Introduction
The rapid development of technology has led to its widespread infiltration into modern people’s lives. A significant portion of people’s interactions today take place on social media. Furthermore, as in real life, communication in the virtual space can touch on toxic and sensitive subjects and even attack others.
Hate speech in the online space is characterized as hateful content that directly or indirectly attacks individuals based on their characteristics, such as race, gender, or religious beliefs. Online communication is significantly different from real-life communication due to the presence of anonymity. Thus, perpetrators may feel freer to express their hatred towards others in the online space.
The prohibition of hate speech on social media presents one of the most effective solutions to the issue. However, many people complain that the prohibition of hate speech infringes on people’s freedom of speech. Thus, this research paper argues that the prohibition of hate speech online is a protective measure that does not threaten people’s right to freedom of speech.
Protecting Adolescents as a Major Social Media Audience
Firstly, to understand why the ban of hate speech online presents a critical issue, one should start by defining the core audience of social media. Thus, according to Alatawi et al., nearly 60% of the world’s population uses social media (106363). Furthermore, adolescents, as the most frequent users of the Internet, also present a significant part of social media users (Keles et al. 2).
The use of social media in adolescents is often linked to mental health problems in modern research. Thus, the rise in youth’s mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety, is heavily associated with the development of social media (Keles et al. 2). However, the use of social networks in itself cannot cause deterioration in the mental health of adolescents. Therefore, one can suggest that hate speech and cyberbullying largely contribute to the creation of negative experiences with social media in young people.
Estimating the scale of the problem is possible by examining the statistics of youth exposure to hate speech on social media. According to Bilewicz and Soral, more than half of adolescents (53%) in the U.S. were exposed to hate speech online (8). In countries where hate speech regulations do not extend to the online space, adolescents’ exposure to hate speech can exceed 85% (Bilewicz and Soral 9).
Moreover, many young people declare being victimized by hate speech, and in most cases, the victimization cases concern social platforms such as Facebook and Twitter (Bilewicz and Soral9). On the contrary, traditional forms of media rarely use hate speech because the information featured in traditional media undergoes several levels of monitoring and filtering (Bilewicz and Soral 9). Therefore, introducing additional filtering in social media can potentially make a big difference in solving the problem.
Furthermore, the importance of protecting adolescents from hate speech online is rooted in their natural developmental features. Thus, at the age of 12 to 18, adolescents acquire a sense of identity (Castano-Pulgarín et al. 5). Therefore, any interference with the adolescents’ development process can affect their sense of identity and have a negative impact on their future. Hate speech promotes discrimination against religious, racial, and ethnic minorities, which can significantly damage adolescents’ self-identification in the future. Therefore, the purpose of protecting the mental health of future generations can justify hate speech regulations.
Preventing Broader Cultural Influence of Hate Speech
Next, hate speech supports the dissemination of negative cultural, religious, and racial stereotypes, which increases the degree of discrimination against minorities in society. The influence of exposure to hate speech on an individual’s perception of minorities was extensively studied by scholars in the 20th century (Bilewicz and Soral 3). Thus, individuals exposed to other people’s use of derogatory ethnic labels often changed their opinion about ethnic minorities to a worse one. While it is possible that exposure to hate speech only amplifies an individual’s racist views, it is certain that the spread of hate speech negatively affects society by enabling racism and xenophobia.
In addition to the spread of negative cultural, racial, and religious stereotypes, exposure to hate speech influences the population’s cultural acceptance. According to Bilewicz and Soral, one of the primary principles that hate speech is generally based on is a simplification of minorities’ portrayal (4). Thus, hate speech not only directs negativity toward minority groups but also separates them from society by degrading their culture. On a broad scale, the spread of negative stereotypes supported by hate speech affects the population’s willingness to learn about different cultures. From the perspective of globalization, the population’s unwillingness to accept other cultures can result in cultural assimilation and the disappearance of small cultures that cannot resist the influence of dominant cultures.
Freedom of Speech vs. Hate Speech
The confusion between the prohibition of hate speech and infringement on freedom of speech is rooted in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, the government is required to protect the population’s freedom of speech, even if it deals with harmful and toxic topics. However, the First Amendment’s protection of hate speech does not apply in cases where the statements imply a direct threat to minorities or call for violence against a person or group.
Efforts and Outcomes in Other Countries
In many Western countries, introducing hate speech prohibition laws reduced the public’s exposure to hate speech on social media. For example, in Germany, where hate speech regulations are balanced with the protection of free speech, adolescents’ exposure to hate speech on social media is measured at 31% (Bilewicz and Soral 8). The Digital Services Act, recently approved by European Union officials, introduces strict regulation of hate speech and disinformation on social media. For American companies providing digital services to European users, such as Twitter, violation of new requirements can result in a ban on operating in the EU (EU Warns Elon Musk para. 8). Therefore, the global initiative of hate speech regulation in social media shows that there is an opportunity for the U.S. government to find a balance between protection of population’s freedom of speech and limitation of hate speech.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this research explored several arguments supporting hate speech prohibition in social media that explain why hate speech regulation does not threaten people’s right to freedom of speech. To begin with, hate speech in social media negatively influences the mental health of future generations, which means that it cannot be protected by the First Amendment. Next, hate speech on social media increases discrimination against minorities in society, which presents a direct threat to their safety. Furthermore, hate speech indirectly supports cultural assimilation, which can decrease the country’s cultural diversity.
Lastly, many Western countries have already learned how governments can simultaneously protect free speech and address hate speech. Thus, hate speech regulation in social media implemented now can ensure the protection of future generations and minorities. Moreover, hate speech regulation in the U.S. can create a culture of hate speech disapproval in society that will prevent people from using hate speech without the government’s interference in people’s freedom of speech.
Works Cited
Alatawi, Hind, et al. “Detecting White Supremacist Hate Speech Using Domain Specific Word Embedding with Deep Learning and BERT.” IEEE Access, vol. 9, 2021, pp. 106363-106374.
Bilewicz, Michal, and Wiktor Soral. “Hate Speech Epidemic. The Dynamic Effects of Derogatory Language on Intergroup Relations and Political Radicalization.” Political Psychology, vol. 51, no. 1, 2020, pp. 3-33.
Castano-Pulgarín, Sergio, et al. “Internet, Social Media and Online Hate Speech. Systematic review.” Aggression and Violent Behavior, vol. 58, 2021, pp. 1-7.
“EU Warns Elon Musk That Twitter Must Comply With Law against Hate Speech, Misinformation.” Huffpost, 2023.
Keles, Betul, et al. “A Systematic Review: The Influence of Social Media on Depression, Anxiety and Psychological Distress in Adolescents.” International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, vol. 25, no. 1, 2020, pp. 79-93.