Introduction
For many states and commonwealths, freedom of speech is one of the fundamental factors for maintaining democracy worldwide. There are also states for which this aspect is essential to maintain power and search for their national identity. Considering this issue, it is necessary to pay attention to the United States, where freedom of speech is strongly supported and occupies one of the highest positions.
The same applies to social media, but in this area, there is some disagreement about what is allowed to be highlighted in social networks and what is undesirable. This does not allow for complete freedom of speech and a demonstration of one’s loyalty to the field. This paper will analyze recent developments related to free speech in the mass media and the daily lives of people and residents of the United States.
The Role of Anonymity in Online Communication
The culture of the United States is at an all-time high compared to the last few decades. Comparing this historical context, one can notice that with the development of mass media, the culture of human communication and behavior between different social groups has improved (Oh and Aukerman 2). This is primarily due to the emergence of anonymity in Internet communication, which allows individuals to conceal their identity when sharing thoughts and opinions. Thus, the emergence of a way of communicating without the possibility of being tracked made it possible to state one’s position openly without detection. This highlighted the need to develop new methods for filtering information and addressing critical social movements.
Twitter as a Case Study of Free Expression and Regulation
One prime example is using Twitter as a platform to create and promote one’s views on specific issues. Thus, before Elon Musk purchased this social network, it had a filter of allowed words. This was done to limit the use of radical or offensive thoughts. However, it created incomprehension among ordinary users, who considered this one of the best places to promote their ideas.
If one examines the data from the last few days, when Twitter underwent a wave of unbanning and the annulment of banned words, the influx of users increased by several percent, a phenomenon that has not occurred in over a year (Oh and Aukerman 2). This is primarily due to an experiment conducted by the new owner of the social network, which allowed people to express and do things previously banned freely. Many users welcomed this innovation and voiced their support for the new team engaged in developing and improving the platform.
Risks of Unrestricted Speech in Digital Platforms
On the other hand, this method has a downside. With the creation and expansion of the platform’s capabilities, it soon becomes uncontrollable by internal affairs. It does not allow it to influence society from a legitimate point of view and suppress truly critical radical movements. Like every other sphere, freedom of speech has a fine line that must not be crossed, and certain norms must be established. They make it possible to avoid inciting hatred of others and to keep under control the most virulent strands of citizens who act outside the law or engage in social interaction.
Freedom of Speech in Broader Social and Political Contexts
Freedom of speech is necessary, but in moderation, as the promotion of ideas in excessive amounts can create chaos in society and lead to anarchy. In addition to social media, it is also essential to consider another factor, namely live communication and news broadcasts. Regarding the former, limiting people’s utterances and free thinking is impossible, and there is no need to do so. People are free to talk about their problems, use them for personal purposes, and promote radicalism among the masses (Oh and Aukerman 2). In addition, it is difficult to precisely define when freedom of speech is restricted and what it entails.
It lacks a framework or definition, instead relying on a subjective perception that everyone can interpret in their own way. It is essential to recognize that the ruling elite can impose its own definition, which the masses may perceive as the only correct one. As in North Korea, freedom of speech for propaganda is not uncommon and is expected. An idea is imposed on people, which they can share without fear of persecution because it is the only one that, by definition, is trustworthy, and there are no alternatives. On the one hand, there is freedom of speech, but it is illusory, without the possibility of having another point of view.
Conclusion
Thus, despite the worldwide struggle for the right to express one’s thoughts regardless of the state, achieving true freedom of speech is impossible. Despite people’s efforts to express their thoughts freely, in many ways, it is necessary to prevent anarchistic movements aimed at destruction within the state. In addition, freedom of speech makes it easy to manipulate and build one’s own ideology by propagandizing and imposing one’s own ideas, which is different from other countries. This means that freedom of speech differs from what people need at the moment, as its development is not a priority for the development of countries.
Work Cited
Oh, Joon-Yeoul, and Rick A. Aukerman. “Freedom of Speech and Censorship in the Internet.” International Journal of Management & Information Systems (IJMIS), vol. 17, no. 4. 2017, pp. 251–56. Web.