The Business of Anti-Hate Speech in the Social Media

There was a time when both advertising and business dictated the tastes and even social mores of their consumer base. However, in more recent years, the conventions and characteristics of the consumer is now forcing companies to change how they do business.  While they are dealing with a society that is divided in terms of diversity and inclusion, the truth of the matter is that we are progressing towards what former President George H.W. Bush alluded to in his 1988 speech, as a ‘kinder and gentler” nation.

The bottom line is that society is changing and the two camps seem firmly entrenched in their way.  While the division is palatable, the United States is rapidly becoming the nation that no longer tolerates intolerance.  In this way, the new order of diversity is causing the business world to adapt. Where it gets interesting is when personal and ethical mores interact with business.  The society of yore that was moved by trends is now setting the trends.  In modern times this is no more exemplified than in how the tech world has responded to protecting their business interests, by speaking out against and eradicating “hate speech” in social media.

A First Amendment Issue or Good Business?

While many argue that it is their 1st Amendment right to vent anger towards another group, tech giants such as Twitter, Facebook, Google and Microsoft do not agree.  As far back as 2013, both Twitter and Facebook were put in a position to re-examine their policies after consumer complaints, later followed by lawsuits, forced the tech companies to crack down on hate speech that littered their social platforms. They are in the unique position to strike a balance between protecting their users from inappropriate content and protecting the freedom of expression for those who use their services. 

Although the argument on the perimeters of the detailed meaning of First Amendment rights could go on for days, the truth of the matter is that the Constitution does not allow for destructive speech and violence towards an individual or a particular group.  It does not protect the advocacy of violence and hatred. In this regard, the social media companies are correct when they side with policing their platform to be creative and welcoming online communities.  Much of this shift came about when Facebook was called to respond with action as the rise of groups that promoted violence and hateful rhetoric toward women became more and more commonplace. The content posted in one of these groups depicted women who were tied, drugged, beaten and raped.  Needless to say, this impacted the revenue stream when companies such as Dove, who promotes women’s empowerment and self-esteem, pulled their advertisements from the site until the content was removed.  Many other companies followed suit and Facebook who initially balked at changing their content policies, decided to ultimately take a stand against similar content.  This caused uproar with First Amendment advocates who decried the social media giants move as caving to the politically correct fringe element within American society.

However, the social media platforms are actually in the right.  Addressing the need to clean up social media, much in the way Wyatt Earp cleaned up Dodge City, is not only what is best for business, but demonstrates a responsible approach to a very powerful tool. Their stance does not violate the First Amendment, as hate speech and the advocating of violence is not protected under the Constitution.

The Business of Constructive Speech

The First Amendment is in place to protect the citizens of the United States from government encroachment. It is a contract between the U.S. Government and its people, not criteria for how social media conducts its business.  The argument can be made that the social media companies are well within their right, and ultimately their responsibility to address the alarming rate of violence and hate speech that has proliferated on their platforms.

Here is the 1st Amendment in its entirety; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The language used within law and in particular contracts, is very specific and germane to the perimeters it describes within that law and or contract  It does not offer blanket coverage for other situations.  Unfortunately, as with much in the American language, the meaning of the phrase “Congress shall make no law”, seems to have been elasticized beyond its original intent.  

The International Factor

As the debate rages on, the bottom line will dictate how companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter conduct their policies as to which content is considered appropriate.  The advertisers are listening to their consumers and the consumers are not interested in having their social media littered with vile and anti-social content.  What will prove interesting is that with the increase of social media at the international level, how the tech companies are going to solve these issues with free-speech laws that may or may not be as strict as they are here in the United States.

The big four, Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft Corp. are committed to addressing this issue head on by joining forces with the European Union to combat the use of social media by terrorists.  Terrorist organizations, including those responsible for the recent attacks in Paris and Brussels are tech savvy and use the internet to not only communicate, but spread their ethos of violence and destruction as a means of recruitment.  As this problem is continually being evaluated, it simply might not come down to protecting commerce.   While the task of achieving the balance between freedom of expression and eradicating hate speech is important, the real issue may ultimately come down to one of public safety.  If this is the case, then the charge of the tech companies will be one of a greater scope, and that is not the protection of their bottom line, but the protection of civilization on a global scale.