‘There is a me and place for censorship of the internet’. Discuss with par cular reference to
the right of freedom of expression.
The internet is the embodiment of an online pla orm that provides the opportunity for free
expression and speech. Imposing limits to the freedom of expression by removing them
completely may sound draconian, and the rst step towards the materialisa on of the
dystopian dictatorship in George Orwell’s ‘1984’. Yet, while a plurality of opinions is
necessary in a democracy, unlimited free speech would create a cacophony of voices and no
one would be heard in a public discourse. Thus, one must ask the ques on: how much do
we value free expression in rela on to other ideals such as the preven on of harm,
collec ve interests and human respect? This essay argues that freedom of expression must
be restricted for some of these reasons.
Firstly, hate speech on the internet should be censored. This is because it sa s es J S Mill’s
Harm Principle- it causes direct harm to an individual or group of people due to its
threatening nature. In contrast, o ensive speech should be allowed because even though it
may be upse ng, o ending or shocking the popula on, it does not contain an element of
threat. Thus, it is unlikely that o ensive speech may culminate into violence or riots in
society, whereas hate speech could. However, some argue that both hate speech and
o ensive language are transgressing other people’s rights as they cause mental harm and
disturbance so they should be censored. This reasoning risks jus fying major limits on the
freedom of expression and could lead to self-censorship in the fear of o ending people.
While it is true that individuals owe a ‘duty of jus ce’ and respect to others, there should be
no punishment for failing to adhere to basic manners. Thus, people should learn to not be so
sensi ve to other’s beliefs. In contrast, hate speech is more serious as it is o en directly
threatening and more violent in nature than o ensive language. In this case, it is legi mate
to censor it to prevent hate crimes and violence arising that could physically harm people’s
wellbeing.
Yet, nothing should be censored if it is contrary to popular beliefs or opinions. There are two
examples of this: collec ve interests and misinforma on. In the case of Fedotova vs the
Russian Federa on, a woman was sentenced to jail for promo ng gay rights outside a
school, since this insulted the homophobic beliefs of the popula on. Extrapola ng this
example to the digital sphere, Dworkin’s rights-based approach should trump collec ve
opinions. If this were not the case, it would risk an enactment of J S Mill’s tyranny of the
majority, where the majority oppress a minority with dis nct beliefs. Human beings have
intrinsic human dignity that is diminished if we remove their freedom of expression merely
because it is contrary to that of public belief. This is also relevant regarding misinforma on.
While fake informa on has the poten al to mislead people, for example fuelling the an -
vaxxer movement that obstructs global e orts to reach herd immunity against the
coronavirus, people have the right to express their opinions regardless of their veracity.
Nevertheless, it is important that people do not hinder social progress due to the spread of
false news; hence a aching a warning on content that is poten ally misinforma on would
be an appropriate solu on that balances both individual rights with wider collec ve
interests.
the right of freedom of expression.
The internet is the embodiment of an online pla orm that provides the opportunity for free
expression and speech. Imposing limits to the freedom of expression by removing them
completely may sound draconian, and the rst step towards the materialisa on of the
dystopian dictatorship in George Orwell’s ‘1984’. Yet, while a plurality of opinions is
necessary in a democracy, unlimited free speech would create a cacophony of voices and no
one would be heard in a public discourse. Thus, one must ask the ques on: how much do
we value free expression in rela on to other ideals such as the preven on of harm,
collec ve interests and human respect? This essay argues that freedom of expression must
be restricted for some of these reasons.
Firstly, hate speech on the internet should be censored. This is because it sa s es J S Mill’s
Harm Principle- it causes direct harm to an individual or group of people due to its
threatening nature. In contrast, o ensive speech should be allowed because even though it
may be upse ng, o ending or shocking the popula on, it does not contain an element of
threat. Thus, it is unlikely that o ensive speech may culminate into violence or riots in
society, whereas hate speech could. However, some argue that both hate speech and
o ensive language are transgressing other people’s rights as they cause mental harm and
disturbance so they should be censored. This reasoning risks jus fying major limits on the
freedom of expression and could lead to self-censorship in the fear of o ending people.
While it is true that individuals owe a ‘duty of jus ce’ and respect to others, there should be
no punishment for failing to adhere to basic manners. Thus, people should learn to not be so
sensi ve to other’s beliefs. In contrast, hate speech is more serious as it is o en directly
threatening and more violent in nature than o ensive language. In this case, it is legi mate
to censor it to prevent hate crimes and violence arising that could physically harm people’s
wellbeing.
Yet, nothing should be censored if it is contrary to popular beliefs or opinions. There are two
examples of this: collec ve interests and misinforma on. In the case of Fedotova vs the
Russian Federa on, a woman was sentenced to jail for promo ng gay rights outside a
school, since this insulted the homophobic beliefs of the popula on. Extrapola ng this
example to the digital sphere, Dworkin’s rights-based approach should trump collec ve
opinions. If this were not the case, it would risk an enactment of J S Mill’s tyranny of the
majority, where the majority oppress a minority with dis nct beliefs. Human beings have
intrinsic human dignity that is diminished if we remove their freedom of expression merely
because it is contrary to that of public belief. This is also relevant regarding misinforma on.
While fake informa on has the poten al to mislead people, for example fuelling the an -
vaxxer movement that obstructs global e orts to reach herd immunity against the
coronavirus, people have the right to express their opinions regardless of their veracity.
Nevertheless, it is important that people do not hinder social progress due to the spread of
false news; hence a aching a warning on content that is poten ally misinforma on would
be an appropriate solu on that balances both individual rights with wider collec ve
interests.
