Freedom_of_Speech_Online

It is often debated whether or not the internet should be an outlet for individuals to express freedom of speech, especially with the increasing trend of hateful and controversial content. As an example, some universities provide information technology to students and staff as a medium for free expression, whereas other universities are much more restrictive on the content that gets hosted. This essay will discuss whether it’s appropriate for universities to host web pages known to contain false or inflammatory information. It will also discuss where the distinction between freedom of expression and indecent or illegal web content should be drawn upon. In the case of universities in Canada, the restrictions placed on students and staff on whether or not they are allowed to express their ideas freely via hosted web content seems to vary from school to school. Northwestern University, which was involved in a controversy with a hosted web page regarding the holocaust, still allows web content with freedom of speech, but any controversial opinions must have a disclaimer that explains that the content does not represent the views of the school. This is in direct contrast to establishments like University of Toronto and University of Calgary, in which any hosted web content must be consistent with the respective university’s mission and academic plan. University of British Columbia, however, seems to be less strict than all of them, for its policy encourages students and staff to freely express their ideas to further education. Seeing as the listed establishments are some of the biggest universities in their respective provinces, and thusly Canada, it is evident that there is still no universal agreement on whether or not freedom of speech is allowed on hosted web pages. When it comes to hosting web pages that contain false or inflammatory information, universities can potentially place their credibility on the line. This is especially evident in Northwestern University’s policy, which is essentially “damage control” in the event that a student or teacher hosts content on their servers that is controversial. I feel this is the most favourable policy I’ve seen regarding the use of information technology, as it places responsibility specifically on the author of the content. The last thing universities desire is for someone using their servers to host something hateful and illegal while not placing a disclaimer on their site. Not only does this get the authorities involved, it also damages the reputation of the university because potential students will be shied away from what they view as a school that advocates offensive content. I believe the line between freedom of expression and indecent or illegal web content is an obvious one. There is a clear difference between expressing thoughts on a specific topic and injecting hate and slander into messages to provoke others to perform illegal or hateful activity. It all comes down to the old saying, “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.” The person uploading the content for the masses to see should be well aware of what he/she should or should not say. There is no massive 24/7 patrol inspecting what content on the internet stays or goes, but no matter what is uploaded, there will be a positive or negative response. The subject of freedom of speech on the internet is a debated topic that will never cease. There is no universal agreement on whether or not freedom of speech is viable on the internet, but I think that Northwestern University’s disclaimer policy is the best solution. Surely most human beings are capable of comprehending what is opinionated discussion and what is hate-mongering. There will never be a perfect world without widespread hate-filled websites taking advantage of freedom of speech advocacy, but I think that as the internet matures, less and less people will take freedom of speech for granted and more and more people will put it to good use.