The world wide web, possibly the greatest feat of mankind, was created to bring people together so that we could connect and share information. I’m sure it’s inventors could not have foreseen that it would become a festering ground for racial slurs, bigotry, and extremism. Almost everyone who has been on the internet has encountered hateful or threatening words at some point in their lives, especially on social media. Though many are inclined to say, “just brush it off, they’re just words”, these words have real world consequences. While social media has certain benefits, like connecting people around the world, it comes at a cost. Social media has given rise to new forms of bullying and harassment, aided the spread of hate and bigotry, and given extremist a new and effective tool for recruiting. As social media increasingly becomes a part of our everyday lives, this topic is becoming increasingly important. In order to protect the well being of American citizens, social media companies reserve the right to continue removing content that they see dangerous, as it does not violate the First Amendment.

Bullying has been around since the beginning of time, but is a bigger problem today more than ever. The rise of social media into mainstream culture has made way for a new form of bullying: cyberbullying. Mallory Grossman, a 12-year-old girl from New Jersey, was just one of many victim of cyberbullying. For months, Grossman was bombarded with hateful messages from her classmates, until finally, the 12-year-old girl took her own life. Following this tragedy, the family’s lawyer, Bruce Nagel, responded, “For months there were texts, Snapchat and Instagram — she was told she was a loser, she had no friends. She was even told, ‘why don't you kill yourself.’” (Rosenblatt). This young girl is just one of the innumerable victims of cyberbullying. Cyberbullying affects a wide range of people, but is especially common for youth. According to a study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 2015, “an estimated 16% of high school students were bullied electronically in the 12 months prior to the survey” (“What is Cyberbullying”). Another study by the National Center for Education Statistics from 2014-2015 found that, “about 21% of students ages 12-18 experienced bullying” (“What is Cyberbullying”). By comparing these two statistics, it can be seen that cyberbullying is the main form of bullying faced by today’s youth. These studies also reflect the fact that social media makes it easier for a bully to harass their victim than in person. When a bully is able to harass their victim from behind a screen without seeing the victim’s reaction, studies show that they feel much less remorse than when doing so in a face-to-face situation (Peebles).  When a bully is able to harass their victims anonymously, they do not fear any repercussions to their actions. This is especially true in youth, who may not fully understand the impact their actions have on other people. Not only does social media make bullying more prevalent, but also makes bullying more harmful. Through social media a bully is now able to share embarrassing videos and photographs of their victim, without their consent, that can be seen by a much larger audience than before. Through social media, this larger audience is also now able to view whatever the bully posts, adding to the amount of humiliation for the victim (Peebles). Cyberbullying can have detrimental affects on it’s victims, and like in the case of Mallory Grossman, can lead to suicide. According to a study conducted by ChildLine, a British anti-bullying charity, there were, “4,507 cases of cyberbullying in 2012-13, up from 2,410 in 2011-12, with an 87% rise in contacts about online bullying, a 41% increase in contacts about self-harm and a 33% increase in young people feeling suicidal” (Topping). This study clearly displays that there is a direct correlation between cyberbullying and suicide. In order to combat the growing youth suicide rate and ease the suffering of its victims, social media sites should monitor cyberbullying. While traditional bullying is harder to stop, cyberbullying can easily be seen and monitored by social media companies, making it easier to prevent. Unfortunately, cyberbullying is not the only problem with unregulated speech on social media.

Another major problem with unregulated online speech is doxing. According to the Merrian-Webster Dictionary, doxing is, “to publicly identify or publish private information about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or revenge” (“dox”). Doxing became a widely debated subject when CNN threatened to dox the individual who created an anti-CNN gif that was shared by Donald Trump on Twitter. The user deleted his twitter following this threat (Romano). Columbia University Republican leaders have also recently been a target of doxing when, “an Antifa group distributed pictures and personal information about all of the group's members, imploring opponents to let them know ‘what you think’” (Suarez). Following this attack, the Columbia University Republicans president said he feels that it, “put a target on [his] safety” (Suarez). Using social media should not come at the cost of our feeling of safety. Felicia Day, a feminist gamer, had her home address and personal email revealed online just minutes after speaking up about the harassment and doxing of women in the gaming community (Hern). In her Tumbler post, Day also expressed her fear of speaking up due to the possibility of being doxed. Many other female gamers have recently been the target of doxing, which is usually followed by threats and harassment that often caused them to quit their careers (Hern). With their personal information exposed to so many people, they are put in danger that extends beyond online threats and harassment. The internet should be a place where people can connect with one another without being intimidated into silence. The only way for this to happen is with restriction on content like doxed personal information.  

Social media also helps white supremacists more effectively propagate their hateful ideology and better plan and organize violent events. Historically, white supremacist organizations have always used media in order to organize events and spread their hateful message. Today, on the other hand, social media allows these groups to reach a much larger audience that newsletters and radio broadcasts simply could not. Not only has social media helped these already existing hate groups, but also has produce new ones. Social media has given rise to the “alt-right”. The alt-right, as defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center, “is a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that ‘white identity’ is under attack by multicultural forces using ‘political correctness’ and ‘social justice’ to undermine white people and ‘their’ civilization. Characterized by heavy use of social media and online memes, Alt-Righters eschew ‘establishment’ conservatism, skew young, and embrace white ethno-nationalism as a fundamental value” (“Alt-Right”). This group is especially dangerous in the digital age, where they use things like memes to appeal to a younger audience. In Charlottesville, Virginia, the alt-right held a “Unite the Right” rally that protested the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, who was a confederate general. This group was met with counter protesters in a violent clash that resulted in nineteen injuries and one death (Diep). Heather Heyer, a 32-year-old woman, was killed when a white supremacist drove his car into a crowd of counter protesters (Diep). How could such an unspeakable act have been prevented? White Supremacists used a multitude of social media websites to organize the violent “Unite the Right” event. A Facebook event was created for the event (Diep). The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi blog used to spread racism and bigotry, was also used to organize the event (Diep). Far right leaders used Twitter as a tool for spreading the news of the rally (@RichardBSpencer). The list goes on and on of websites they were able to use to spread news of the event. Many of these sites took down posts that promoted the rally, but only after information of the event was already widely circulated. If this content were more swiftly removed, this event would not have occurred to the magnitude at which it did and Heather Heyer may still be alive today. Social media sites must continue to remove hateful content, but with more diligence, in order to prevent future tragedies.  

Like the white supremacist extremists, international terrorists are increasingly using social media to radicalize individuals. According to a report from the Brooking Institution, in 2015, an estimated 46,000 Twitter accounts were used by ISIS supporters (Berger and Morgan). These numbers are astounding, especially with the harm a single terrorist is able to cause.

In an effort to combat terrorism, Twitter has shut down 125,000 accounts “for threatening or promoting terrorist acts, primarily related to ISIS” (Calamur). These statistics clearly show that social media companies can effectively combat the spread of terrorist’s messages. Not only is this one of the most effective ways to fight terrorism, but also the least violent. Tackling terrorism before it is able to take root can save the lives of both terrorist victims and those who could potentially be coerced into terrorism. Youths are an especially susceptible to being recruited by terrorist organizations. One reason is that social media is such a large part of the everyday lives of today’s youth. According to a Pew survey, 93% of teens ages 12-17 go online, compared to the 74% of adults ages 18 and older who do (Lenhart). This leaves them far more likely to be exposed to extremist propaganda than other age groups. In addition, people at such a young age have less developed decision making skills, which makes them more vulnerable to recruitment by extremists. By removing content from social media that promotes terrorism, it could prevent youths from being persuaded by it. 

When someone controversial is banned from a social media website for saying something disruptive or hateful, many people are quick to claim that it is a violation of the First Amendment. When a social media company decides to remove a user or content from their website, it is not, in fact, a violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (US Const. amend I). This amendment only guarantees that the government will not make laws that restrict our speech, and because social media websites are privately run, they reserve the right to remove content as they see fit. This is clearly shown by the first few words of the amendment, which read, “Congress shall make no law respecting…” (US Const. amend I). Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say anything about private companies being required to broadcast anything said on their website to the masses.

There are, however, instances where censorship by social media companies could be interoperated as a violation of the First Amendment. There have been instances where governments around the world have pressured social media companies to remove certain content from their websites. When the United States requests that content be removed from a social media site, it is in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Twitter is one of the most used social media sites for news, with 59% of its users reporting that they use the website for news (Gottfried and Shearer). Out of all of the requests for content removal by countries around the world, Twitter only complied with 10% of the requests (Pan). More importantly, the United States ranked in 10th place for compliance rate of content removal by Twitter (Pan). This data shows that while the United States government does play a role in content removal from social media, it is a minor role. In addition, it shows that social media sites are not likely to remove content at the request of a government, especially in the United States. When social media companies deny censorship requests from the United States government, they prevent the government from obstructing free speech, therefore preserving the First Amendment.  

Another problem people have with social media companies regulating online speech is that it gives individuals, like Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, the power to take any content off of their websites that they disagree with. This is an especially big problem because people are increasingly relying on social media for news. According to a Pew Research Poll, an astounding 62% of adults in the United States use social media for news (Gottfried and Shearer). Giving a small number of people the power to control what can be said on social media is especially dangerous with so many people relying on social media for information. With the ability to control information, these individuals could potentially sway the public’s stance on whichever issues they see fit. 

Though freedom of speech is an important right, some regulation on what is said on social media should be enacted. Unregulated speech on social media poses a threat not only to individuals, like in the case of cyberbullying and doxxing, but also to society as a whole. This is especially true on social media, where detestable ideas can be broadcasted with remarkable efficiency, an efficiency likely unforeseen by the authors of the First Amendment.  To make both the internet and the world a safer place, there must be a balance of freedom and safety on social media. If we allow these hateful messages to continue to spread, then hate and violence will continue to thrive. Although hate will always exist in the world, the degree at which hate can be spread would be greatly reduced through a more limited internet. 
