasher [18] interpreted this phenomenon, saying that it is already hard and painful enough to learn
about someone’s death, but to learn such information through digital media is even more harmful.
Scrolling through the feed to discover the death of someone, and causing pain and grief deliberately
cannot be interpreted as freedom of expression.

The free space where chaos reigns

Our web search revealed that “the social media platforms are offering significant advantages to
extremist groups that may otherwise have stayed marginal in terms of communication means” [19].
It also revealed that some technology companies, namely Twitter, Facebook, PayPal and others were
accused of not investing enough resources to stop terrorist and discreet pages from spreading their
beliefs; and that many organizations and corporations did not attempt to deter extremists that are
under the guise of another identity or mission from using their platforms, but are doing so willfully.

However, later on and after several urgent calls to drop racist sites, some of them such as PayPal and
Discover Financial Services (DFS) took action and actively monitored the use of their network to
ensure that their services were not used to promote hate and racial intolerance. They even stopped
extremist organizations from receiving payments and donations for their activities [20].

Yet companies like YouTube reverse and undermine efforts by other organizations when they restrict
and ban videos that might drive a large swath of subscribers to swear off YouTube and start
indignant campaigns against it. Videos such as “What Isis wants”, presented by Tom Joscely, senior
fellow at the foundation for defense of democracies; ‘why don’t feminists fight for Muslim women?”
prepared Ali Ayaan hirsi; and ‘Radical Islam: the most dangerous ideology” prepared by Raymond
Ibrahim; were banned for fear of inciting public anger. The objective of such videos was to create
awareness and openly discuss the extremism objectives, yet fear of labels stopped the outspoken
critics from expressing their views. Therefore, it could be said that restricting these videos restricted
the positive face of freedom of speech in favor of the bad one.

In controversy, the video that exhibited how men can have sex with female prisoners of war to
‘humiliate’ them was widely shared on social media and websites rather than being banned. It
brought a lot of revenues and views as it showed how women were transformed into slaves, even
though it is known that rape and sexual violence are not permitted in Islam [21]. The story of the
yazidi girl Bafreen Oso, an Isis survivor, invited to WOFL 3, revealed that when Isis invaded Iraq, it
victimized a huge number of Assyrians and Yazidis including her and her parents. She was captured,
raped and tortured for two years. She was also forced to give up her yazidi religion and was
brainwashed by militants. Except for a small number of girls who were able to get away from the
massacres, all others were caged, stubbed, killed, and even burned for refusing to have sex with Isis
fighters. After running away from her kidnappers, Oso deployed the same strategy used by her
enemy. She accessed social media for precise purposes and was able to transform its platforms into
a tool to speak out her experience and share it with the global community.

Pictures of the massacres were widely shared on Facebook and other media outlets. Photos of
burned babies on Facebook showed small infants being eaten alive by the ensuing flames. It is
known that in democratic structures, social media is regarded as a tool for encouraging 'social
participatory governance' [22].

Preventing e-violence before it happens

This study investigated the effects of digital media on freedom of expression. Concerned by the
demonstrations of the destruction of democracy and human rights, this paper invites to a deep
thinking on how collecting data from different sources can help analyzing the ongoing situation in an
attempt to find some remedies. We depicted the following:

The interviewees accused the social media in general from allowing terror groups to explicitly sustain
their presence in cyberspace, despite their full awareness that the online presence of the latter
constitutes powerful political tools that help them mobilize recruiting, marketing and propaganda.
Hence, it sounds that the spiral of violence is not to end soon as even though extremists may seem
to be losing land or to be battered on battlefield; they are still alive, according to Rasmussen’s [23]
report in the Wall street journal. Meanwhile, in their message of words and videos, extremist
positions are backing up the spiral of violence and the social transformations, while demolishing
democracy and freedom of expression. And in the same line as above literature review, predators
are in search for isolated souls while the target is becoming easier.

Traditionally, the newspapers editors’ job was to decide what should be cut in space or what could
make page one. Instead, space does not constitute a scarce resource nowadays, as social media and
all technology companies are openly permitting a 24/7 Networking. The public and especially the
youth is shifting from passive to active agents, creating a new wave of journalists pretenders, who
gather data that best suits them without even waiting for news organizations to filter and deliver.
Therefore, instead of following the internet society‘s global report 2017, which argues that: “the
future of the internet is inextricably tied to people’s ability to trust it as a means to improve society,
empower individuals and enable the enjoyment of human rights and freedoms”; the amount of
exposure to any filter of their choice is presenting an important risk factor for youth’s behavior that
is currently leading to aggressive thoughts and attitudes.

In this line, it can be said that exposing violence on u-tube, twitter, facebook, skype, blogs and chat
rooms has short and long effects on the viewers, especially the youth, who prefer to leave their
homes, families and parental supervision for the need of a sense of belonging to a particular group,
to a kind of affiliation, to more freedom to design and mold their place in new special interest groups
of their choice, to make more money and to gain power. By facilitating more points of contact
between people in a virtual context, friendships, acquaintances and interactions between people
who never met are strengthened; serving the virtual world to becoming an easy platform that helps
spreading threat against human security and rights.

These people are participating in the production of news, of messages and of information. They
“report news, expose wrong doing, express opinions, mobilize protest, monitor elections, scrutinize
government, deepen participation, and expand the horizons of freedom”. Yet those same people do
not always know what is right for them and do not depend on the entities that have had countless
years of experience in facing security threats. They just go with the flow, as they are afraid of the
“isolation effect”.

More, in an extremist world, democracy fighters are using the Internet to change democratic
countries into authoritarian ones, while targeting a global audience anywhere and anytime [24].
Gathered in the 3rd edition of the Mediterranean Dialogue, Rome 2017, political Leaders admitted
that four key “M” pillars govern the Middle Eastern countries: Money, Military, Media and Mindset.
While one “M” affects the other, Media and Mindset seem to be the most influencing ones. Russia’s
minister of foreign affairs, Mr. Sergey Lavrov, argued that Isis was defeated in Syria and Irak; yet it
can always make a comeback if it stays well connected. Saudi minister of foreign affairs, Adel Ben
Ahmad Al Jubeir stressed that there is a need to enhance the ability to perceive extremism threats
whether digital or not, and to support changes in the Mindset, in response to it. Professor Jeffrey
Sachs, from Columbia University stressed on the importance of investing in peace and in education
in the MENA region. He said that in a digitizing world, strategies should be integrated and efforts
should be tailored to get rid of wars and violence. Some strategies and policies should therefore be
implemented as they can be useful to increase awareness, control and prevent the influence and
extent of e-violence while promoting freedom of expression. This leads us to:

Educating: According to Ali [14], the only way to remedy the e-violence is through educating the
public through an anti-Dawa strategy4. This cure would help stop harming peaceful believers. For it
seems, that the open society is allowing more “unlimited tolerance that will eventually lead to the
disappearance of tolerance [25].

Controlling and sharing information: Controlling information must be put in place in governments

such as in Syria, Iran, Tunisia, Egypt and other countries in the MENA region, to identify and detain
dissenters as well as to gain access to their location at all times. In this context, Wikileaks stated that
public information can hurt citizens and thus selecting information must be revealed for the good of
all.

Spreading awareness through movies and series: In 2017 Ali Jaber, Group TV Director of MBC,
stressed on the importance of media counter-propaganda to fight "terror" groups. The TV series
such as "Hur al Ayn" (The Maidens of Paradise), "Irhab Academy" (Terrorist Academy), "Sina'at al
mawt" (Death Industry), “the Black Crows” or “Gharabeeb Soud” forcasted on MBC and on Arabia,
which is part of the MBC group, pointed out to the challenges and to the threats that shake the
course of communication and politics in general. Despite the terrible truth about the cruelty used by
extremists, the TV series showed ways to deal with the current problem of Jihadists. The purpose of
such series was not to entertain people, as Ali Jaber argued; but to send messages through soft
communication, telling extremists that TV series or “musalsals” in Arabic, that are generally
produced in Saudi Arabia, by Muslim producers and Muslim actors, are calling for moderation and
hope in societies. Far from the usual family entertainment, their objective is to show the cruelty of
those who ‘die for jihad”, and of men who are slaughtering men in inhuman ways.
Applying new technologies: That can classify the language of extremism to be able to remove its
dangerous content while improving and developing some practical solutions. In this line, the
development of new technologies to automatically detect terrorist content on any online platforms
was announced on February 13, 2018, with 99.99% accuracy. Developed by the Home office and ASI
Data Science, this new technology helps analyzing the audio and visual contents released by Daech.
However, small platforms don’t have the same level of resources to develop such technologies, as
mentioned by the UK government5 . Helping them developing innovative methods can be the
desired solution to prevent spreading fear in our society. Platforms must be aware of the viral
content that is being shared despite any gains from amassing a large number of viewers.

Uniting Actions and efforts to awaken the silent majority: A task force should join the civil society
groups, the government and the private sector. In a context of solidarity between all three parties,
seeds of discord in society should be removed to reinforce propaganda against hatred, grievance
and lies; and to awaken the silent majority. A solid call to the youth is to be administered to convince
them to return to their lives and abandon the fight against democracy. A new model of shared
responsibility and liability is to be hold at pace and scale to share freedom of speech and the right
for privacy and security; especially between the West and the Middle- East regions. It is noteworthy
to mention that the PayPal and Discover Financial Services (DFS) moves were taken after the West
was targeted. They immediately followed the violence that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, at
the white nationalist rally. Such moves should also be taken when threats are perceived in the
Middle-Eastern countries.

Setting and implementing Laws: On another level, there is a need to legislate for further interference
with Article 10, of the European Convention on Human Rights as it includes a limited number of
media but not the plurality of sources of information that is available nowadays. Laws addressing the
challenges that are met online must be introduced to protect the inherent spirit of social media and
that is freedom of speech. Legal research must be conducted in order to define the finer points
attributed to criminality, social media, and fundamentalism. It also must categorize laws for
companies and other entities that may be held responsible for inciting or allowing online criminal
activity under the guise of freedom of speech.

Conclusion

This paper discussed the relationship between digital media and freedom of expression. The internet
allows networking between people and creates new platforms for everyone to publish their stories
to the global audience. However, participating in the production and diffusion of information has
changed the ways people understand freedom of expression. According to the European
Commission study [26], Media technologies and communications are undergoing a profound
transformation; as new technologies have the power to transform how we realize the freedom of
expression (p.5). Currently, the power to communicate is not solely in the hands of elites, but rather
in the hands of a wider public, including extremists and terrorists. The explosion of the digital media
is serving citizens to engage in public debate, but it is also allowing them to engage in extremely
dangerous conversations and debate. Did this public observe silence, as aforementioned by Noelle-
Neumann? It seems not, as he is showing reaction on digital media, by posting and twitting.

Still, actions are not speaking louder than these simple tweets, and more is to be done. For, if for
some, posting is better than doing nothing; for others, the creation of a unified strategy and unified
mechanisms for social media is essential. New approaches should be created to confront prevailing
consensus. The spiral of violence is to be remedied by the spiral of Action and non-silence.
1
We call them extremists Islamic groups after Moore (2016) who described them as follows: “In the
wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S., the threat of militant Islamic terrorism --
rooted in the Middle East and South Asia -- has taken center stage. While these extremely violent
religious extremists represent a minority view, their threat is real. As pointed out by RAND's Bruce
Hoffman, in 1980 two out of 64 groups were categorized as largely religious in motivation; in 1995
almost half of the identified groups, 26 out of 56, were classified as religiously motivated; the
majority of these espoused Islam as their guiding force”.
2
According to Ali (2017),Wassatiyya is the strategy to Islamize the West and implement strict shariaa
law through dawa and other nonviolent means. The strategy has been pursued by Islamic groups in
Western countries for the past three decades thanks to generous funding from Middle Eastern
individuals, NGOs, and governments (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and—until recently—the United
Arab Emirates) (p. 81)
3
WOFL stands for “women on the front line”. It is an annual conference held by the MCF (May
Chidiac Foundation) that hosts influential figures of influential women who have inspired leadership,
change, and sustainability in their respective fields.
4
Islamic terrorism follows three different steps to tighten the grip on the neck of young people. The
process to push the young to join their ranks is as follows: firstly, they use the Internet as a first tool
to radicalize. Secondly, they move on to face-to-face encounters. They use a method they call Dawa
to proselytize and extend their reach beyond borders (Ali, 2017, p.15). Dawa is their tool to inspire,
indoctrinate, recruit, finance and mobilize the youth; which forms the biggest challenge the United
States faces in combating political Islam. “As agents of dawa can exploit the constitutional and legal
protections that guarantee American citizens freedom of religion and freedom of speech— freedoms
that would of course be swept away if the Islamists achieved their goals “(Ali, 2017, p.19). Thirdly,
they establish a spirit of “Us” against “Them”. Their mentality is therefore incompatible with our
freedoms (Ali, 2017, p. 2), as they seek to replace freedom with “strict Shariaa”. All efforts are used
by Jihadists, Ikhwan, Isis and others to disseminate hate against the western ideology, to destroy the
political institutions of the West, and replace them with extremism and strict sharia a. To do so, they
deploy the Internet, and all its tools to seduce the youth and hunt “Non-believers”. The first
component of Dawa is Tarbiyyah. Its targets are the educational, political and legal systems of a
country. And one way to hide these efforts is through humanitarian aids and NGOs such as the
notorious Holy Land Foundation in Washington DC that was proven to have laundered millions of
dollars to fund fundamentalist extremists. A corporate example is eBay, the online commercial
platform that was recently condemned for unknowingly aiding in the funding the Islamic state. Fake
eBay transactions were moving money, according to the Wall Street Journal (2017), through PayPal,
after pretending to sell certain products. By using alternatives to banks, extremists are raising
enough terror funds and are making huge sums of money through means of money laundering
(Szoldra, 2017). The journal also reported that “some of the cash was spent on a laptop, a cellphone,
and software to set up a virtual private network that can mask a user's internet usage, which the FBI
believed was so he could communicate with Isis operatives overseas”. Therefore, digital media, via
its vast reach and inherently democratic and borderless essence is being accused of being the
ultimate tool for extremists to insure the right networks as a means to facilitate reaching other
potential recruits. By referring to the wassatiyya, they are deploying all efforts in order to conquer
the West not by “The sword or armies, but by preaching and ideology” (Ali, 2017, p.41).
5
To refer to Gov.UK: New technology revealed to help fight terrorist content online. Retrieved from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-technology-revealed-tohelp- fight-terrorist-content-
online

References

1. Hussain MdS (2015) Social media and terrorism: Threats and challenges to the modern era.
South Asian survey 22: 136-155.

2. Rasmussen SE (2018a) Online Propaganda Builds Islamic State Brand in the Face of Military
Losses. The Wall Street Journal.

3. Postmes T, Brunsting S (2002) Collective action in the age of the Internet mass
communication and online mobilization. Social Science Computer Review 20: 290-301.

4. Fisher W (2001) Freedom of expression on the internet.

5. Feldman SM (2017) Postmodern Free Expression: A Philosophical Rationale for the Digital

Age. Marquette Law Review100: 1123-1192.

6. Taylor DG (1982) Pluralistic ignorance and the spiral of silence: A formal analysis. The Public
Opinion Quarterly 46: 311-335

7. Neuwirth K, Frederick E, Mayo C (2007) The spiral of silence and fear of isolation. Journal of
Communication 57: 450-468.

8. Burke J (2016) How the changing media is changing terrorism. The Guardian.

9. Noelle-Neumann E (1984) The spiral of silence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

10. Severin W, Tankard J (1997) Communication Theories: Origins, methods and uses in the
mass media, 4th edition. Pearson new international Edition.

11. Seitel F (2014) The practice of public relations. Pearson new international edition.

12. Ho SS, Chen VHH, Sim CC (2013) The spiral of silence: examining how cultural
predispositions, news attention, and opinion congruency relate to opinion expression. Asian
journal of communication 23: 113-134.

13. Edward A, Purcell Jr (1973) The Crisis of Democratic Theory 103. In: Harold D (ed.) Lasswell,
Psychopathology and Politics.

14. Ali AH (2017) The challenge of Dawa. Political Islam as ideology and movement and how to
counter it. Standford University: Hoover institution press.

15. Maremont M, Stewart C (2017) FBI says ISIS used eBay to send terror cash to US. The Wall
Street Journal.

16. Szoldra P (2017) ISIS operatives allegedly used eBay to fund terror operations.  Business
Insider. Military and defense.

17. Baker R, Brick JM, Bates NA, Battaglia M, Couper MP, et al. (2013) Summary report of the
AAPOR Task Force on non-probability sampling. Journal of Survey Statistics and
Methodology pp: 90–143.

18. Trasher S (2016) The death of a friend is always hard. What if you find out on Facebook?
19. Alava S, Frau-Meigs D, Hassan G (2017) Youth and violent extremism on social media:
mapping the research.

20. Berr J (2017) PayPal cuts off payments to right-wing extremists.

21. Hakim M (2016) The truth about Muslims and sex slavery-according to the Koran, rather
than Isis or Islamophobes. The Independent.

22. Islam M (2017) Freedom of expression in social media. The Daily star.

23. Rasmussen SE (2018b) Battered on battlefield, ISIS alive online. The Wall Street Journal.

24. Schils N, Laffineur J (2013) Comprendre et expliquer le rôle des réseaux sociaux dans la
formation de l’extrémisme violent. Belgique : université de Gent et université catholique de
Louvain, BELSPO.

25. Popper K (2013) The Open Society and Its Enemies, the Spell of Plato. United Kingdom:
Routledge.

26. European Commission (2011) Freedom of expression, Media and digital communications.
Key issues.
https://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/social-media-and-future-
democracy-1

Reading One:
Social Media and Democratic Debate
 

When social media platforms were first created in the late 1990s and early 2000s, their creators and
supporters promised a democratic revolution. As millions of users around the planet joined
platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat, early proponents of social media argued that
these apps would transform political debate—fostering robust public discussion and allowing people
to create a rich civic life by engaging with their friends and neighbors online. But in more recent
years perspectives on social media and democracy have grown more negative, focusing on stories of
political fragmentation, echo chambers, and hate speech.

Today, we might ask: Does social media promote positive democratic debate, or does it encourage
hate speech? And how have our online interactions changed our in-person politics?

In the past, advocates of social media touted its capacity to put all parties in a political discussion on
a level playing field. Some journalists referred to the Arab Spring uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt in
2011 as “Twitter Revolutions.” In a 2012 article on Mic.com, writer Saleem Kassim voiced this type of
techno-optimism, writing:

Being capable of sharing an immense amount of uncensored and accurate information throughout
social networking sites has contributed to the cause of many Arab Spring activists. Through social
networking sites, Arab Spring activists have not only gained the power to overthrow powerful
dictatorship, but also helped Arab civilians become aware of the underground communities that
exist and are made up of their brothers, and others willing to listen to their stories.

In countries like Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen, rising action plans such as protests made up of
thousands, have been organized through social media such Facebook and Twitter. “We use
Facebook to schedule the protests” an Arab Spring activist from Egypt announced “and [we use]
Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world.” The role that technology has taken in allowing
the distribution of public information such as the kinds stated by the aforementioned activist, had
been essential in establishing the democratic movement that has helped guide abused civilians to
overthrow their oppressor.

Social networks have broken the psychological barrier of fear by helping many to connect and share
information. It has given most people in the Arab world the knowledge that they are not alone, that
there are others experiencing just as much brutality, just as much hardships, just as much lack of
justice. Social networks "for the first time provided activists with an opportunity to quickly
disseminate information while bypassing government restrictions," Hussein Amin, professor of mass
communications at the American University in Cairo said.

https://www.mic.com/articles/10642/twitter-revolution-how-the-arab-spring-was-helped-by-social-
media

For protestors looking to share information in repressive societies, social media can be a powerful
tool. However, in recent years, many political observers have pointed out that social media
platforms are structured in ways that can also contribute to trends that are dangerous to
democracy.
For example: Social media platforms try to predict our preferences (as part of their business model).
This can mean that they only show us posts and stories from viewpoints similar to our own. This can
lead to the creation of a social media “bubble,” an echo chamber in which one’s preconceived views
are reinforced, rather than fostering a pluralistic discussion in which lots of different views are
represented. Critics fear that this could be contributing to greater political polarization in our
country.

In extreme cases, social media companies have allowed groups promoting white supremacy, anti-
Semitism, and sexism to proliferate. In an April 2019 report, Council on Foreign Relations editor
Zachary Laub summarized recent research on social media and hate speech. He wrote:

As more and more people have moved online, experts say, individuals inclined toward racism,
misogyny, or homophobia have found niches that can reinforce their views and goad them to
violence. Social media platforms also offer violent actors the opportunity to publicize their acts.

Social scientists and others have observed how social media posts, and other online speech, can
inspire acts of violence:

In Germany a correlation was found between anti-refugee Facebook posts by the far-right
Alternative for Germany party and attacks on refugees. Scholars Karsten Muller and Carlo Schwarz
observed that upticks in attacks, such as arson and assault, followed spikes in hate-mongering posts.

In the United States, perpetrators of recent white supremacist attacks have circulated among racist
communities online, and also embraced social media to publicize their acts. Prosecutors said
the Charleston church shooter, who killed nine black clergy and worshippers in June 2015, engaged
in a “self-learning process” online that led him to believe that the goal of white supremacy required
violent action.

The 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooter was a participant in the social media network Gab, whose
lax rules have attracted extremists banned by larger platforms. There, he espoused the conspiracy
that Jews sought to bring immigrants into the United States, and render whites a minority, before
killing eleven worshippers at a refugee-themed Shabbat service. This “great replacement” trope,
which was heard at the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, a year prior and originates
with the French far right, expresses demographic anxieties about nonwhite immigration and birth
rates….

The same technology that allows social media to galvanize democracy activists can be used by hate
groups seeking to organize and recruit. It also allows fringe sites, including peddlers of conspiracies,
to reach audiences far broader than their core readership. Online platforms’ business models
depend on maximizing reading or viewing times. Since Facebook and similar platforms make their
money by enabling advertisers to target audiences with extreme precision, it is in their interests to
let people find the communities where they will spend the most time.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons

While the founders of social media platforms envisioned a robust and healthy political debate, the
outcomes after two decades are decidedly more mixed. As millions of people rely on these
technologies for news, community-building, and communicating with friends and family, the stakes
for making social media into a force that can be consistent with our democratic ideals continue to
rise.
 
For Discussion

1. How much of the material in this reading was new to you, and how much was already
familiar? Do you have any questions about what you read?

2. What are some arguments in favor of the idea that social media promotes democracy? How
can social media platforms foster democratic engagement?
 

3. Can you think of examples of how social media has fostered positive civic engagement on
the platforms you use?

4. According to the reading, why might social media contribute to social polarization or the
creation of political “bubbles”?
 

5. Can you think of ways the social media platforms you use have seemed to encourage
polarization or bubbles?

6. Some analysts believe that social media is not to blame for the rise in hate speech, arguing
instead that white supremacists and other extremist movements have always used whatever
technology is available to spread their message, and that the online era is no different. What
do you think of this argument? Are the risks and dangers posed by current technologies
different from those of the past?

7. What do you think? On the whole, is social media helping our democracy or hurting it?
Explain your position.

Reading Two:
What Can Be Done To Change Social Media?
 

“Social media doesn’t work the way we think it should.” This was the conclusion of MIT Associate
Professor of the Practice in Media Arts and Sciences Ethan Zuckerman, who has worked for and
studied social media companies over the past three decades.

Since the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the Brexit vote in Britain, many people have thought
the same thing, expressing concern that online platforms contribute to a rise in political polarization
and hate speech.

But if there are worries about how social media is affecting our public life, what can be done to
change these platforms for the better? Various advocates have explored possibilities for action by
government, by tech corporations, or by social media users themselves.

One option is government regulation. In the last three years, there have been a flurry of policy
proposals in the United States and other countries. In an April 8, 2019 article for NPR, news desk
reporter Matthew Schwartz described a broad set of prospective government regulations of social
media companies in the United Kingdom (U.K.). He wrote:

[T]he U.K. plans to require social media companies to be much more active in removing and
responding to harmful material on their platforms. The sweeping 102-page white paper, released
Monday [by two British government departments], envisions requirements for everything from
ensuring an accurate news environment, to combating hate speech, to stamping out cyberbullying.

The proposal is the latest in a series of increased efforts by governments around the world to
respond to harmful content online. Last year Germany imposed fines of up to $60 million if social
media companies don't delete illegal content posted to their services. After the massacre in
Christchurch, New Zealand, Australian lawmakers passed legislation subjecting social media
executives to imprisonment if they don't quickly remove violent content. The U.K. proposal goes
further than most by proposing the creation of a new regulatory body to monitor a broad array of
harms and ensure companies comply.

"I'm deeply concerned that social media firms are still not doing enough to protect users from
harmful content," Prime Minister Theresa May said. "So today, we're putting a legal duty of care on
these companies to keep users safe. And if they fail to do so, tough punishments will be imposed.
The era of social media firms regulating themselves is over."

The new duty of care has yet to be fleshed out, but U.K. officials offered plenty of suggestions for
what they expect a new regulator to include in a code of practice. Officials expect companies to do
what they can to "counter illegal content and activity." That could include requirements to actively
"scan or monitor content for tightly defined categories of illegal content" such as or threats to
national security, or material that sexually exploits children.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/08/711091689/u-k-regulators-propose-broad-social-media-
regulations-to-counter-online-harms
 

Some skeptics might express concern, however, that more government involvement in regulating
social media could result in censorship or state repression of free speech. Striking the right balance
between allowing free expression, on the one hand, and curtailing hate speech that is actively
promoting violence, on the other, is difficult.

Advocates such as U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion & Expression David Kaye have
proposed an alternative approach. They focus on ways that companies can step up to allow greater
community moderation. In a June 2018 article for Reuters, Kaye laid out three strategies companies
could use to create environments that are more conducive to healthy democratic debate online. He
writes:

First, internet companies need to involve local communities in governing their platforms. The
corporations as they are currently configured cannot rule public space everywhere. They must find
ways to devolve authority to local actors – not to governments, but to their users. Hiring teams of
experts alone simply doesn’t cut it. Steps like diversifying leadership, enabling greater local content
moderation not outsourced to contractors, and engaging deeply with the communities where they
operate are essential….

Second, the companies must disclose radically more information about the nature of their
rulemaking and enforcement concerning expression on their platforms. Greater disclosure means
individual empowerment, giving people an opportunity to provide genuine critiques of how those
rules apply, and how the companies get it wrong, in specific countries….

Finally, the companies make claims to global roles, so they should adopt global standards – not the
First Amendment, and not terms of service allowing them complete discretion. They should apply
human rights law, which provides global standards protecting everyone’s right to “seek, receive and
impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers.” …. Those rules would provide
better grounding for company operations and allow real capacity to push back against governments
seeking to interfere with freedom of expression....

Opaque forces, corporate and governmental, are shaping the ability of individuals worldwide to
exercise their freedom of expression. With looming governmental intervention, the companies need
to change in order to meet the threats they pose in this digital age.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kaye-media-commentary/commentary-how-to-fix-social-media-
without-censorship-idUSKBN1JF34H

While government and corporations can have roles in shaping democratic engagement on social
media, everyday internet users themselves do not have to wait for these institutions to take action.
Instead, say advocates, there are a variety of steps that we can take ourselves. In a 2018 blog post
entitled “Six or Seven Things Social Media Can Do for Democracy,” MIT Professor Ethan
Zuckerman highlighted strategies social media users are already deploying to improve democratic
debate.

Users in social networks like Twitter and Facebook have little control over how those networks are
governed, despite the great value they collectively create for platform owners. This disparity has led
Rebecca MacKinnon to call for platform owners to seek Consent of the Networked, and Trebor
Scholz to call us to recognize participation in social networks as Digital Labor. But some platforms
have done more than others to engage their communities in governance.

Reddit is the fourth most popular site on the U.S. internet and sixth most popular site worldwide, as
measured by Alexa Internet, and is a daily destination for at least 250 million users. The site is
organized into thousands of “subreddits,” each managed by a team of uncompensated, volunteer
moderators, who determine what content is allowable in each community….

Some Reddit communities have begun working with scholars to examine scientifically how they
could govern their communities more effectively. /r/science, a community of 18 million subscribers
and over a thousand volunteer moderators, has worked with communications scholar Nathan Matias
to experiment with ways of enforcing their rules to maximize positive discussions and throw out
fewer rulebreakers. The ability to experiment with different rules in different parts of a site and to
study what rulesets best enable what kinds of conversations could have benefits for supporters of
participatory democracy offline as well as online.

http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2018/05/30/six-or-seven-things-social-media-can-do-for-
democracy/
 

Whether governmental, corporate, or community action presents the most promising avenue for
creating change, a wide variety of reformers are envisioning ways to reclaim the democratic promise
of social media—or at least help preserve democracy in an era of social media disruption.
 
For Discussion

1. How much of the material in this reading was new to you, and how much was already
familiar? Do you have any questions about what you read?

2. According to the reading, what are some proposals for how governments can change how
social media companies operate?

3. According to the reading, what are some potential changes that corporations or users could
enact themselves improve political debate on social media platforms? Which ideas do you
think are the most promising?

4. Can you think of any of your own proposals for how social media can be better used to
promote democracy? Are there any measures that you think should be pursued?

5. In a 2017 article in The Washington Post, scholars Joshua Tucker, Yannis Theocharis,
Margaret E. Roberts and Pablo Barberá argued that “social media itself is neither inherently
democratic or non-democratic, but yet another arena in which political actors contest for
power”? What do you think they mean by this argument? Do you agree or disagree? Explain
your position.
 

6. The current major social media platforms are run by corporations, which have an imperative
to increase revenues and return profits. Can you imagine a different kind of social media
platform where civic engagement, rather than maximizing profits, was the goal? How would
such a platform work? Who would pay for it?

Research assistance provided by John Bergen.

https://freespeechproject.georgetown.edu/social-media/

Social networks have proven to be the most difficult arenas in which to debate Free Speech. Are they
supposed to be a replica of the public square, where nearly any opinion deserves amplification —
and scrutiny? Or are they meant to provide a space free of hate speech and misinformation, where
users can feel safe communicating their ideas about the world around them? Companies such as
Facebook and Twitter have vowed to combat rhetorical bile on their platforms but have not given
the public much insight as to who decides what type of content should be censored. And social
content can be permanent: If a user chooses not to delete a post, it can come back to haunt him or
her years later, potentially causing career disruptions. How and where to draw the lines in these
increasingly popular platforms are among the defining questions for Free Speech today.
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-value-of-free-speech

The Value of Free Speech

Harvey C. Mansfield

Fall 2018

Our usual debate over the extent of free speech takes for granted the value of free speech. We
argue over the boundaries or limits of what can be said but pass over the importance of what is said
within those bounds. This leaves us with a peculiar sense of why speech matters: We imply that it's
valuable because its restraint would undermine our freedom, which is a way of avoiding the
question more than of answering it.

This disinterest in the value of free speech, sometimes amounting to a refusal to define it, appears to
be rooted in the principles of our liberalism, which enshrines free speech as one right, perhaps the
principal right, among the rights that deserve protection in a liberal society. To guard such a right, it
seems, one must not specify the value of how it will normally be used lest by such definition society
destroy what it wants to protect. For by discussing the value of free speech one would expose less-
valued or valueless speech to disdain, or worse, prohibition.

A society that understands itself in terms of rights must above all protect its boundaries in the
definition of rights rather than concern itself too much, or at all, with what is within the protected
territory. Thus, the protection of unlimited, or nearly unlimited, speech eclipses our view of worthy
speech. To recover some idea of worthy speech, and therefore also of why free speech matters, we
will need to challenge our liberalism for its own good, and to expose its more-than-simply-liberal
aims and character. And to see these is ultimately also to grasp what speech is for, and why it is
important.

FROM NORMAL SPEECH TO FREE EXPRESSION 

Everybody admits the exception to unlimited speech in the dangerous but exemplary circumstance
of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater, but no one wants to pursue the distinction implied in that
exception. Yet to condemn or punish the act of falsely shouting "fire!" in that situation is indeed to
distinguish between helpful and harmful speech. At times we will find value in apparently harmful
speech, as in the "redeeming social value" awarded by the United States Supreme Court to speech
that might appear obscene and thus dangerous to our morals. From this example one could infer
that there is no such thing as a "content-free" attitude toward free speech. Our need to define
permissible speech tempts or compels us to find value in any speech that is permitted. We pass from
permitting speech because it is valuable to valuing speech because we permit it. However much our
liberalism demands that we withhold judgment upon what is said, by the same token it impels us to
find value in what we permit. Hence, one may ask, not from without but from within liberalism,
what is this value — the value of normal, non-obscene speech?

The right of free speech makes presuppositions. To prize it is to hold that free speech has some
value, which in turn requires that speech have value. Speech consists in giving reasons. It is not just
the communication that other animals can engage in, often very effectively, without supplying
reasons; only humans give reasons. Speaking is an appeal to fellow human beings who share the
power of reason; so, speech presupposes that man is a rational animal. The power of reason is to
appeal to others persuasively at some level of generality to gain the assent of someone besides
yourself. It is more than a cry of pain or a grunt of pleasure, and it must issue in a complaint or a
statement of gratitude that lifts the communication above your private feeling. It is the "rational"
that rises above the "animal." Speech is a claim upon the attention of another, a prayer or a demand
to be heard; it is an argument, if nothing else, against indifference.

So far, one might nod in agreement. But this seems too simple. Is it so clear that speech lifts one
above personal motives? Perhaps speech is not reason but rationalization, the reasons giving effect
to one's motives by concealing them rather than transcending them. And what of the joke: "Shut
up," he explained. Do not many arguments end in the attempt to silence the other side's reasons?
Isn't this maneuver characteristic of political speech above all?

One might allege, therefore, that the point of arguing is to win, not merely to appeal to reason, and
that the power of reason is to serve as a cloak for the desire to win. But to say this admits that
reason has a certain power and the desire to win a certain limit. Reason makes domination
respectable while it requires the winner to make himself acceptable. Language too is not merely
arbitrary; it has a structure, a grammar enabling it to make sense. Even a lie must make sense. The
"shut up" joke makes sense by pointing to the fact that it is sometimes courageous and not always
wise to speak.

Reason makes its way often with only apparent rationality, but the appearance of reason indicates
the presence of reason. Even silencing requires an argument, as in George Orwell's rationalization
from Napoleon the pig that "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."
The power of reason, one may conclude, is shown in its very abuse. But this is an objection to which
one must return. Somehow the power of reason must be shown to be compatible with, rather than
merely subordinated to, the power of rulers. Somehow one must understand reason as not merely
poetry and rhetoric, or, in today's ugly word, "ideology" — in sum, not merely partisan.

Preoccupation with the limits rather than the content of free speech can be seen in John Stuart Mill's
iconic pamphlet On Liberty. Mill wishes to expand the limits of free speech as against the "tyranny of
the majority" that menaces his country in his time, and to do this he magnifies the benefits of free
speech and minimizes the harms. The benefits culminate in more "originality" and "genius"; the
harms are no worse than the need for intellectuals like himself sometimes to "keep...their
convictions within their own breasts." But discussion of the consequences of free speech detracts
from Mill's principle that all concern for them constitutes "interference" with individual freedom.
Within the permissible limits of free speech, all speech is substantially equal, for "permissible"
means deserving of an audience.

Mill divides speech into true and false, not good and bad, for true speech brings progress "[a]s
mankind improve[s]," and false speech merely tests and corrects true speech. All speech is good,
though it is not said to address other rational animals and does not have to be argumentative. The
benefits of speech do exist, though Mill seems naively to exaggerate the power of reason in
discussion. Yet in his view the right to free speech holds sway over its benefits, and the benefits do
not arise from the nature of speech as giving reasons. Mill's society heads toward progress but has
no sense of direction other than a vague goal of replacing "despotism" and "barbarism" with
"civilization." Instead, Mill's undescribed civilization has itself been replaced in our time by value
relativism that makes it a point of pride to renounce its ability to distinguish "civilization" from the
"culture" of any society whatever.

The Supreme Court has charged ahead of Mill to extend speech to "expression." This is a step
beyond the First Amendment, which speaks of free speech, to the assertion that it meant to say
free expression or perhaps to express that word without saying it. The change has developed in a
number of cases over the years, but it seems to have been introduced in the famous flag-salute case
in 1943, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, when the Court decided that it was
permissible for Jehovah's Witnesses not to salute the flag in schoolrooms. Their refusal to salute was
taken as a symbolic exercise of free speech because the command to salute was declared to be an
impermissible compulsion to speak. So refusing to speak was concluded to be speech and protected
as such.

In oft-quoted words, Justice Robert Jackson said that "[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional
constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics..."
and force citizens to do so "by word or act." Here "act" is added to "word," apparently as not the
same, but the act is then taken as a kind of word. "Symbolic speech" and "expressive conduct"
emerge in later cases dealing with flag burning, draft-card burning, wearing of armbands, and nude
dancing. In 1941 Franklin Roosevelt had listed "freedom of speech and expression" among the Four
Freedoms America would defend, and since the Court developed its meaning, "expression" has
come to be accepted as an equivalent of speech or indeed as the generic term of which "speech" is
one variety. Law-school courses in constitutional law now routinely use the title of "freedom of
expression" for the subject of free speech.

Two questionable consequences can be seen to emerge from Justice Jackson's Barnette opinion.

First, he denied that there is any constitutional fixed star of political orthodoxy in the very act of
declaring the political orthodoxy of free speech. The "very purpose of a Bill of Rights," he said, "was
to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy." Are not those subjects
declared to be beyond controversy thereby made orthodox? The implication is that free speech
must be regarded as sacred and hence has no value that can or needs to be disputed. This is a
proposition I am disputing here.

Second, Justice Jackson said that free speech cannot be compelled because the Bill of Rights "guards
the individual's right to speak his own mind." But to speak one's own mind is to address other minds,
not merely to squeak or bark or chirp. The flag salute and the other, later examples of "expressive
conduct" that the Court found to be akin to free speech are symbols or gestures to which one can
impute a meaning, but they are not rational arguments. When speech is taken as expression, and
"expression" becomes the general category of which speech is one type, then the rational in speech
is subordinated to the irrationality of symbolic expression. Yet a symbol is only a symbol by virtue of
its imputed rational meaning in words. The irrational is rightly subordinate to the rational from
which alone it gains its sense. Both of these consequences imply that free speech is fundamentally
irrational: the first implying that free speech cannot be rationally disputed as good or bad by
partisans in politics; and the second that a symbol is not inferior to an argument but rather an
argument is a kind of symbol.

A refusal to consider the content of speech so as to recognize its value leads to a minimal definition
of free speech, one which allows for including as much as one would not wish to prohibit. One would
not wish to do away with theater and poetry just because they add symbol, style, and gesture to
reasonable speech. But though the beauties of speech add to its power, they distract from its
thought, or at least conceal it. And since a thought is almost always disputable, so a less-strict
definition of speech is more exact; one can be more sure of the boundary between speech and act.
So the Supreme Court has found that although flag burning is acceptable as legal speech, draft-card
burning can be prohibited as an illegal act. That is how it happens that our speech over free speech
tends to concentrate on the extremes of riot, rebellion, eccentricity, and obscenity where reason
seems to be at its weakest.
We liberals are occupied with challenges to normal speech rather than with the normal speech we
reject. We so far forget that "expression" is a dilution of speech that it comes to be held the essence
of it. Shouting and screaming take precedence over persuasion or threaten to become the normal
means of persuasion. The more intense the expression, the freer it ought to be; the test of free
speech is to show how far it can tolerate departures from normal speech. In the latest instance, a
baker's message on the icing of a cake is taken as protected speech (in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v.
Colorado Civil Rights Commission). If I mush someone's face in it, do I send a message or commit an
assault? That is the kind of discussion we are now left to have over free speech.

ENEMIES OF SPEECH 

In presuming the capability of human reason, free speech has two present-day enemies seeking to
pervert it or make it irrelevant. One we have already seen: the notion that speech is dictated by the
urge to express oneself. The other is that speech is directed by self-interest. All speech comes from
the self, but as speech, it rises above the self when one has to give a reason. The reason may be
urged with an implicit demand for attention to one's self — listen to me! — but the reason is a call
to justice, not merely in the service of one's own advantage.

Socrates in Plato's Apology of Socrates defends himself to be sure, but also "someone like himself,"
or a person in his position. The notion of self-expression, however, denies the power of reason and
the existence of justice to say that all reason is rationalization, all generalization a fraud, a mask for
the irrational id or urge, which is truly in charge. This view is the theme (the argument!) of Friedrich
Nietzsche, very powerful today though often not advanced under his name. It suggests that the
purpose of argument is to win and the result is not to learn, as when one's argument is refuted, but
to triumph in a contest when no telling refutation can be readily produced. The ancient Sophists,
without the help of Nietzsche, practiced their belief that rhetoric is clever maneuvering to get the
best of your opponent. They were opposed by Socrates as enemies who did not understand the
value of free speech and therefore felt free to abuse it.

Self-interest, the other enemy of free speech, also has an argument. Its proponents say that one's
speech follows from one's interest, reflects it, and cannot change it. You can change your mind but
not your interest; your mind is the prisoner and slave of your interest. While self-expression is
heated and demanding, self-interest is cool and calculating. It has two forms: one very old and plain,
the other modern (dating from the 18th century) and philosophically sophisticated.

Personal denunciation, or "character assassination," is the first form. One's opponent is said to have
a bad character, a perverse sense of his self-interest that determines what he says. Hence his words
are spoken in bad faith and his argument, whatever it is, can safely be ignored while focusing
attention on his personal failings. The reason that this bad character deploys is the captive of his
character and does not have the power to rise above it. Such a person can be defeated by reasoning
that is ad hoc and ad hominem. Do not listen to him! It's better to insinuate and insult than argue
with him, which would give his argument more dignity than it deserves.

This tactic, found in both mild and strong forms, is endemic to politics; it is sometimes true and
always tempting, particularly in a democracy where the multitude enjoys the spectacle of bringing
down the elite — the high, the mighty, and the presumptuous. The office of the demagogue has
been denounced from Plato to the Federalist Papers, by friends and by opponents of popular
government. Today the term is used frequently and demagogically by politicians, and never by
political scientists, who refuse it the certificate of scientific credibility.
The political scientists (and their confrères in social science) have a second method of refusing to
listen to speech. Their science says that speech cannot cause action; it can only be caused by action.
It assumes that humans speak and act according to their interests, open or concealed. Humans
speak in opinions, but they act according to their interests, which they give as opinions as if freely
chosen but actually hold in consequence of their interests. These subjective opinions can be studied
by social science in such magical fashion that they become objective "data" — i.e., facts obtained
and certified by science. Social-science surveys are baptized as "survey data" and then explained by
the interest of the group that holds them.

The explanation is a study of cause and effect with a view to making predictions, which are either in
the past (as "analysis") or in the future (truly as predictions). This procedure assumes that human
beings cannot choose for themselves or guide themselves, meaning not as they describe themselves.
They may say "I did it," but in scientific fact they were caused to do what they boastfully claim to
have done. Thus, humans are essentially slaves to the causes that science imputes to them. "You
vote by your interest" would often be taken by a voter as an insult (and rightly so), but science is not
troubled by such subjective reactions. It says that speech cannot be a cause of human behavior — 
which means that free speech has no value. Free speech in whole and every part is nothing but a
boast.

FREE SPEECH WELL SAID 

At this point, it is worth recalling where we started: Present-day discussion of free speech is
understandably but deplorably dominated by the question of what speech should be permitted,
what forbidden. By this standard everything not forbidden is permitted and — here is the rub — 
considered equal because equally permitted. But all free speech does not have equal value; speech
that attacks free speech has less value than speech that explains it, endorses it, and practices it. Free
speech needs to define itself in order to address its enemies.

Speech that explains and uses free speech has greater value and should have precedence over
speech that denies the value of speech. This does not mean that free speech should be denied to its
enemies (which are self-expression and self-interest). That would be censorship, and censorship has
the simple but fatal flaw of being impractical in a free society. Alexis de Tocqueville supplies a
beautiful demonstration of the point. But more than impracticability, the citizens of a free society
have an interest (rooted in their faith in the reason of free speech) in listening to the enemies of free
speech. Those enemies may not be entirely wrong, and they certainly provide food for thought. They
point to the assumptions on which free speech rests and the weaknesses that exist in supposing so
confidently that free speech is really speech and really free. These weaknesses must be addressed by
free citizens. The direction of my argument can be discerned by this switch of addressee from
humans to citizens.

Now to take a further step: What is free speech supposed to say? The question will seem strange,
even inappropriate, to one who views free speech as a right. A right to free speech presupposes that
what one says, or how one exercises the right, is left undefined. The government protects the right;
the citizens in society say what they please. Yet clearly some free speech is more appropriate than
the rest. Some free speech contributes to free speech by helping to define freedom and free speech
in general and for that society. In so doing such speech defends and promotes the right of free
speech. This would be the main task of free speech: to use reason to show why free speech is
valuable and to make it active and lively. The task would include the investigation of the
presuppositions of free speech in political philosophy, to see whether reason can guide our lives and
how.
In saying this I do not mean to abridge or deny the right of free speech but only to specify what is
valuable as opposed to what is tolerated. Tolerated but not valuable is the free speech understood
as self-expression or self-interest, as stated above. You should have the right to speak (almost) as
you please, and that right should be protected by law. But it is important to understand and to
sustain the value of the free speech that contributes to free speech rather than that which abuses
the right by denying or belittling the value of free speech. Not everything said is said well, and the
right of free speech needs to be exercised well.

What is it in free speech that is said well? Let the definition be positive so that we do not proceed by
excluding or proscribing any speech but rather by asking what good free speech supports. We have
seen that free speech presupposes the freedom of human beings. Freedom means being in charge of
yourself as opposed to being a slave. More specifically, freedom is the power of the self to cause its
own action and reflection as opposed to the slavery of being under the power of necessity, when
one is only being caused. Self-caused is both individual and social, and it amounts to the power to
choose. The individual can choose by himself or with others. In choosing, one governs oneself as a
whole individual or as one among a political whole that includes other free individuals. This choosing
together is self-government or political liberty.

Political liberty might not seem to be the greatest good, greater than other uses of free speech, such
as freedom of thought and freedom of artistic expression, that protect individual excellence. Yet
human beings are not fully self-sufficient as individuals, however much they sometimes wish to be.
Men are social because they must live together, depending on one another to supply their needs,
above all those bodily needs that ambitious thinkers like philosophers and poets cannot be troubled
to satisfy on their own. And more than merely social, men are political because they do not have the
necessary instincts to cooperate but are compelled to invent the conventions by which they live and
to use the rationality they have in their nature instead of their instincts.

These conventions are based on principles by which they rule in societies. Conventions are
disputable, and humans argue in politics over what they should be and who should make them. Such
argument is the content of free speech, and it makes use of the rationality that is the most
distinctive feature of a human. At the same time that it is distinctive, this sort of argument addresses
the needs of the body, needs that humans share with other animals. Politics thus features the rule of
reason over unreason, the rule of what is distinctive about humans over the necessities of animals,
including the mortality common to all living things. Man in the whole is the topic of politics as much
as it is the arena of philosophy and poetry. Philosophers and poets might wish to learn from politics
in order to better instruct politics, as they frequently like to do.

Liberalism, as shown above, wants to distinguish politics from what it calls "civil society" in order to
prevent the full operation of political liberty. It distinguishes public from private to the advantage of
the latter, reducing politics to providing the means of securing the private sphere, to the pursuit of
(private) happiness. It has, therefore, a strong resistance to the idea of "rule," an animus displayed in
attempts made to subvert or overthrow the sovereignty of political liberty.

One such attempt is at the heart of the discipline of "economics," a science distinct from politics that
seeks to establish economic laws that are independent of political rule. Another is the "right of
consent" to government, made central to all other rights, which depend on government, in such
manner as to provide a lesser substitute for the comprehensiveness of "rule." The people do not rule
but consent to the rule of those whom they elect, who also do not rule because they are creatures
of the sovereign people. Consent is passive, as consent to be ruled; government is active but
restrained from ruling. Political liberty in these constructions of liberalism is reduced to one liberty
among others, such as economic liberty, or to the central but subordinate liberty of the liberty to
consent.

Fortunately, there are wiser liberals, above all the two greatest authorities on American politics: the
authors of the Federalist Papers and Tocqueville in his Democracy in America, who by observation
and interpretation show that liberal consent in America amounts to political liberty in its fuller
meaning. They show that the "Blessings of Liberty" promised in the preamble of the Constitution
center on the free self-government over free men that is the same as "the rule of the free." Political
liberty becomes responsible for economic liberty, ruling it with encouragement and restriction as
partisan elections decide, and democratic consent becomes active in private life as well as sovereign
in public decisions.

Free thought can of course exist without political liberty, as we know from the great philosophical
works written in times of tyranny and of threatening religious censorship. The same is true for great
works of poetry, art, and music, which seem to have become scarcer as a grave but almost
unnoticed consequence of more democracy. Liberty for the few can be available if exercised with
care so that it does not reach the attention of the public authority. One might conclude that this
liberty is the most that can be achieved, indeed that all human achievement is reserved for the few
who accomplish their thoughts and deeds by themselves beyond the notice of the many and the
powerful. Yet a free society in which the many are the powerful has achieved greatness and nobility
in its deeds, and in a crucial situation under the watchful attention of the world.

This is America in the 20th century, which with its allies saved civilization from the barbarism of
Nazism and communism. This great deed (or series of deeds) was done not out of self-expression or
self-interest by mere commitment or calculation but out of nobility, a democratic nobility shared by
all though led by a few.

NOBILITY AND FREE SPEECH 

Nobility means rising above necessity, or above the seeming necessity of living as you wish and
calculating for present advantage, by finding it necessary to face a daunting task, thus using
necessity against itself. One must refuse to accept the slavery of seeming necessity and instead insist
on the human capacity for choice. Free men preserve their freedom only through acts of nobility
that elevate them above ordinary necessities that seem to provide excuses for indifference and
inaction. These acts are not constantly necessary as if human life were one long war, but they are
occasionally necessary, and they reveal the extent of human freedom over circumstances.

On this point one can again criticize the official liberalism of our time, which, guided by the great
thinkers at its inception, sought to make freedom easy by connecting it to motives of necessity. John
Locke, for example, began from the "perfect freedom" of men in the state of nature, and then tried
to maintain this freedom by resorting to the right of self-preservation rather than to moral virtue to
protect one's freedom. America, however, fought to preserve itself as America, a free country, not
to keep its population alive as separate individuals (which might have justified indifference or even
surrender). This it did as a choice, neither blindly nor automatically.

Freedom is life by choice, in some serious degree conscious and voluntary and for both the individual
and society. Choice requires rising above an urge or a whim or a passion. And rising above slavery to
one's human body requires moral virtue. The human body rules us by pain and pleasure, and one
can become a slave to fear if one is without courage, and to pleasure if without moderation. A
human cannot deny the fact of pain and pleasure, but one can learn through good upbringing to
control the extremes of bodily passions in a reasonable mean.
Courage is a mean between rashness and timidity, moderation a mean between greed and
insensitivity, as we recall from Aristotle's report of what we naturally know. Free speech — to return
to the topic — has a stake in moral virtue as the cause of free persons. Morality demands a free
person because an action is not moral unless it is chosen, and morality makes free action possible by
lifting an individual or a society above slavish necessities. It's a virtuous circle of cause and effect. It
implies a natural capacity for virtue that has to be actuated by virtue — a capacity for freedom that
requires the exercise of freedom.

To repeat, I am not proposing to forbid immoral speech, assuming it has been identified as speech
succumbing to human necessities. We humans need an occasional holiday from the seriousness of
moral virtue, pleasant as it is to moral people. Aristotle puts the fun of wit on his list of virtues. Free
speech can serve as a safety valve for letting off steam, a purging function often claimed for it that is
featured by Niccolò Machiavelli. We also need other, subordinate liberties to political liberty — 
economic liberty to make us prosperous, artistic liberty to make our lives beautiful — but these are
not as serious as political liberty.

With political liberty we speak to one another about our liberty; we argue over a course of action, a
policy, and our ruling principles. Political liberty is the use of free speech to determine who and what
principle should rule us.

FREE SPEECH AND FREE RULE 

Societies stay together through rulers who rule by ruling principles, which are principles about the
whole, about the common good. The debate over abortion today is about the kind of society we
want. One could suppose that those who want abortion to be legal should have abortions, and those
opposed should refrain from them, with the result that both sides are happy. But in fact, both sides
would be unhappy. Those who favor legal abortion want a society in which a woman freely controls
her own body, and those opposed want a society in which a woman does not have a right to kill a
developing human being for the sake of her convenience. Politics is not about "preferences," as is
often said by those using the analogy of consumer preferences. One can prefer vanilla to chocolate
without wanting to abolish chocolate, but this is not the case in politics. Political liberty is distinctive
because it consists in free speech over the choice of which principle, under which rulers, should rule
the whole.

But what is the typical choice of free speech as to rule? One can approach this question through a
consideration of the freest human being, the philosopher. The philosopher is freest because he
questions and studies things that most people take for granted — on the ground that taking
fundamental principles for granted is a form of slavery. Freedom in the strongest or the strictest
sense is to break free of the principles that normal people do not question. To break free does not
necessarily mean to abandon them and live as a hermit or madman or rogue. One can question the
presuppositions behind free speech and find them reasonable (as in this attempt). But then one's
embrace of or accommodation to the principle of freedom has been responsibly addressed and
found more or less reasonable. This is the highest or best freedom, one might reluctantly agree, but
is it the only freedom? There seems also to be freedom in a loose sense, attainable by many if not all
of those who do not want or are not able to be a philosopher. This would be political liberty.

Then within political liberty is there a typical argument, one found in most every free society?
Indeed there is, and it is an argument analogous to the distinction between strict philosophical
liberty and loose political liberty. According to Aristotle, there are two parties in every regime, visible
in a free regime. The party of the many, democracy, and the party of the few, oligarchy, can be
found everywhere, and they engage in argument with each other, sometimes muted and implied,
sometimes open. The many are more than the few in quantity. They are the larger part of all, that is,
of all individuals in the whole. How is this possible? One needs a little metaphysics to see; one must
carry the logic of politics into the whole universe to clarify the democratic argument. "All" can be a
whole if all are equal parts, and they can be equal if seen as bodies that are parts of a whole body.
Human beings are equal with reference to their bodies and their bodily necessities. When, however,
one looks to their souls or minds, they are unequal, sometimes greatly unequal. Bodies are equal
when considered for their matter, in which they are the same as all matter, as if human beings were
nothing but matter like the rest of the universe. By the logic of the democratic argument, humans
would have nothing special, nothing outstanding or distinctive, from the rest of nature.

Can the many make a whole, given this stringent extension of the argument on their behalf?
Aristotle's answer is "No," and to make it he distinguishes demotic from democratic. Demotic
individuals are simply equal, but as such they cannot form a government, having no distinctive
capacities. Without a government there is no rule, no common good. A government needs officials
and its society needs artisans, workers, experts; all of these are unequal. It seems that certain
inequalities are needed to make a whole even of equal parts. Aristotle's distinction is like James
Madison's in Federalist No. 10 between democracy (meaning pure democracy) and republic
(representative democracy). A republic needs institutions that will (likely) select "fit characters," as
Madison calls them, who are no longer simply among the many whom they are selected to serve.
The "cracy" in democracy enables it to function at the cost of departure from strict equality.

Aristotle does not make this objection to demotic equality in his own name but puts it in the mouth
of a spokesman for oligarchy. Oligarchy, government of the few, stands for "the better sort," or the
best, altogether for excellence, and in sum for quality. The need for quality is a need for the few who
have the most of it, whatever it may be. Even democratic qualities found quite generally, like
courage, are distinctive of some democrats, not all of them as such. The whole of quantity fails
because it is quite homogeneous; to succeed it needs those who are outstanding and needs to give
them the rank they deserve as outstanding. Democracy speaks for mankind as one individual human
to another; oligarchy speaks for humanity as a whole vis-à-vis the rest of the world or the universe.

Mankind is the part of the whole of nature that has an awareness of the whole; it can reflect on the
whole (through theory) and can act on it (in practice). Thus, the oligarchical argument asserts the
claim of humanity to be outstanding, for its awareness perhaps the best part of the whole. To assert
something is more than merely to say it when nothing is at stake; it is to speak with passion and to
demand to be honored and listened to in a situation where one's statements are contested.
Assertiveness is the most outstanding, the freest quality of free speech. The Declaration of
Independence begins from the "self-evident" truth Americans hold that all men are created equal.
But this is not enough. At the end its signers go beyond what is self-evident; they mutually pledge
"our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" to affirm it. In so doing they stand out from the
equality they assert on behalf of those they excel by the very act of pledging their distinctive honor.

The two parties are those of quantity and of quality. But all nature has both quantity and quality.
Humans are quantity insofar as each counts for one, but quality insofar as human beings have the
special honor of claiming superiority over the rest of nature. Humans are a democracy among
themselves as a species, and an aristocracy with respect to the rest of nature. Then both parties are
correct or true: Quality counts for more because it is more important, and quantity counts for more
because many are more than one or few. There are two meanings of "count" in regard to humans. "I
count" means I am special; "we count" means "we count up." Every quantity is a quantity of a
certain quality, and when counting one adds up the quality or qualities that have been identified as
"counting." Yet conversely quality also depends on quantity; the quality when identified becomes
something countable, as every "one" is potentially more than one, namely, few or many. In a
rational claim every personal "I" becomes "someone" like me, with my qualities and deserts.

THE HIGHEST USES OF FREE SPEECH 

Tocqueville applies Aristotle's analysis to our democratic era, saying that every free society has two
great parties, one that wishes to extend and another that wishes to restrict the power of the people.
We may now apply the distinction to American parties today, the Democrats and the Republicans,
who seem as liberals vs. conservatives to fit this general description. Indeed, ours is distinctly a
politics of two parties, in a way that sheds light on Aristotle's point — though other free societies,
with more parties, also tend to fall into broad coalitions of the left and the right in related and
similar ways. These are not always perfectly the parties of quantity and quality, of course, but they
are often roughly just that.

This may be particularly difficult to see given the current American president, elected by Republicans
but not much of one himself, who has an adversarial relationship with virtue and particularly with its
accompanying conventions. He does appeal to virtue by loudly emphasizing the application of vulgar
versions of it that are attractive to his supporters, almost all of whom are more honest than he is.
But even now, we can perceive that our two parties are locked in competition between a more
quantitative ideal of inclusion and a more qualitative ideal of distinction.

Both parties are forgivably rather self-righteous about these ideals because, unlike the ordinary
citizens who compose them, they are always arguing with each other and in doing so always
compelled to make a point of themselves. They argue over the character of the whole, the whole of
our country and also the whole of all things. Is it a homogeneous whole of equal or similar
individuals, as the Democrats intend, or a heterogeneous whole of diverse parts of different rank
and importance, as Republicans imply? The argument between these two wholes, we may now
conclude, is free speech about the character of free human beings. Each is a partial truth, but each is
tempted to make the partial truth a partisan whole. In doing so, each attempts to explain the other
side and claim it for themselves: Democrats want virtue but in pursuit of equality; Republicans want
popularity but from a virtuous people. Each reveals itself when trying to answer the other.

Democrats imply a whole that is inclusive of all, when each is understood as equal to everyone else;
Republicans imply a whole with hierarchy and ranking of those who are better or best at the top.
One can understand this political difference as a disagreement over our non-political thinking. When
defining a thing it is necessary to speak of what it is when it is perfect or complete, in its best
instance, and yet also to speak of the quality or qualities that cover all instances of that thing so as
not to omit what must be included. Thus, a tree is defined by the complete tree and by all instances
of objects that one would call a tree. The best instance is the standard that a tree should fit, and the
class of tree holds together all its instances. Every definition needs to combine standard and class; it
needs to have a standard to state a class. The difficulty is in defining a human being, where the best
instance is far distant from the average or worst instances — so that a definition combining class and
standard is very difficult to specify. The standard of the best human is too strict to include all
humans, and the class of all humans is too loose to do justice to the best. Our two parties represent
these two tendencies, and each tries to see the whole in terms of its partial or partisan view. They
each call on us to exercise our freedom by choosing its way.
There is no freedom without choice, and no choice without choice-worthy choices, those that make
sense and can be defended as reasonable. The politics of our free country is defined more by a
dualism of our two parties than a pluralism of any number. There are many ways in which a people
can be made more alike and more unlike, but Nietzsche is wrong to say that man has a thousand and
one goals. Our politics is not indeterminate, chaotic, or arbitrary; it is connected to human nature, to
the grand question raised by human nature, and to the choice we make in the exercise of our natural
capacity for choice.

That capacity depends on the speech with which we form and state a choice. We can therefore
conclude where we began: Our liberalism — and here I include conservatives with those now called
"liberals" — should cease its feckless quest to overturn any rational basis for freedom and thereby
deny any value to free speech beyond its being unfettered. What a surprise that in our very partisan
differences, fickle and arbitrary as they often seem, we should turn out to be rational beings, worthy
of a freedom to speak.

Harvey C. Mansfield is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the William R. Kenan Jr. Professor
of Government at Harvard University.
https://theconversation.com/covid19-social-media-both-a-blessing-and-a-curse-during-coronavirus-
pandemic-133596

#COVID19: Social media both a blessing and a curse during coronavirus pandemic

March 22, 2020 11.21pm AEDT

Authors

1. S. Harris Ali

Professor, Sociology, York University, Canada

2. Fuyuki Kurasawa

York Research Chair in Global Digital Citizenship, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, York
University, Canada

Disclosure statement

S. Harris Ali receives funding from the IDRC/CIHR/SSHRC Rapid Research Fund for Ebola.

Fuyuki Kurasawa has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada for a project entitled 'Knowing Through Crowdsourcing: A Critical Analysis of Public
Controversies about Global Problems.'

We believe in the free flow of information

We are facing an unprecedented crisis of public understanding. Western digital corporations and
social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat and Reddit) and their
Chinese equivalents (WeChat, Weibo, Tencent and Toutiao) are at the heart of this crisis. These
platforms act as facilitators and multipliers of COVID-19-related misinformation.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO), noted
that urgent measures must now be taken to address the “coronavirus infodemic.”
This infodemic compromises outbreak response and increases public confusion about who and what
information sources to trust; generates fear and panic due to unverified rumours and exaggerated
claims; and promotes xenophobic and racist forms of digital vigilantism and scapegoating.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director general of the World Health Organization, speaks during a
news conference on COVID-19 at the WHO headquarters in Geneva on March 9, 2020. Salvatore Di
Nolfi/Keystone via ASSOCIATED PRESS

Governments, public health authorities and digital corporations need to not only promote digital
literacy, but combat ways in which the impact of social media may be spawning an irreversible post-
truth age, even after the COVID-19 pandemic dissipates.

Misinformation during outbreaks

Misinformation has been pervasive in other recent large-scale outbreaks. In the 2018 elections in the
Democratic Republic of Congo, suspicions were raised when the ruling government cancelled
national elections in Ebola-affected areas, eliminating opposition votes.

Rumours are a second form of misinformation. One popular conspiracy theory held that the virus
was developed as a means to wage a biological war against China. In China, a rumour spread
that bioweapons research in a Wuhan laboratory resulted in the genetic engineering of COVID-19
that was then released. Such rumours may have even jeopardized the working relationship between
Western scientists and their Chinese counterparts searching for a COVID-19 vaccine.

Untrue, exaggerated and dubious medical claims and hoaxes are other common forms of
misinformation. Various unproven natural and traditional remedies were proffered as cures to both
Ebola and COVID-19, such as drinks that contained mint and spices like saffron and turmeric that
spread in Iran through Twitter.

Influencing outbreak outcomes

During times of emergency and disaster, urgent questions arise and require immediate response.
The problem is that officials don’t consistently provide the accurate information that’s required very
quickly.

A post-truth society is one in which subjective opinions and unverified claims rival valid scientific and
biomedical facts in their public influence. The need for evidence to support reasoned arguments
becomes downplayed, while at the same time, the social norm concerning how and why people
should be held accountable for what they say is weakened.

Scientists and other experts ultimately lose social legitimacy and authority in the eyes of the public
because what they bring to the table is no longer valued.

When complex emergencies arise, public officials are cautious about making premature
pronouncements, instead carefully crafting statements to ensure accuracy and avoid the pitfalls of
misinterpretation and exaggeration. Somewhat paradoxically, this careful approach may also
contribute to the formation of an information vacuum that rumours and falsehoods are all too ready
to fill.

In the digital age, the time needed to analyze, assess and communicate information cannot compete
with the instantaneous spreading of misinformation on social media platforms.
The impact of social media misinformation may be even more pronounced because of confirmation
bias, the tendency to accept statements that reinforce our established views and to downplay
statements that counter these views.

Misinformation & xenophobia

Racist content spread through social media may reinforce already pre-existing biases and prejudices.
Xenophobic reactions that emerged during the 2003 SARS outbreaks in Toronto, amongst other
cities, are being repeated during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

What’s different now is how easily social media can fuel this behaviour. A particularly poignant
illustration is a viral WeChat rumour that a particular Chinese restaurant in Canada employed
someone with COVID-19 and that health officials had closed the restaurant. The restaurant lost 80
per cent of its revenue.

Social media also facilitates a form of prejudiced collective organizing that, similar to crowdsourcing,
rapidly enlists a large number of people, yet does so on the basis of questionable claims and beliefs.
An online petition compiled by 8,000 people north of Toronto demanded that the school board ban
students whose family members had recently travelled to China from attending school.

The information vacuum

During the early stages of the 2003 SARS outbreak in China, people shared information about the
outbreak through simple text messaging. Despite efforts by the government to not share
information about the outbreak with the WHO, information about “atypical pneumonia” circulated
widely.

With COVID-19, the Chinese state’s censorship of and control over online content created an
information vacuum. Despite this, citizens have used social media to express veiled criticism of
government mismanagement and lack of government accountability.

Flowers are placed near a photo of the late Dr. Li Wenliang at a hospital in Wuhan in central China’s
Hubei province in February 2020. The ophthalmologist died from complications of the COVID-19
virus after raising the alarm. Chinatopix via THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

During the early stages of the outbreak, before the Chinese government was releasing any
information, ophthalmologist Li Wenliang — a whistleblower for COVID-19 — posted messages on
the spread of a SARS-like illness. As screenshots of his posts went viral, he was disciplined by local
police for promoting “untrue speech.” Li died of complications from the virus on Feb. 7, 2020.

News of his death dominated Chinese social media, with a flurry of messages expressing grief as well
as anger directed at the government. “Dr. Li Wenliang passed away” became the top search record
on Weibo. State censors intervened to remove posts on Li’s death, but public outrage led to
increased demands for free speech and greater information transparency from the government.

By contrast, as the outbreak intensifies, social media has taken on new and increased importance
with the large-scale implementation of social distancing, quarantine measures and lockdowns of
complete cities. Social media platforms have become a way to enable homebound people survive
isolation and seek help, co-ordinate donations, entertain and socialize with each other.

Global communications

The frequency of disease outbreaks like the one we’re currently witnessing will increase, given the
ways in which connections between human beings and nature continue to intensify.
Pandemics will require co-ordinated global response strategies. Digital corporations and social media
platforms can and must be at the heart of these strategies, since their responses and willingness to
collaborate with governments and public health officials will determine whether social media is
viewed as a beneficial or pathological vector of pandemic response.

At present, it’s imperative to develop policies and mechanisms that address the digital creation and
spread of misinformation about disease outbreaks. To do this will require that biomedical knowledge
about pandemics be supplemented by expertise about their social, political and cultural
underpinnings.

Without that understanding, efforts to contain COVID-19 will be hindered by “spreading unnecessary
panic and confusion, and driving division, when solidarity and collaboration are key to saving lives
and ending the health crisis.”