|
Law in the Internet Society
|
|
|
-- By ShakimaWells - 14 Nov 2012
When the hit internet series Awkward Black Girl won the Shorty Award, one user tweeted in response, "Anthony Cumia lost to a N*ggerette!!! Another wrote, "ThingsBetterthanAwkwardBlackGirl:The smell coming from Treyvon Martin." And still another quipped, "Congrats on winning, do you get 3/5 of an award?" Noting the difference between these comments and her real life experiences, Issa Rae, the show's creator wrote,
The crazy thing is, Ive actually never been called a n*gger in real life...In the online world, however, which is where most of my social life resides, the word is tossed about as freely as it was in the 50s and 60s. Users hide comfortably behind their computer screens and type the most obnoxious,offensive things that they can think of and wait for a response (cite).
The racially inflammatory speech directed toward Rae can be said to fall under the much broader definition of trolling or, online speech designed to provoke an emotional response. In the US, such expression (assuming that it doesnt venture into the realm of illegality) is protected under the First Amendment's right to freedom of speech. In light of the well-known crudity of some internet commentary, this part argues that 1) trolling as exhibited by the above comments is problematic and 2) private entities should take measures to encourage users to post identifying information in an effort to enhance personal responsibility for such behavior.
Many individuals, particularly those on the receiving end of trolling, may agree with Rae that both the frequency and intensity of inflammatory comments is heightened online as compared to real life. Indeed, in real life, fewer individuals would be willing to make any of the statements discussed in the first paragraph simply for the purpose of evoking a response. Not only is the threat of physical violence a poignant deterrent, but the possibility of other types of social repercussions also constrain such behavior. An individual might be concerned, for instance, that the comment might get back to his place of work or affect his standing within his community. Even if this were not the case, real life activity delivery might be constrained by the interpersonal fact that the deliverer of such speech would likely have to look at his listeners and personally experience their reactions.
On the internet, however, the ability of society to respond to such behavior is substantially limited. For one, trolls can effectively hit and run with relative ease. Also, some users consciously decide to "not feed the trolls" and dont reply to troll posts. Assuming that there is some value in the free exchange of ideas, erroneously dismissing an individual as a troll could mean that an opportunity for useful social exchange is missed. In other cases, the sheer distance between the speaker and the listener online encourages bystanders to be apathetic. Would these same individuals ignore this behavior if it were occurring on the sidewalk in front of them? If not, why? Is the impact of the behavior on society or on the receiver any less damaging online than in real life? What if listeners decided to change their behavior to avoid this kind of speech in the future? Couldn't this also result in negative social externalities by limiting the opportunity for these individuals to engage in what could otherwise be socially beneficial behavior? Also, one of the benefits of the internet is that it is more easily accessible to different types of users. If small children witness such speech without also witnessing the social response, couldnt this negatively affect their behavior and development?
Even if one were to try to simply ignore troll posts in a way that they might try to avoid inflammatory material found in other forms, online users will find that they can be hard to escape. The ease of access to the internet also means that inflammatory language can be, and often is, found in the midst of otherwise useful, entertaining or informative content. A user who browses user comments simply to gage public reaction to a funny video or political debate, for instance, will almost certainly encounter inflammatory language.
The concepts of pseudonymity and anonymity also contribute to the discussion of trolling. By posting anonymously, an individual can avoid personal accountability and thus some of the abovementioned negative consequences of their actions. The ability to use a pseudonym similarly allows an individual to assume an online mask of sorts. To be sure, anonymity and psuedonmymity serve important sociopolitical functions. The Supreme Court, in McIntyre? v. Ohio Board of Elections, articulated this view when it wrote, "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority...It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment in particular; to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation..." Freedom of speech is not absolute, however, and the type of speech referred to by the court can arguably be distingished from trolling, which is primarily designed to garner an emotional response.
In light of the problematic aspects of trolling noted above, it is perhaps unsurprising that companies like Youtube have already begun to brainstorm solutions. One new policy prompts commenters to change their username to their real name. Currently, it is still optional and users can decide to continue to post under their usernames if they provide a reason. The explanation “I’m not sure, I’ll decide later” is presently accepted as sufficient (cite). Such measures perhaps assume that individuals who will elect to post identifying information may be less likely to post comments simply to get a response and those who do not elect to do so and proceed to post inflammatory material will be more easily distinguished from other users. While steps such as those above are unlikely to totally eliminate online behavior that is simply intended to inflame other users, it may help users distinguish such behavior from other types of expression and may actually enhance freedom of speech by reducing the push by some to ban trolling.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
|
|
