Bad week for free speech on social media

If you want to get promoted, laugh at the boss’s jokes

by Kate Southam

110
Need someone to do your dirty work? Try God.

by Tory Shepherd

210
Gina Rinehart’s the least interesting thing on this list

by Lucy Kippist

310
I’ve rocked out of my generation’s la-la-loop

by Jason Tin

410
Punch on: Open thread 24/05/2012

by Daniel Piotrowski

510
If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

by Anthony Sharwood

610
Schapelle has done her time

by Daniel Piotrowski

710
Do women need to know when to walk away?

by The Punch Team

810
Who murdered the Arts degree?

by Lucy Kippist

910
Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself

by Tory Shepherd

1010

by Nic Christensen

09 Feb 05:40am

Must Reads

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

Schapelle has done her time

158

Do women need to know when to walk away?

Filed under: Censorship, Internet, Online, Politics, Social Media

12 comments

We’re often keen to highlight the democratic benefits of social media, especially in bringing greater openness to a country such as Iran.

Some of the 1000-plus comments on the AdelaideNow site about the demand for suburbs and postcodes on readers' election comments.

But this week, in Australia, we’ve seen a debate over online political censorship, with the banning of Facebook groups such as “KEVIN RUDD = EPIC FAIL”, that it makes you wonder if we’ve forgotten that the power of social media lies in its ability to embrace dissent and criticism.

In the online world, dissent is not just allowed. It is central to social media’s political power.

This week has not been a good week for online political speech. On Tuesday we brought you the story of how the South Australian Government had sought to require online commenters to given their name and suburb.

On Wednesday we told you about Facebook’s decision to take down the group called “Kevin Rudd = EPIC FAIL”, which had over 3000 members and focused on building a list what it described as Kevin Rudd’s broken promises.

The latest update on that story is that Facebook has told News.com.au that the group was shut down due a threat of violence being posted on the Facebook group.

Now, we can all agree that threats of violence, be they online or otherwise, are outside the realm of acceptable behaviour. And clearly any user posting any such comments has breached the Facebook Terms of Use as well as our wider societal values that are inherent in any democracy.

But should the comments of an individual or even a couple of individuals making unacceptable comments lead to the closure of the entire group that had thousands of members?

Surely, a more appropriate response by Facebook, or any other social media site, is to terminate the user’s account rather than the entire group.

Otherwise, there is the risk that you undermine the basic tenets of social media that make it so powerful.

Now a number of our readers sought to highlight in response to the earlier article, that sites like Facebook and The Punch are a commercial enterprises that can publish what they want and censor what they like.

This is true, but its important to remember that what makes a successful social media site attractive, and thus commercially viable, is that it provides a place for free and open social interaction.

For example, here at The Punch we post critical comments on a daily basis.

(At this point I’d like to give a special shout-out to the gentleman who criticised my decision not to grill the PM’s office on what they knew about the Facebook group, when they knew it and whether they approached someone else to ask for its removal…)

The point is, that in any social media environment it is beneficial to take on and even embrace the criticism.

Some readers also suggested that if people wanted their own freedom of expression then they could do so easily, setting up their own websites.

While this is true that and a viable avenue for anyone to take, what you lose, in doing so, is the wider interaction that a social media website like Facebook offers.

Partly, it is about having the online political discussion, the good and bad, the for and against, out there for everyone to see but there is another element to social media as well, it’s called identity.

While people might not like or agree with sites like “KEVIN RUDD = EPIC FAIL” or “TONY ABBOTT IS A TOSSER” these groups form a key part of people’s online public identity.

When you log on to someone’s Facebook profile their groups tell part of the story of who they are and what they believe.

Limiting this censors not just political speech but the political power of social media.

If you want to engage more people in the political process social media will over the coming years play a key part in that – just look at Barack Obama’s election campaign.

If political groups are censored, because of comments from a few individuals, then social media loses a rich and growing element and thus the chance to better communicate with and engage people in the political conversation.

While groups like “KEVIN RUDD = EPIC FAIL” may or may not be correct or popular, but the point censorship ensures sites like Facebook are merely about the trivialities of life i.e. becoming a fan of “alarm… SNOOZE, alarm… SNOOZE… oh no…”

Given the political power of such groups wouldn’t that be a shame? Maybe we should ask the Iranians…

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Share post:
Print page:
- Print Article

Most commented

418Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself

353"Gifting", "journey" and other words we hate

311Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking

262Who murdered the Arts degree?

246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...

231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

230South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.

224The most laughable, err, spoof since Einfeld

12 comments

Show oldest | newest first

- K says:
  
  06:01am | 09/02/10
  
  Great article, Nic. What’s the solution to our little problem, though? I mean, here we have a “leader” who we know has a desire for censorship (he speaks Mandarin… does anyone else see the link there…?) and doesn’t actually appear to do anything constructive for the country… he certainly doesn’t fullfil his promises. My solution - goodbye “Kevin-not-again in 2010”.
  
  Reply
- Steve Parker says:
  
  06:18am | 09/02/10
  
  As I quoted Lenny Bruce last week in regard to internet censorship in South Australia:
  
  “When you take away the right to say f##k - you take away the right to say f##k the Government”.
  
  Reply
- Eric says:
  
  07:43am | 09/02/10
  
  Ah the joys of free speech and democracy.
  
  Reply
- BJ says:
  
  07:45am | 09/02/10
  
  I wish I’d known about the fail group I would have joined it.
  
  Reply
- Zeta says:
  
  08:55am | 09/02/10
  
  I think a mountain is being made out of a mole hill. Comparing the KRudd = Epic Fail fiasco or Atkinson’s stupidity to anything Iranian or Chinese dissidents have to go through is pretty ridiculous.
  
  These things are mistakes made by risk adverse corporations, and stupid politicians. They’re not real censorship. Eventually, both mistakes will be rectified, as I have no doubt the internet filter will be when it drops off the Government’s radar due to the potential for negative blow back.
  
  Facebook, and the comments pages on newspapers, are not the front line of internet activism. They’re toys for bored teenagers and cubicle drones. Genuine dissent, from people with something genuine to dissent from, is being played out on anonymous networks like Tor, six / four and FreeNet. It’s difficult, requires a high level of technical competency, and the stakes are incredibly high.
  
  If your Facebook group is banned, you’re barely inconvenienced. Just mildly annoyed. But if an Iranian dissident has their anonymous network compromised, they risk imprisonment, torture and possibly execution depending on what kind of dissent they were planning.
  
  Reply
- DG says:
  
  09:16am | 09/02/10
  
  Why do we feel the need to hold up FACEBOOK as the last bastion of free speech? It is a private company, it can prevent whoever it wants from accessing it’s hardware whenever it wants, for whatever reason it wants.
  
  I appreciate that you acknowledge this but I thought it worth repeating because: People need to get over their sense of entitlement.
  
  If you want to rely on someone else you are subject to their whim, just as this post is the subject of the whim of moderators at The Punch.
  
  If you want to express your opinion online - buy a domain name, a server and go for it. Even better start your own “website” that allows interested people to participate in discussions about this and that political issue. See how many hits you get. My bet - not many.
  
  “... what makes a successful social media site attractive, and thus commercially viable, is that it provides a place for free and open social interaction.”
  
  I would disagree - what makes FACEBOOK popular is that “everyone else is doing it”, it’s free and basically you can have as much or as little interaction with people as you want. i.e it fits the need to be able to contact any one at any time and instant gratification.
  
  Applications (read games), the capacity to share photos and to catch up with old friends are, for many users, far more important than the capacity to blow off steam about this or that politician.
  
  People who are out to debate politics tend to access sites like this one - where they can express an opinion and have it debated. Social networking sites make their money from advertising and selling the data collected from users. How does a group about a politician affect this endeavour?
  
  That is, how many FACEBOOK users terminated their accounts because of this decision? I’m guessing - ZERO. because people would rather have access to their friends than stand on the issue of being able to have a group about some political point scoring.
  
  Personally - I would rather keep my social networking free of politics. I do not want my online persona being bombarded with political interest groups seeking my support any more than I want to be mugged by political interest groups in the supermarket.
  
  Reply
- COF says:
  
  09:57am | 09/02/10
  
  I’m trying to understand what you’re getting at DG - if people wish to network socially according to their political beliefs, why shouldn’t they be able to? Why should it be censored? Its the censorship that is the issue, not the practicality of political networking via Facebook.
  
  “People should get over their sense of entitlement.” Entitlement to what? I think people should be free from other people who feel it is their entitlement to rule in this country, to control their lives without reproach. Politicians are people, no smarter than you or I, the only obvious difference being they have a strong desire for power. Why shouldn’t they be made accountable for what they do? This is an exercise in eroding that accountability and it should be stopped.
  
  PS Have a look at Atkinson’s excuse for proposing his blogging law in South Australia.
  
  http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/in-depth/labor-gags-internet-debate/story-fn2sdwup-1225825708827
  
  Seriously, I haven’t seen a bigger infant in a position of power in this country for a while. For all those people in the electorate of Croydon, please vote against this fool.
  
  Reply
- DG says:
  
  10:36am | 09/02/10
  
  Firstly, I agree with your point on Atkinson.
  
  I also agree with your point about our elected representatives using their power to suppress opposition and criticism.
  
  I completely agree that making a person disclose their identity was intended to control debate by holding people socially responsible for their comments (interestingly, joining a group in facebook gives your personal link to the group which is little different to giving your name and suburb to a post on a forum).
  
  My point was that if people want to enter into political debates they should do so in forums that are intended for that purpose (such as this one) rather than demanding the right to do so on social networking sites. I have no problem with people using FACEBOOK to create political groups or networks, but I appreciate that they do so at the whim of the owner of the hardware.
  
  I’m simply saying that FACEBOOK should be able to remove anything from their servers for any reason whatsoever.
  
  This is hardly the feared 1984 (or Iranian) style censorship. If they were an elected representative using their power to control dissent against their own actions I would have an issue but this is a private issue between a private company and its clients.
  
  Even if Facebook were deleting criticism’s about themselves I would have no issue - they are still private rather than a democratically elected representative.
  
  The sense of entitlement that I was referring to was the one that suggests that facebook should have left the post up because failing to do so denies the right to free speech. The entitlement to use someone else property to say what you want. This is the same sense of entitlement as that possessed by those that put up bill posters on other peoples property or graffiti train stations with political slogans. Again, I agree that people should be free from Government censorship - but this is hardly the same as en entitlement to use FACEBOOK to post your political ideology.
  
  Having said all of the above - any politician that doesn’t try to control the negative press about themselves is, in my humble opinion, to stupid to run a country. If they can’t lie to protect their own interests, how are they going to protect national interests?
  
  Reply
- Jasper says:
  
  03:37pm | 09/02/10
  
  It is not censorship to ask people to stand for behind their opinions, if you stop and think about it, it could actually benefit the standard of political debate on the internet.
  
  I have lost count of the number of threads I have read that have devolved into disrespectful insults and invective, which make it impossible to actually SAY anything. You can still have the ability to say “f*** the government” as this debate is not about the use of swearing, but all too often comments on the internet skirt uncomfortably close to uninformed slander.
  
  If people were asked to stand behind their opinions, they might actually stop and think about what they are trying to say.
  
  Reply
- JT says:
  
  04:10pm | 09/02/10
  
  Its not censorship if a private organisation has rules about what it will or won’t publish. This is true, IMHO, whether the organisation is facebook, News Ltd or whoever.
  
  Imagine that I have a soapbox and I invite people to stand on it and say whats on their mind (or a blog if you prefer). The soapbox is mine and I might decide that, if you want to stand on it and say your piece then you have to agree with me. If you say something I don’t like I might sulk and take my soapbox and go home. Of course this doesn’t prevent you from climbing on someone else’s soapbox and continuing to say your piece. so its not censorship (although it might be very petty I grant you)
  
  The same is true even if the soapbox is owned by a company, or even if its a newspaper or a blog or facebook.
  
  It becomes censorship when the Government makes it illegal to express your views regardless of how (often implemented by owning the media)
  
  Was Atkinson’s brainfade really censorship. He didn’t try to stop people from saying whatever they wanted, just from saying it anonymously yes, he hoped that would stop people from saying some things, but if you put your name and postcode in the box you could say anything you wanted (subject to the blog owner’s rules). It was, IMHO, a stupid thing to do but thats a different issue - it was hot in SA that week, I think old Mick had been in the sun too long.
  
  Jasper has a point, though, if people had to stand behind their opinions, they might think a bit harder about them and we might see a better quality of debate, or maybe not.
  
  Reply
- E says:
  
  05:41pm | 09/02/10
  
  Requiring a name and address is contrary to the concept of free speech since anonymity can give people the courage to speak without fear of favor. Including about their employers or governments.
  
  Reply
- COF says:
  
  10:09am | 10/02/10
  
  “It is not censorship to ask people to stand for behind their opinions, if you stop and think about it, it could actually benefit the standard of political debate on the internet.”
  
  Jasper (and JT for that matter), read between the lines. Atkinson didn’t do this so that he can set up a blogging utopia, where everyone is well mannered and agrees with each other, it is a veiled but direct threat against people who dissent. My previous blog post in this subject gives a shortcut to AdelaideNow (a news website) where Atkinson gives a scathing opinion of the bloggers on that site.
  
  People blog anonymously because they have strong opinions, sometimes incendiary opinions, that are worth presenting. By being anonymous they can express their opinion without exposing their private life. Some may call it cowardly if it suits them to do so, but I don’t think a fear of reprisal for self expression is terribly cowardly. What is cowardly is using a position of power to assert your opinion and silence others. I don’t think anything is cowardly when you are powerless.
  
  A true dialectic debate does not silence anyone, otherwise something will get missed, and the wrong actions will be taken. Read some Hegel.
  
  JT, this is not the first time this bloke has stood in the way of common sense communication policy (re R18+ rating). Hot day or cold day, he is nothing short of a terrible politician, and I am happy to tell him to his face.
  
  Reply