In society today, social media has become a popular outlet for people to share their opinions, including negative ones. Posts or comments can be made that hurt or offend people, and there is nothing stopping the spread of internet hatred. A common social media platform, that people of all ages use, is Facebook. When scrolling through the feed, you will usually see news articles that are controversial, and people will comment their opinions on those articles. 

A recent example of hate speech, is how people used Facebook to react to Charlottesville. Facebook had to delete many pages like “Unite the Right” because they were violent and threatening (Wong). When someone posts a hateful comment, others get angry and want better controls on social media. But when more policies and restrictions are place on what can be posted, freedom of speech is limited. Social media allows users to remain anonymous and influence others, but the first amendment rights should not prevent reprocussions for online hate speech. Some people believe that laws regulating social media take away freedom of speech, but there is a line between expressing your opinion and being hateful.

Anonymous social media sites allow people to express their opinion without judgement or punishment, which is an important part of freedom of speech. Yik yak is a social media website that allows users to post anonymously, and the post will be shown to anyone in a 10-mile radius. In some ways, Yik Yak was a positive social media platform on college campus’s because it allowed students to share upcoming events and positive thoughts. But the anonymity of the website resulted in college students posting hateful comments. Students from Clemson University created, “an entire Tumblr account was set up to document racist and homophobic comments on Yik Yak” (Kingkade). This account showed dozens of hateful Yik Yak posts that are targeted at certain groups of people. The students at Clemson acted on the hateful speech by making others aware of what was happening, and tried to get the University to punish those Yik Yak users (Kingkade). In order to punish students, the University has to know the identity of the Yik Yak users. Based on the company’s privacy policy, the identity of a user is only revealed in specific circumstances. Therefore, no one was held responsible for the hateful Yik Yaks posted on Clemson’s campus. 

At Eastern Michigan University, a professor was directly attacked by students on Yik Yak. The reputation of Professor Margaret Crouch was ruined, and she wanted to find out who was saying all these hateful things (Kingkade). The university could not find or punish the students who posted the hateful comments because, “in the absence of a specific, actionable threat, though, Yik Yak zealously protects the identities of its users” (Mahler). Yik Yak only feels it is necessary to reveal the identity of a user, and monitor its feed, when law enforcement is involved or a threat is made. Also, the company believes if they were to abandon their anonymity policy for offensive, hateful posts, then they would limit freedom of speech on their website. Since neither the Clemson Students, nor the Eastern Michigan University students threatened someone, they are able to get away with hate speech. 

Yik Yak’s anonymity policy also applies to suicide cases as well. Jacob Marberger was a student at Washington College. He killed himself after being harassed at school and was the center of a hateful discussion on Yik Yak (Araiza). The students who were discussing Jacob were never found or punish. They did not threaten Jacob so Yik Yak could not release their identity (Kingkade). But the hateful Yik Yak posts, were one reason that lead Jacob to commit suicide. While these students are not responsible for Jacob’s death, they should be punished for cyberbullying.

After many universities experienced hate speech as a result of Yik Yak, the company began to place restrictions on posts. The app is now able to recognize terms that could be used to offend people. When a word, like Jewish or Muslim is detected, the app will not allow the user to share the post. The word censor program helped prevent some hate speech, but students discovered new words to replace the banned ones. Another portion of Yik Yak’s word censor program prevents users from posting the full names of people (Kingkade). But, there was no way for the program to detect nicknames. Since Yik Yak did not develop a strong strategy to prevent hate speech, the website ultimately failed and no longer exists. Instead of avoiding the problem of hate speech and allowing users to get away with it, Yik Yak should have been working on ways to punish users for engaging in online hate speech. 

The problems with Yik Yak lied in their strict anonymity policy. But there are websites that allow its users to make posts that will influence others. On the social media website Twitter, a user can create a 140-character Tweet, that millions of people could end up seeing. Donald Trump, the president of the United States, has a Twitter account that 44.5 million people follow. He uses his Twitter account to share his thought on national and political issues. Many people agree that Trump is engaging in online hate speech and he should be removed from Twitter (Kravets). For example, after the Brussels terror attack Donald Trump tweeted, “Incompetent Hillary, despite the horrible attack in Brussels today, wants borders to be weak and open-and let the Muslims flow in. No way!” (@realDonaldTrump). Not only was Trump being racist toward Muslims, but bashed Hilary Clinton as well. In his Tweet, Trump makes the assumption that all Muslims are terrorists. He does not want to allow Muslims into the country, because they could conduct a terrorist attack. A president should not be using stereotypes and hate speech when discussing serious, international problems. Many petitions have been made and signed by thousands, in order to get Trump’s acount deleted, but Twitter allows him to continue to make racist, hateful posts.

The behavior of Donald Trump has brought up many issues regarding how Twitter handles hateful content. Twitter usually deletes tweets that are hateful and racist toward someone. But all of Trump’s tweets and his account remain active on Twitter. In an article, written by David Kravet’s, he discusses Twitter’s stand on Donald Trump’s tweets, and why they have not been removed. Kravet’s states, “The company said the president's tweet hadn't come down, and the president hasn't been banned because his tweets are newsworthy.” The presidents tweet was hateful, and Twitter kept it up because it created publicity. If anything, the Presidents tweet should have been deleted because it portrays himself, and the country in a bad manner. In a sit-down interview with Jack Dorsey, Lauren Seagall asks him if he would ever delete the presidents Twitter accounts. Dorsey did not answer the question with a yes or a no, but said that Twitter works to create healthy relationships between all accounts (Alcantara). But Donald Trump is not engaging in heathy Twitter behavior because he continues to post hateful tweets. The president of the United States is supposed to lead the country and set an example for other countries. Instead, he has shown American citizens that it is okay to engage in hate speech online. 

Donald Trump is not the first influential person to engage in social media hate speech. Lee Garrett was a contestant on the popular TV dating show The Bachelorette. The TV show describes Lee as one of Americas most eligible bachelors but, Lee is on camera making racist remarks toward the other constants. Viewers then stalked Lee’s twitter, and found a number of racist tweets, one which read “What's the difference between the NAACP and the KKK, one has a sense of shame to cover their racist a** faces” (@leegarett). Originally Lee saw nothing wrong with this tweet and was forced into apologizing for his racism (France). The only repercussion that came out of his behaviors was having to admit his behaviors were wrong and apologize for them. The TV show drew a lot of attentions to Lee’s behavior, which is why he became famous.

The racist tweets that lead to Lee’s fame were publish two years prior to them being discovered. No one ever reported the tweets, and Twitter never saw them until Lee got on The Bachelorette. Twitter, still does not have the proper means to monitor posts being made to their feed, which explains why “researchers will only get a very small fraction of the [1] % of tweets that are geo-located” (Edwards et. al). Twitter has the ability to view posts using geolocation, but are only able to see a small amount because of the large number of tweets made every day. Since Twitter lacks the ability to assure appropriateness of posts, anyone can post anything. This in a flaw in Twitter’s terms and conditions and the way they are handling online hate speech. Twitter’s policy on hate speech is too lose, meaning there is not enough control on it. The company must work on a way to stop the influence of hate speech on Twitter and better monitor tweets that are posted. 

Despite all the opportunities social media platforms provide for people to engage in online hate speech, there has been attempts to stop this. Recently in Germany, a new law has been put in to place. This law will hold social media companies accountable, by imposing fines, on any company that does not delete illegal or hateful posts (Eddy). No law like this exists in the United States because laws are slow to act upon arising issues because of all the different political opinions. Germany’s new law will force companies to monitor their sites and make sure there is no hate speech. A similar law in the United States would help prevent hate speech and hold social media companies more accountable.

In 2013, Facebook made an announcement saying that they have received many complaints regarding online hate speech targeted toward specific groups. The announcement also included changes in their policy, guidelines about hate speech on Facebook, and a definition of hate speech (Levine). This announcement showed that Facebook is not being passive when dealing with hate speech. Levine acknowledges that hate speech occurs and wants to find ways to improve their website. She also states, “We seek to provide a platform where people can share and surface content, messages and ideas freely, while still respecting the rights of others.” In this quote, Facebook address free speech and how they allow users to have it. Their new policies did not take away a person right to share their opinions. The policy holds people to a standard behavior and expects them to act accordingly. Other social media websites should follow in Facebooks footsteps when handling online hate speech.

In an attempt to help people be proactive in preventing online hate speech, The No Hate Speech movement was founded. No Hate Speech is based out of Dublin, Ireland but has spread across Europe. This movement encourages youth to learn about hate speech and then report it. The website for the movement provides information about how to report a post that is hateful. The movement is no trying to discourage freedom of speech (Titley). In a description about the movement and its goals, Titley states, “the campaign is not run to limit freedom of expression online.” The movement does not want to prevent its follows from having freedom of speech. They simply want people to be aware of what they are putting on social media. 

As a society, the first step in creating safer social media websites is controlling how and what is posted. But according to Kinglade, “free speech experts worry that efforts to limit what students can say in their posts could censor constitutionally protected speech.” By censoring social media, implications regarding the first amendment will arise. Any standard placed on social media will limit people’s freedom of speech. When people feel as though there first amendment right is at stake, they will take a stand and prevent their freedom of speech from being taken away. But some people think limiting free speech is acceptable. Marcus Schulzke wrote a scholarly article about hate speech and when it should be censored. He argues that hate speech is beneficial to society and the first amendment should be limited so companies do not censor people’s true opinions. At the beginning of his article, Shulzke states, “Because it must be balanced against other rights and potential consequences, the right to free speech needs to have some limitations.” He believes that freedom of speech must be limited to avoid companies controlling what is posted on social media. But Shulzke is more consider with what would happen if laws and companies could completely prevent online hate speech. There are many reasons why freedom of speech should be censor and many reasons why it should not be. Until politicians and judges can agree, no impactful law will be made to prevent social media hate speech. 

Since it is difficult to make progress with laws, companies should review their terms and conditions and develop new ones that protect freedom of speech and prevent hate speech. When developing new policies for online hate speech, they will have to ask themselves a series of different moral questions. Some example are: What is the definition of hate speech and who is coming up with it? Who gets to say what phrases or words are considered hate speech? What is the difference between a hateful post and an offensive post? Facebook has already taken steps to redraw their terms and conditions (Levine). Levine points out that Facebook’s definition of hate speech varies from other social media websites. A definition of hate speech was necessary in order to implement new polices and explain what they are regarding. Facebook is still dealing with the problem of hate speech but have consistently working to find better methods of controlling it. 

If people do not begin to hold companies responsible for the content seen on their websites, then the problem will continue to get worse. Social media companies have a lot of control that they do not take advantage of. People should care about online hate speech because social media has become part of our everyday lives. When it is used correctly, there is a lot of knowledge to be gain. But online hate speech can over shadow the benefits of social media. In order to help prevent hate speech, people should take advantage of freedom of speech and the benefits of social media. When you see a hateful post, you should report it because the more attention that is drawn to a post, the greater the likelihood the company will notice it and delete it. Also, use social media to express your opinion without being racist, sexist, discriminatory, etc. Even though you are one person, an appropriate, opinionated post can inspire others to think about what they are putting on social media. As time goes on, social media websites will learn the best ways to prevent online hate speech without taking away freedom of speech. Germany’s laws, The No Hate Speech Movement and Facebook’s new policies, are strong examples on how to prevent online hate speech. But all companies can control online hate speech, social media users should be active in preventing the issue. 
