Street-Porter, Janet. "Anti-social truth about these social networkers. " Daily Mail 8 Mar. 2010, ProQuest Newsstand, ProQuest. Web. 27 May. 2010.
http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.ulib.iupui.edu/pqdweb?index=3&did=1977964231&SrchMode=1&sid=5&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1275010485&clientId=13225
We all know how popular social networking sites, like Facebook, are for young adults in the United States. British youth are just as interested, but internet bullying is becoming an issue that Britain wants to get under control. The big question is where is the line between safety and censorship?
The Daily Mail in Britain discusses the negative aspects of Facebook on their youth. Many instances of teen suicide have been linked to bullying over the internet. Gangs have been known to post threats to other gangs with graphic pictures of artillery. Britain is also worried about the relationship between students and teachers because of the postings of some students, as well as, other ‘perfectly innocent” people being labeled without knowing on social networking sites.
The US has experienced many of the above situations, therefore is in the same predicament as Britain.
So what is the answer? In Italy, Google employees were punished for allowing a video showing bullying to remain viewable for over two months. Google employees believe the punishment of the employees in Italy “poses a grave threat to the freedom of internet users”.
Are Google or other internet employees responsible for what others post? Would removing posts be censorship if it was a video of bullying among children or other law breaking acts? Are internet employees required to report this type of information to officials?
I think I have more questions now than I did before reading this article…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think there's any question that scrubbing Facebook of all "bullying" videos qualifies as censorship. I also think it's very easy to go overboard with the policing of people's expression on the internet. In my opinion it's unreasonable to expect a site like Facebook to be able to police what countless millions of people put on it.
ReplyDeleteIt also doesn't surprise me that it's European countries considering such draconian reactions to internet bullying. In general, I think European governments have this problem of frequently overstepping the boundaries of freedom of expression, whether in terms of speech on the internet or religious practice. I guess there are a lot of reasons why that may be the case, but I do think this tendency to go straight to criminalizing bullying comes from the same place as burqa bans.
I agree that Facebook, Google, and their employees should try to be aware of what’s going on within their sites, but I have to also agree that it’s unreasonable to expect a site the size of Facebook to be able to control the posts it receives.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious to know what happened to holding a person responsible for his or her own actions. If someone posts a felony crime being committed on YouTube, do we then blame YouTube for the next person who commits a copycat of the crime? YouTube made me do it! We sensationalize all types of crimes day in, day out (think “Law & Order” or “Criminal Minds” for specific examples) but I sure hope we don’t start charging the producers of those shows if someone copycats the crimes seen.
It's obviously a difficult situation. On one hand, yes, it would be censorship to remove the posts; but on the other, if it is posing a danger to someone, something should be done. If the video is of an actual act of (illegal) cruelty, then I do think it should be removed, with legal action taken.
ReplyDeleteI also questioned if the person(s) committing the act in the videos where given consequences. I sure would hope so!!!
ReplyDeleteI should probably clarify what I mean by "illegal cruelty." I mean physical violence, essentially. If it's name calling, then... while this can certainly be cruel and bullying, it isn't illegal.
ReplyDeleteJanuary,
ReplyDeleteYour post and the discussions have been so interesting for this blog post. I don't think it's fair to expect Facebook and Google to edit and take down these posts. I am not sure how they would be able to do such a thing. I agree that it would be a form of censorship. I think the best way to censor these types of videos is for people to stop watching them because if no one watched them, people wouldn't make and post them.
I guess that's asking too much.
Leah
I think that there could be restrictions as far as what is said about people, and intellectual freedom is still protected. Intellectual Freedom deals with ideas, and not with people. I suppose that there are exceptions when we deal with important public figures who espouse certain ideas. This could be why it is harder to win a libel or slander case if you are a well known public figure that claims to have been libeled or slandered. What we should have are stricter invasion of privacy laws.
ReplyDeleteInternet is a double edge sword with regard to intellectual freedom. On the one hand, we have greater access to more sources of information. However, I am bothered that the anonymity of communication has given irresponsible people free reign to harass and bully others. The lack of personal privacy continues to be a major concern.
ReplyDeleteTowards the end of the post you pose some interesting questions. First off I too agree that there are too many postings on social networking sites to have the employees monitor what goes up. Most of the sites have mechanisims in place where people can report images they find offensive. These reports should be reviewed and if the material is deemed to be offensive then it can be removed. Would that be censorship? Yes it would. however, the creators of the site should have made up it's own standards for the content that it will provide and has every right to modify it as they see fit. If end users don't like it they have the option of creating their own site.
ReplyDeleteI agree with James. There are way too many users, videos, and postings to go through them all. However, if there is a policy in the beginning registration that clearly states that any harmful material will be removed if it brought to the attention of the site host, then they have the right to delete the posts/videos. Many listservs (like LM_NET) have a policy against "flames" - posts that are intentionally offensive in nature. Not only do they reserve the right to remove the post, they also declare their right to end the user's subscription.
ReplyDeleteI had not even thought about the terms of agreement. These statements would allow the creator to inform the users of the rules and regulations, so it would not really be censorship.
ReplyDelete