Freedom of Expression/Limitations - Restrictions/Private curtailment - Revision history

Iaz2024 at 01:34, 2 August 2024

2024-08-02T01:34:41Z

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 |questionHeading=Is this right at times curtailed by private actors?
 |pageLevel=Question
-|contents=In the USA, freedom of expression is a concept that applies to the state rather than to private companies. Furthermore, Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act describes the circumstances under which internet companies, social media websites, and the like may regulate speech offered by third parties through the platforms or other auspices of these companies.
+|contents=Freedom of expression exists at the core of the United States of America and the freedoms it guarantees to its people. Beyond a core tenet in America, freedom of expression holds a defining place in democracies around the world, shaping their culture and development. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations in December 1966, explains how freedom of expression “shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice” (U.N. General Assembly 1966, art. 19). With such importance, infringement upon this freedom can be extremely contentious. In US history, this context has resulted in the development of the State Action Doctrine as delivered by the Supreme Court. According to the State Action Doctrine, “the US Constitution in general, and its individual rights in particular, apply only to state action, not to private action” ("State Action" 2017). In understanding the question of whether private actors curtail freedom of expression, the State Action Doctrine responds with a definite yes. This understanding has been developed through a series of court cases, creating a precedent that allows for private actors to breach free expression.
-References:
+In United States v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court ruled “the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses applied only to state action, and not to violations of civil rights by individual citizens.” (United States v. Cruikshank, 1875). This landmark decision took place following the Colfax Massacre wherein “300 white Democrats, many of them former Confederate soldiers,” were hoping “to dislodge an armed cadre of 150 freedmen and white Republicans who had barricaded themselves inside” in order to protect an election (Pusey 2021, 72). Due to the absence of civil rights protections in Louisiana, where the Colfax Massacre occurred, the state bore no responsibility and could not prosecute individuals for violating others' rights. This case is relevant to understanding how freedom of expression can be curtailed by private actors. It set a precedent that allowed private actors to infringe upon others' rights, such as voting, because of the state's lack of responsibility.
 }}

Jkochan1 at 19:43, 26 June 2024

2024-06-26T19:43:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:43, 26 June 2024
Line 6:		Line 6:
	\|pageLevel=Question		\|pageLevel=Question
	\|contents=In the USA, freedom of expression is a concept that applies to the state rather than to private companies. Furthermore, Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act describes the circumstances under which internet companies, social media websites, and the like may regulate speech offered by third parties through the platforms or other auspices of these companies.		\|contents=In the USA, freedom of expression is a concept that applies to the state rather than to private companies. Furthermore, Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act describes the circumstances under which internet companies, social media websites, and the like may regulate speech offered by third parties through the platforms or other auspices of these companies.

			References:
	}}		}}

Jkochan1 at 12:26, 6 February 2023

2023-02-06T12:26:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:26, 6 February 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\|questionHeading=Is this right at times curtailed by private actors?		\|questionHeading=Is this right at times curtailed by private actors?
	\|pageLevel=Question		\|pageLevel=Question
	\|contents=In many European countries (Germany, France, Austria, etc.), Holocaust denial is illegal and approximately 80 Facebook posts per year are blocked. Zuckerburg, in a [[Probable year:: 2018]], interview stated that he found Holocaust denials to be deeply offensive, but does not believe that warrants censorship. Zuckerburg seems to follow the ~~harm principle~~, stating that "unless individuals are trying to organize harm against someone, or attacking someone," content should not be censored (Rosenberg [[Probable year:: 2018]]) . Facebook's Community Standards (also includes Instagram) are intended to guide freedom of expression ~~on the site through rules such as preventing offline harm related to Facebook content through "consider[ing] the language and context in order to distinguish casual statements from content~~ that ~~constitutes a credible threat~~ to ~~public or personal safety." The community standards prohibit~~ the ~~presence of terrorist groups on Facebook. The standards also "prohibit people from facilitating, organizing, promoting, or admitting~~ to ~~certain criminal or harmful activities targeted at people, businesses, property or animals~~.~~" With hate speech~~, ~~although~~ the ~~community standards are clear~~, their implementation is vague--"We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and ~~serious disease or disability." The community standards do not account for politic speech. In a~~ speech at Georgetown University, Zuckerburg articulated his position for political censorship: "I don’t think it’s right for a private company to censor politicians or news in a democracy" (Ghaffary [[Probable year:: 2020]]) . Although Twitter has extremely similar policies to Facebook, they have dramatically different applications. In early May, Twitter fact-checked President Trump's tweets regarding voting by ~~mail by placing links to a fact-checking page that debunks~~ the ~~president's tweets. Twitter announced that it would place labels on tweets containing false~~ or misleading information in response to misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic (Ghaffary [[Probable year:: 2020]]) . Previously, Twitter had resisted such a move because the president is a world leader and considered his tweets as "noteworthy" and, as such, exempted them from their standards policy (Ghaffary [[Probable year:: 2020]]) . Facebook has a similar conduct policy, but enacts it much differently. In response to the move, Zuckerburg stated that Facebook should not, nor is, an "arbiter of truth" (Ghaffary [[Probable year:: 2020]]) . Twitter again used its new policy on the president's tweet about protests, saying that his "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" violated Twitter's policy of glorifying violence (Ghaffary [[Probable year:: 2020]]) . Facebook, on the other ~~hand, defended its position~~ of not censoring the same statement by saying "didn’t violate Facebook’s policies about inciting violence. He said the company saw it 'as a warning about state action,' and that 'people need to know if the government is planning to deploy force” (Ghaffary [[Probable year:: 2020]]) .		\|contents=In the USA, freedom of expression is a concept that applies to the state rather than to private companies. Furthermore, Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act describes the circumstances under which internet companies, social media websites, and the like may regulate speech offered by third parties through the platforms or other auspices of these companies.


	}}		}}

Import-sysop: transformed

2022-12-28T22:09:13Z

transformed

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:09, 28 December 2022
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\|questionHeading=Is this right at times curtailed by private actors?		\|questionHeading=Is this right at times curtailed by private actors?
	\|pageLevel=Question		\|pageLevel=Question
	\|contents=In many European countries (Germany, France, Austria, etc.), Holocaust denial is illegal and approximately 80 Facebook posts per year are blocked. Zuckerburg, in a [[Probable year::2018]], interview stated that he found Holocaust denials to be deeply offensive, but does not believe that warrants censorship. Zuckerburg seems to follow the harm principle, stating that "unless individuals are trying to organize harm against someone, or attacking someone," content should not be censored (Rosenberg [[Probable year::2018]]) . Facebook's Community Standards (also includes Instagram) are intended to guide freedom of expression on the site through rules such as preventing offline harm related to Facebook content through "consider[ing] the language and context in order to distinguish casual statements from content that constitutes a credible threat to public or personal safety." The community standards prohibit the presence of terrorist groups on Facebook. The standards also "prohibit people from facilitating, organizing, promoting, or admitting to certain criminal or harmful activities targeted at people, businesses, property or animals." With hate speech, although the community standards are clear, their implementation is vague--"We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability." The community standards do not account for politic speech. In a speech at Georgetown University, Zuckerburg articulated his position for political censorship: "I don’t think it’s right for a private company to censor politicians or news in a democracy" (Ghaffary [[Probable year::2020]]) . Although Twitter has extremely similar policies to Facebook, they have dramatically different applications. In early May, Twitter fact-checked President Trump's tweets regarding voting by mail by placing links to a fact-checking page that debunks the president's tweets. Twitter announced that it would place labels on tweets containing false or misleading information in response to misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic (Ghaffary [[Probable year::2020]]) . Previously, Twitter had resisted such a move because the president is a world leader and considered his tweets as "noteworthy" and, as such, exempted them from their standards policy (Ghaffary [[Probable year::2020]]) . Facebook has a similar conduct policy, but enacts it much differently. In response to the move, Zuckerburg stated that Facebook should not, nor is, an "arbiter of truth" (Ghaffary [[Probable year::2020]]) . Twitter again used its new policy on the president's tweet about protests, saying that his "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" violated Twitter's policy of glorifying violence (Ghaffary [[Probable year::2020]]) . Facebook, on the other hand, defended its position of not censoring the same statement by saying "didn’t violate Facebook’s policies about inciting violence. He said the company saw it 'as a warning about state action,' and that 'people need to know if the government is planning to deploy force” (Ghaffary [[Probable year::2020]]) .		\|contents=In many European countries (Germany, France, Austria, etc.), Holocaust denial is illegal and approximately 80 Facebook posts per year are blocked. Zuckerburg, in a [[Probable year:: 2018]], interview stated that he found Holocaust denials to be deeply offensive, but does not believe that warrants censorship. Zuckerburg seems to follow the harm principle, stating that "unless individuals are trying to organize harm against someone, or attacking someone," content should not be censored (Rosenberg [[Probable year:: 2018]]) . Facebook's Community Standards (also includes Instagram) are intended to guide freedom of expression on the site through rules such as preventing offline harm related to Facebook content through "consider[ing] the language and context in order to distinguish casual statements from content that constitutes a credible threat to public or personal safety." The community standards prohibit the presence of terrorist groups on Facebook. The standards also "prohibit people from facilitating, organizing, promoting, or admitting to certain criminal or harmful activities targeted at people, businesses, property or animals." With hate speech, although the community standards are clear, their implementation is vague--"We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability." The community standards do not account for politic speech. In a speech at Georgetown University, Zuckerburg articulated his position for political censorship: "I don’t think it’s right for a private company to censor politicians or news in a democracy" (Ghaffary [[Probable year:: 2020]]) . Although Twitter has extremely similar policies to Facebook, they have dramatically different applications. In early May, Twitter fact-checked President Trump's tweets regarding voting by mail by placing links to a fact-checking page that debunks the president's tweets. Twitter announced that it would place labels on tweets containing false or misleading information in response to misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic (Ghaffary [[Probable year:: 2020]]) . Previously, Twitter had resisted such a move because the president is a world leader and considered his tweets as "noteworthy" and, as such, exempted them from their standards policy (Ghaffary [[Probable year:: 2020]]) . Facebook has a similar conduct policy, but enacts it much differently. In response to the move, Zuckerburg stated that Facebook should not, nor is, an "arbiter of truth" (Ghaffary [[Probable year:: 2020]]) . Twitter again used its new policy on the president's tweet about protests, saying that his "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" violated Twitter's policy of glorifying violence (Ghaffary [[Probable year:: 2020]]) . Facebook, on the other hand, defended its position of not censoring the same statement by saying "didn’t violate Facebook’s policies about inciting violence. He said the company saw it 'as a warning about state action,' and that 'people need to know if the government is planning to deploy force” (Ghaffary [[Probable year:: 2020]]) .


	}}		}}

Import-sysop: transformed

2022-11-25T19:51:17Z

transformed

New page

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=Limitations - Restrictions
|question=Private curtailment
|questionHeading=Is this right at times curtailed by private actors?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=In many European countries (Germany, France, Austria, etc.), Holocaust denial is illegal and approximately 80 Facebook posts per year are blocked. Zuckerburg, in a [[Probable year::2018]], interview stated that he found Holocaust denials to be deeply offensive, but does not believe that warrants censorship. Zuckerburg seems to follow the harm principle, stating that "unless individuals are trying to organize harm against someone, or attacking someone," content should not be censored (Rosenberg [[Probable year::2018]]) . Facebook's Community Standards (also includes Instagram) are intended to guide freedom of expression on the site through rules such as preventing offline harm related to Facebook content through "consider[ing] the language and context in order to distinguish casual statements from content that constitutes a credible threat to public or personal safety." The community standards prohibit the presence of terrorist groups on Facebook. The standards also "prohibit people from facilitating, organizing, promoting, or admitting to certain criminal or harmful activities targeted at people, businesses, property or animals." With hate speech, although the community standards are clear, their implementation is vague--"We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability." The community standards do not account for politic speech. In a speech at Georgetown University, Zuckerburg articulated his position for political censorship: "I don’t think it’s right for a private company to censor politicians or news in a democracy" (Ghaffary [[Probable year::2020]]) . Although Twitter has extremely similar policies to Facebook, they have dramatically different applications. In early May, Twitter fact-checked President Trump's tweets regarding voting by mail by placing links to a fact-checking page that debunks the president's tweets. Twitter announced that it would place labels on tweets containing false or misleading information in response to misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic (Ghaffary [[Probable year::2020]]) . Previously, Twitter had resisted such a move because the president is a world leader and considered his tweets as "noteworthy" and, as such, exempted them from their standards policy (Ghaffary [[Probable year::2020]]) . Facebook has a similar conduct policy, but enacts it much differently. In response to the move, Zuckerburg stated that Facebook should not, nor is, an "arbiter of truth" (Ghaffary [[Probable year::2020]]) . Twitter again used its new policy on the president's tweet about protests, saying that his "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" violated Twitter's policy of glorifying violence (Ghaffary [[Probable year::2020]]) . Facebook, on the other hand, defended its position of not censoring the same statement by saying "didn’t violate Facebook’s policies about inciting violence. He said the company saw it 'as a warning about state action,' and that 'people need to know if the government is planning to deploy force” (Ghaffary [[Probable year::2020]]) .

}}