Recently there have been numbers of riots taking place around the world. In San Francisco, there was an incident where the police were lead to believe that the protesters have been using social media in order to congregate. In light of this situation, Daniel Hartwig, BART Debuty Police Chief, stated that it was done in order to preserve the safety of the public. However, Julia York, Director of International Freedom of Expression at The Electronic Frontier Foundation, believes that censorship of any sort is a direct attack on the public’s first amendment rights.
Certainly, some issues pertaining to human rights and possibly, ethics, may arise from this conflict. For starters, there exists the battle of the freedom of expression versus what the government deems as “beneficial” for the greater good. This ultimately boils down to how one can distinctly draw the line to differentiate between the two. To some extent, Internet websites like Twitter allow individuals to publicly share their opinions and ideas about basically anything, which gives way for the freedom of expression. However, the danger of this is touching upon “sensitive” subjects, which may result with increasing online riots or other more serious practices. On the other hand, countries like China have enforced the use of censorship as means to reduce public riots, by completely banning websites like Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc. This however, completely rids the individual of the right to speak freely, and raises concerns about whether or not individuals should be allowed to share their thoughts or to remain silent.
When is it okay for the government to cut off communication?
(+) In a country of freedom, it is acceptable for protests to take place in public, designated areas where the protest crowd is under control and does not harm public safety. However, in this case, the BART station is not a safe place to have rioters collect. This is when the importance of collective safety outweighs the importance of personal freedom. Once general safety is restored, people should be allowed to access social media again. The government banning social media is necessary at times for it is for the greater good. Also, banning social media for public safety also cautions the public to put social media to good use.Therefore, people will avoid causing a scene via social media because they do not wish to be “punished” by having their freedom of speech be taken away. Banning social media at crucial times is needed to maintain stability in society. What is censorship?
(-) Even though this was done for the safety of the public, cutting off cell-phone connection was a direct threat to the protesters First Amendment right. By letting this incident slide, authorities could possibly start blocking off larger forms of communication. Julian York believes that other communist countries, such as China, could view this as an example to lead with; they may use these incidents as indication that censorship is ‘okay’. In addition, she suggests that tracking the individual inciting such crimes would be much more pragmatic instead of blocking large social medias. Doing so leads to ‘private’ forms of communication which is even harder to track. Such actions would also infuriate the rioters further and could lead to much more violent protests. If the authorities would have just taken the time to pacify the protesters instead of taking the road of convenience, this situation may have ended on a better note. Although the public’s safety was the priority of the policemen, we believe cutting off any form of communication should never allowed. There are other ways to placate the situation. These actions could incite the subsequent revolts to be fueled with resentment.
RELATED ISSUES
Many parallels can be drawn from the situation at hand. For example, the issue of child pornography correlates well with the issue of blocking social media, since it is difficult for one to determine what lies within the realm of creativity and what morality consists of. There is an underlying issue of individual rights and freedom of speech.
This article also touches upon the questionable validity of methodological evaluations of determining age and maturity. Also, what is the distinction between the age of 17 and 18, which is where the difference between teenagers and adults are drawn?
However, here lies the question of what is deemed to be appropriate versus what is inappropriate. On a rather similar note, this issue is also apparent in the issue dealing with surfing in Taiwan on a typhoon day. Who is to judge whether or not people are allowed to pursue their recreational interests even in times of danger?
I agree with your points completely. I also believe that there is the issue of censorship involved. Although blocking social media may indeed, stop riots and danger. However, it is a human right to obtain freedom of speech. Thus, the government shouldn't have the right to interfere with blocking social media. I believe this idea of censorship is also a constant battle in China today. China, being a communist nation, has been blocking social media and other means of communication such as google. This raises the question of government. Should governments have the authority to control the peoples' lives? At the same time, the formation of the government itself is a way of guaranteeing civilian's safety. To me, i believe that the government should not control social media or other aspects of human communication, since it strips freedom away from the people.
ReplyDelete