French Politician Wants Twitter To Help Censor Speech

from the this-is-a-problem dept

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community. Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis. While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Glenn Greenwald recently wrote a wonderful post about a journalist's "praise" for a call by Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, a French politician, for Twitter to take responsibility for "hateful tweets" which are "illegal." I'll be doing another post specific to Greenwald's post, but for this one I just want to focus on the part he glossed over: that a French politician is calling for Twitter "to take steps to help prosecute" tweets that France feels are illegal. This is horrifying for a number of reasons, but let's cover one that Greenwald doesn't touch: the idea that a company providing a platform that encourages free speech around the globe should somehow then be responsible for regulating the speech to the point ofagainst people seems immensely troubling. If someone said something illegal, let law enforcement investigate and handle it. Putting that responsibility on a company is dangerous, and leads to massive censorship. That is the very basis of the Great Firewall of China. The government there has made it clear to ISPs there that they might be held liable if they don't "help" make sure that "bad stuff" online doesn't see the light of day. The response is to overblock, just to be "safe."Somehow, well meaning people seem to think that "bad" speech is just obvious. But it's not. Speech is speech, and whether or not it's "good" or "bad" may very much depend on an individual's context, sense of humor, situation in life or a variety of other issues. To think that Twitter, or any company, should be in a position to make decisions about a person's ability to speak based on such amorphous concepts is a recipe for disaster -- and basically runs counter to everything that a service like Twitter is about. Vallaud-Belkacem's logic follows the standard censor's argument -- claiming that freedom of expression is important... except for speech she doesn't like.For what it's worth, I agree 100% that the tweets she's complaining about are offensive and disgusting. But to pin the blame onis to totally misplace it. It actually serves to take the focus off of those who actually posted the controversial posts, and suggest that if only we hid speech we didn't like, it would go away. That's not what happens. Instead, those who are censored tend to believe that they're being persecuted by a government (or company) that "can't handle the truth" and wants to shut them up. It doesn't encourage the ignorant to be taught why they're ignorant. It doesn't encourage important discussions on why such statements are ridiculous and offensive. Instead, it just tries to sweep everything under the rug.

Filed Under: censorship, france, hate speech, liability, najat vallaud-belkacem

Companies: twitter