---
title: Considering the nature of freedom of speech in the internet age
author: Mohit Agarwal
date: September 2021
bibliography: ["reference.bib","socialmedia.bib"]
link-citations: true
csl: http://www.zotero.org/styles/apa
papersize: a4
nocite: '@*'
---
<!-- *y -->
<!-- Should we rethink the nature and limits of freedom of speech in
the internet age? -->

The nature of free speech in our current society is questionable, yet
the internet paves its own path in this realm. To the internet, the
traditional considerations of freedom of speech arguably do not exist.
Firstly, the question of place and time is less significant in
relation to the internet in comparison with traditional thought on
freedom of speech. Whilst speech in person creates noise and, can such
as through the gathering of a crowd, causes genuine disruption to
people who may inhabit the area. Furthermore, such a gathering or loud
speech in the night may disrupt people who are trying to sleep and
thereby be considered a nuisance. On the internet, however,
there are no such considerations. Although actions online can spur in
person events, any published material on the internet cannot
immediately cause disruption through its time or place. As a
non-physical event, its existence cannot block a road, create noise,
or wake people in the night, unless individuals chose to do so in
person.  Furthermore, whilst a person talking in the street can
indubitably be heard by any bystander, on the internet any material
being read, watched, or listened to is through the choice of the
reader, viewer, or listener. The speech that everyone must hear on the
street, is heard only by those who wish to when it is published
on some website.

Thus, traditional limitations to absolute free speech that may seem
reasonable or indeed necessary, such as the prevention of somebody
shouting obscenities in public to the cause of major offence or
at public events where disruption to others and other behavioural
factors are considered significant [@sep-freedom-speech] seemingly no
longer apply on the internet. Truly the internet deals without the
physical constraints that may limit freedom of speech, allowing us to
potentially understand the nature of freedom of speech in a greater
sense, to one that is more open and wider through the existance of the
internet.

In modern society usage of the internet is clearly widespread and is
noticeably an incredibly significant phenomenon of our world today and
will likely continue to be so
[@stats;@stats-population;@stats-access].  A significant feature of
internet communication methods are their potential for resistance to
regulation, and thereby resistant to attempted limitations on freedom
of speech. Some popular internet platforms have been known to restrict
their users' communications, at times to the cause of some alarm
[@twitter-suspends;@merkel].  These platforms, however, must be
considered for what they are: popular, for-profit, privately owned sites.
However much we are invited to consider them as communications
provides that exist for the common good of humanity
[@twitter-mission], they are not. In this light, just as an individual
may say what he pleases, or a newspaper may publish the content of its
choosing, a website may host or not host content of its choosing as a
private enterprise. For those who are not fond of such measures, there
are other platforms which do not moderate users' content to such an
extent such as the site 4chan, but they therby naturally have content
that others may find distasteful [@4chan;@moot]. 

Given the prevalence, however, of a small handful of platforms
[@stats], this may be worrying. Although in theory, the internet is
free, in reality a small group of private organisations control any
sense of freedom of speech and have the power and have used the power
to limit it. To an even more worrying degree, they have the power to
limit what we say in what we consider as 'private' communications and
the power to change what we say to something that we did not. Although
we should consider this as a potential threat to freedom of speech,
particularly as these companies may have an interest in regulating
freedom of speech given their revenue from advertisements, we must
acknowledge that this potential limitation comes with using a private
site, and that they cannot guarantee us freedom. Furthermore, unlike
in a traditional sense, any activity we see as a limitation of our
speech is not a terminal act. We can use any platform at any time,
whilst a government can and has maintained its authority over citizens
[@stasiland].

On this level it is clear, that private regulation is fine, and
perhaps quite useful such as on popular platforms that are used
by large numbers of people, or by particularly young children, such as
YouTube [@youtube-children]. Governments will struggle to regulate
this as much of it is beyond the bounds of their nation and is of such
high volume that an attempt at regulation would be meaningless. This
means that in the internet age, freedom of speech is in our hands. If
we allow it to, an organisation can heavily regulate freedom of speech
and regulate the information that reaches us, as the major social
media platforms currently do through their 'recommendations', yet if
we act accordingly we can have as much or as little freedom of speech
on the internet as we choose through the variety of platforms.

There is cause for concern, however, with regulation on a 'lower
level', such as the private companies that provide the infrastructure
that allows the internet to exist. Websites have been removed by these
organisations [@8chan] and can heavily limit freedom of speech if
regulated. It is this that leads to arguments for non-discrimination
by these organisations [@ieee-freedom]. Heavy regulation at this level
poses a threat to the freedoms the internet provides and the freedoms
of citizens, as it would give governments or private companies to
remove sites as they please. Such regulation is visible, such as in
China, or as we might refer to it: 'censorship' [@china-firewall],
despite much distinction.

Furthermore, payment transaction services, such as PayPal or Visa can
be considered in this way, and similarly, any attempts for regulation
could be very serious for the freedoms of individuals.

Although theses limitations may change the nature of freedom of
speech, in protest to the potential for such limitations there has
been an increased interest in decentralisation. Cryptocurrencies can
replace traditional payment systems, networks such as Tor can
circumvent potential removal of sites from the internet, and
decentralised communications protocols featuring encryption allow free
and private communication. In fact, these technologies are already in
popular use, both by those who have an interest in their privacy and
freedoms, but also by criminal groups. Although there is a lot of
effort to prevent this crime [@crime], technology makes it more
difficult for governments, thus presenting the problem that attempts
to regulate freedom of speech in the internet age are useless, due to
the freedoms the internet age provides. New technologies make it
increasingly difficult to prevent communication and transfer of
capital between parties governments might wish to. Thereby, it may be
of greater interest to encourage healthy use of the internet, rather
than attempt to force it, when doing so is arguably impossible. 

In the internet age, young people are very prominent users of
technology. Yet, when learning that parents that are involved
in the technology industry, such as Steve Jobs limit their own
children in their usage of technology [@creators;@jobs-ipad], it can
come as a surprise to us. We should consider how we allow our children
to use technology and make use of the freedoms it already provides and
will seemingly continue to provide [@parenting], perhaps to an even
greater extent. For governments attempting to promote ethical
behaviour and enforce laws, attempted regulation of the freedoms that
the internet provides may be fruitless or may have to be so draconian,
as is visible in China [@bbc-moderation], that these very regulations
are perhaps themselves deeply unethical. Thus, governments should
consider instead promoting education on the use of technology.

Thus the internet offers freedom of speech that is closer to absolute
freedom of speech than it would otherwise be in society. Although
there do remain many limitations and potential for limitations, people
remain keen to circumvent or prevent these limitations through
technology and to limit freedom of speech is far more difficult than
it would be without the internet. Thus we must reconsider what freedom
of speech means. The internet gives it to us in a more genuine sense
than may be present otherwise, and will likely continue to do so. Thus
by reconsidering the nature of freedom of speech we can act
accordingly and encourage use of the internet in a useful, productive,
safe, and ethical way, particularly for young people. The limits of
freedom of speech, are now set by the nature of the internet itself,
and thereby by us. The true consideration is how much we value freedom
of speech, as we can use the internet to further it as we have been
and truly use it for the betterment of freedom for humanity.


# References and bibliography