Should the government be able to censor social media? (Poll)



Contributing Writer
Social Media Censorship Photo: Lighting a match Credit: Miguel Saavedra


A couple of recent attempts to censor social media have brought the issue of social media censorship into the collective conversation.

Recall that in May, a U.S. District Court determined that Facebook Likes aren’t protected speech.  Many legal experts believe that this could be extended to all social media content, leaving users vulnerable to retribution without the protection of the First Amendment. If Freedom of Speech isn’t extended to social content, one would presume that it would give the government more latitude for censorship.

That said, some people aren’t ready to have their content censored.

The White House appeals to YouTube (Google)

Last week, the White House appealed to Google to consider removing the video “Innocence of Muslims,” which portrays the prophet Muhammed in an unfavorable light.  The movie is purported by some to be the impetus for the assault on the U.S. consulate compound in Benghazi last week, and is cited by others as instigating the assailants.  The White House’s call to censor the video was a soft sell, appealing to Google to consider whether the video violated their terms of service.

Google’s response was equally nuanced.  Google denied the White House’s request, but censored the movie in India, Indonesia, Libya and Egypt.  Google claimed that their censorship was to comply with local laws, although the video would only be construed as illegal in India and Indonesia.

Can football players support gay marriage?

Recently, Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo Tweeted his support of gay marriage.  In response, Maryland Delegate Emmett Burns sent a letter to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti asking him to censor Ayanbadejo.

The response was overwhelming in support of Ayanbadejo.  The Baltimore Ravens, National Football League and several players (including Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, whose rebuttal unfortunately caused me to Google “fromunda”).  After the backlash, Burns backed down from his request with the ironic acknowledgement that both he and Ayanbadejo have the freedom of speech as granted by the First Amendment.

What do you think?

In these two circumstances the parties stood their ground in the face of attempted censorship.  But I wonder if users of social media and technology, presumably more informed due to Twitter’s ten-second news cycle (I mean you, reading this right now) have a strong opinion about social media censorship.

Is there any circumstance where the government should be able to censor social media?  Please take a second to vote in the Sodahead poll below.

 

Should elected officials be able to censor social media?

Public OpinionPoll Results

 Photo Credit

Jim Dougherty

Jim Dougherty

Writer and chief of miscellany at leaderswest.com

I aspire to give people something to think about rather than tell them what to do. My favorite Google Alert is “social media research,” I am increasingly compelled by Gen Z, and I appreciate good writers agnostic of where they write. At one time I was Kred’s 12th most influential social media blogger and Klout’s most influential person on the topic of David Hasselhoff. Transplant from Seattle living in Cincinnati. Haven’t entirely adopted the local sports teams yet.

Jim Dougherty

@jimdougherty

Jim Dougherty

Jim Dougherty

  • http://cashwithatrueconscience.com/rbblog Ryan Biddulph

    The gov treads into interesting waters here. Not quite sure how far is too far Jim.

  • http://barrettrossie.com/ Barrett Rossie

    Suppose someone releases your private information via social media. Like, how you voted and where you live, your login info or your credit card number. I think that would be a case where a post could be deleted. Whether or not government should be the one doing the deleting is another story.

  • jimdougherty

    Thanks Ryan for reading and commenting! I agree. When I consider the video I almost think that it would be warranted, but then consider the other situation and don’t. I think the point of Freedom of Speech is that neither should be censored. Of course my opinion is of very little value in cases of Constitutional Law….

  • jimdougherty

    Thanks, Barrett! I agree with you and think that maybe if there wasn’t such a gray area it would be more assuring. A great example – I appreciate you reading and commenting!

  • http://twitter.com/JCGibbsDC JC Gibbs

    Great post Jim! :)

    I believe there wouldn’t be such a grey area if government would only censor based on the what the current laws cover because that would protect folks for situations like Barrett’s example: extremely personal information.

    When a situation breaks the law whether digital or not, government will censor (child abuse, drugs, etc) , but the sensitive issue is when someone doesn’t agree with what the government likes, still not breaking a law and yet getting censored, that’s a problem.

  • Lidia

    I personally feel that hate speech is not freedom of speech and should be removed. Very grey area I agree.

  • http://twitter.com/Gazalla Gazalla Gaya

    I actually think that in certain rare circumstances such as this one, where religion and people’s lives are involved, it should be allowed. In India, my country of origin, the democratic system is equally robust as it is here in the US. The government has a zero tolerance policy on anyone (whatever their religion) with Inflammatory comments/hate speech on religion and it’s illegal to promote that kind of hatred. Granted that this was an obscure video that could have best been ignored – that would have been the best response that all these countries could have given but for political reasons (rather than religious) chose not to.

Top