Sunday, September 23, 2012
Free Speech? Can it be Harmful?
Thye Sunday, September 23rd New York Times' Sunday Review section includes an article titled "Free Speech in the Age of YouTube" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/sunday-review/free-speech-in-the-age-of-youtube.html?ref=opinion&_r=0moc.semityn.www) which discusses the 21st century "perils" of free speech. After reading the article and familiarizing yourself with its content, summarize it and add your opinion in the blog. Be ready to discuss your views and the article in class for extra credit points.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The article discusses how Internet giants like YouTube, Google, Twitter and Facebook handle hate speech violation-especially in light of the recent Middle Eastern riots-and the implications of their actions. For these corporations, hate speech is not something that is definitive the world over and determining how to respond to hateful content is a balancing act all itself. Google, the proprietor of YouTube, has chosen to restrict the anti-Muslim film that incited the Middle Eastern riots in certain countries; besides its meager explanation others are are asking for more. I believe Google has done enough. They are peace keepers, not peace makers, and it is not in their job description or terms of service to make everybody happy. Their actions were an exception to the rule, and after briefly explaining why they should not have to set up a plan on how they're going to prevent future events. They are traffic guards, not traffic police. Their authority can only go so far and insofar, they've done everything appropriately. Good enough may not be good enough for everyone else, but Google can pat itself on the back for at least trying to do good.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the article touched on Free Speech over the internet as opposed to Free Speech in actual human interaction. in our country Free Speech is withheld in the court of law. you are allowed to say what you want in whatever way you want. However, it is something that not many people understand. I feel that for many online websites such as YouTube,Google, Facebook etc. there should be some decorum on what should be said. hate speech over the internet should be monitored as the consequences could be dangerous. At least for those of us living here in the U.S, we should realize that hate speech is a form of Freedom of Speech which is protected by the constitution no matter how vile a person can say something. It is the actions of the person that should be scrutinized. Words can be said back and forth and hate speech is a form of opinion and bias towards another group. I do not like hate speech, but I also cannot force someone not to say what he or she thinks.
ReplyDeleteThe article explains the obstacles that communication companies face when individual postings are placed on their website. It explains that these companies have to act on several different factors in order to please their general public. In the United States freedom of speech is one of the most recognized of the amendments. In reality, just because this country says any form of speech is okay to express doesn’t mean the rest of the world has to agree. As a matter of fact, the article even points out those certain forms of speech aren’t accepted in this country either. Freedom of speech is okay to exercise as long as it is something the majority of the audience expects to hear. It is understandable that as a company the customers are priority, therefore, these companies will censor or ban a specific point of view from their sites based on what the general clientele wants. It is a business move to keep your clientele happy and not about freedom of speech at all. What all readers, or viewers, need to understand is that the violence and the actions made in these articles or videos are point of views. They are facts and opinions we can all learn from for a greater good. But as a company, which makes their profit solely on these postings, the greater good or freedom of speech isn’t their goal. The original amateur videos of September 11, 2001 and the decapitation videos of the Americans in the Middle East sometime after were banned because they were hurtful to many, specially the family members the victims. They were also offensive and gruesome but in reality that is exactly the definition of speech freedom. Should there be control on the different types of “free speeches”? Businesswise, yes; Society wise, yes; Amendment wise, no. Sorry guys but that is what freedom of speech really means.
ReplyDeleteThis article is based on Google who owns Youtube not allowing other countries, such as Egypt,Libya, and etc to use Youtube. The reasons for not allowing access is because of Anti-Islamic video postage which were very disturbing for others to see not only that, but the death of an Ambassador and three Americans. Roit got even worse and other countries took upon themselves and removed access to Youtube. Everyone knows youtube where anyone can broadcast themselves. "Free Speech in the age of Youtube", many complaints were given to Google, or made it on Twitter, Facebook and etc. Google made its point just somewhat vague. I understand Freedom of speech is part of the Amendment in the USA, but there's a major line not to cross. Specially if it's disturbing and giving bad messages. I feel Google did the right thing, its only for the best I believe.
ReplyDelete