3 of 57

Freedom

Write now Article Tools

The problem with regulating the internet is who decides what is appropriate? Where is the line drawn between what the moderator thinks is appropriate and what I think is appropriate? And who chooses the moderator? Are moderators elected in a free democratic process, or are they appointed by those who have set themselves up as guardians of our morals and think they know what is best for us?

Freedom of speech, as a right of citizens, does not mean "the right to say anything you want." Freedom of speech, in a political context, is the right to dissent; that is, the right to disagree with your government and not have a goon squad turn up in the middle of the night and haul you away. It is not a right to say anything you want; in fact, we are limited by law in what we can and cannot say. With freedom of speech comes a responsibility to speak the truth as we know it. We are free to disagree with others, but we are not free to spread lies about another person; that is slander or defamation. We are not free to make racial slurs, nor denigrate another's religion, nationality, physical attributes, gender, or sexual orientation.

Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. For example, we enjoy freedom of the press in most western countries, but the press is only free to print what they have established as true. They have a responsibility to tell the truth. If newspapers were free to make up their own stories, freedom of the press would become meaningless. You have probably seen the tabloids at the grocery store that make up all kinds of ridiculous stories about celebrities. When the news is invented, how do we know what to believe? So, in order for freedom of the press to be meaningful, newspapers have to print the truth.

It is the same with freedom of speech. If everyone can say whatever they want, freedom of speech becomes meaningless. We are only free to tell the truth. But suppose I say what I believe is true and the moderator thinks it is inappropriate and deletes it? Or what if I say the truth with a lot of swear words and my post is deleted because of inappropriate language? My right to speak the truth has been compromised.

Suppose I was a homosexual and voiced an opinion about same-sex marriage and it was deleted as inappropriate by a moderator who found homosexuality offensive; or a Christian who was deleted by an atheist moderator; or an anti-war activist deleted by a pro-war moderator?

I believe that we should resist all efforts to regulate the internet. The internet has been blamed for a lot of things, from stalkers who target teenage girls to the spread of child pornography to spam-related fraud. The internet itself, however, is not responsible for these evils. If a Toyota Camry is driven by a drunk driver and hits a pedestrian, do you sue Toyota for providing the vehicle?

The evils blamed on the internet will continue to be perpetrated whether they are online or not. Even if they are banned from the internet, predatory men will still stalk young girls, con men will continue to defraud the innocent, child pornography will, sadly, continue to be distributed.

Rather than regulation, we need education. Users need to be educated in the safe and appropriate use of the tools at hand, just as we need to be properly trained to use a table saw to avoid injury. Each user needs to determine their own comfort level and be responsible for maintaining it. So, yes we should have complete freedom of speech, but only within the limits granted by our rights; we do not have to tolerate slurs or insults. Then we can all enjoy our rights to freedom of speech.

Learn more about this author, J. Goodman.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Should Internet community sites allow complete freedom of speech or should content be regulated for inappropriate material??
We want to hear your view. Write now!