Let's Talk: Regulation of Free Speech on Social Media Platforms like Twitter [CM 270: Blog Post #3]

By Marriah Boyd

One of the founding principles of democratic government rests in its upholding of the values of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. With the growing popularity of technology, it too seems as if much of the world’s inhabitants who have a tether to the Internet are active on at least one social media platform where opinions are expressed openly and honestly from the point of view of the content creator. Incidentally, and unsurprisingly, Twitter is one of those social media platforms. In my personal opinion, Twitter is also one of the only social media platforms – besides perhaps Reddit or Tumblr – where users seem to voice their most unfiltered thoughts, opinions, and ideas. In a way, this type of social expression is like a breath of fresh air. In another way, it can open the door to issues and concerns; particularly, when tweets are accused of violating a country’s laws and regulations. In this blog, I will be providing an overview of one present-day example where the issue of power, with regards to the regulation of free speech on social media, is augmenting, as well as discuss my personal thoughts on the situation.

Image created by Marriah Boyd
on Canva

According to a recent New York Times article by Shira Ovide, Twitter and the nation of India are finding themselves in disagreement over the deletion of certain tweets which India believes is in violation of the nation’s “laws against subversion or threats to public order.” As you may or may not be familiar with, in the past couple of months, increasing media attention has spotlighted Indian farmers’ protest and objection to the implementation of agricultural laws approved by the Parliament of India. Many people have taken to Twitter to express their frustrations with India’s government – and inversely, their support of the Indian farmers’ protest. As aforementioned, Ovide reports that India’s government – a “democratically elected government” – in “citing its laws,” ordered Twitter to “delete or hide more than 1,100 accounts” which they believe “encouraged violence or spread misinformation.” While Twitter did abide by some of the Indian government’s directives, the media organization rejected orders to erase the Twitter accounts of individuals/groups who Twitter states are “appropriately exercising their right to criticize the government,” Ovide explains. And thus, the issue further unfolds as each party states that the other is in violation of rules and regulations – particularly in reference to that of free speech.

Initially, I was surprised to read about this feud between Twitter and India, although perhaps situations like this are not too uncommon as Ovide states that “there are regularly disputes between internet companies and governments…” This feud, too, brings about an interesting discussion about the amount of authority that social media organizations like Twitter have. In this situation, Twitter appears to act as a regulatory voice, as a gatekeeper – as a judge weighing and creating the boundaries and tenets of what equates to freedom of speech and expression. However, I wonder, when social media was first becoming popular, did the leaders and users of these organizations know just how much power these social media platforms would come to hold? It is an interesting back-and-forth – this divide between government and digital organizations like Twitter. I wonder how regulation about social media content will alter as situations like this one become more commonplace. Since it does appear that social media is here to stay for the long-term, will additional legislation be put in place to define policies more clearly regarding the regulation and allowance of certain content? The principle of free speech is so precious to the sustaining of democratic foundations all over the world. When thinking about this idea of free speech as it pertains to the media, I was reminded of this one quote presented in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

When entities disagree over the regulation and protection of such freedoms, however, what is the next step? What happens next? I will be sure to stay up to date on this important topic of discussion; I hope you do, too.

Thanks so much for reading! Please feel free to share your thoughts in the comment section below – I would love to hear your ideas!

For additional reading about the topic at hand, please refer to the following article by Shira Ovide (also used as a reference for this blog post) here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/technology/twitter-vs-india.html