Freedom of Speech: Us vs. Them

As an American, when I think "freedom of speech," I think "absolute right," but not all countries see it that way. Many foreigners are shocked to hear the lengths The U.S. Government goes to protect "hate speech" or "bad ideas"(1). We feel that the Internet, being the greatest avenue for free speech, should have the greatest protection, but does the rest of the world feel that way? As worldwide communication grows, so does the debate over how much freedom speech really deserves, espically on the Internet. The fairly recent invention of youtube.com has turned into a media phenomenon, and as its popularity emerges so do conflicting ideas about their responsibility. Should Youtube enforce American values of freedom of speech or should the website pay more attention to diverse cultural sensitivities? (2)

Youtube, a video sharing website, was created in 2005 by Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim. Chen and Karim studied computer science together at our very own U of I (impressive to say the least). After almost immediate success, Google bought the website for about $1.65 billion in stock. Youtube is growing every day, and people all over the world can access this site. Countries such as Spain, Poland, Japan, and Brazil have localized versions and those are only a few of them(3). But with this worldwide popularity, comes worldwide conflict. Some of the videos posted offend people from other countries and they feel that offensive videos shouldn't be allowed on the site, but the American interpretation of freedom of speech allows these videos.

Thanks to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Americans can criticize their government officials (as long as actual malice isn't present); we protect offensive and false speech to ensure that our debate is uninhibited, robust, and wide open (4). If speech is going to be truly free, we are going to have to protect the good and the bad. Freedom of speech is defined as a "part of American culture, resulting from our own history and experience"(1). The values of American society are based upon the fact that we are free to express ourselves.

On the other hand, some countries don't want to protect all speech. Germany is a good example. As a nation trying to combat the horrific legacy of Nazism and the Holocaust, they obviously don't tolerate any form of "hate speech," any display of Nazi symbols, or any advocacy of genocide. European nations that that were victims of the Nazi regime probably feel the same way (1). Another example is the Turkish government who, just yesterday, decided they should change a controversial law restricting freedom of expression. Currently Article 301, bans perceived insults to Turkish identity or the country's institutions. The main victims of this law are Turkish nationalists who argue hat the Ottoman empire committed genocide against Armenians (5). It's clear that countries all over the world, for one reason or another, aren't as avid fans of freedom of speech

When I came across Veena Thoopkrajae's article Learn a lesson in free speech with YouTube, It opened my eyes to how other countries view freedom of speech and how Youtube challenges their beliefs. The article discusses "how the Thai government has blamed YouTube for violating the rights of Thai people by 'knowingly' allowing offensive videos on their site" (2). The author states that, "Freedom of speech is universal but, as it states in the constitutions of various countries including Thailand, it is not an absolute right, although a fundamental one"(2). At this point our difference of opinions became very clear, and then the author goes on to say that "insulting anyone - not necessarily a prophet, pope or a country's leader - or making false accusations against them does not fall under free speech by any country's legal standard"(2). At that point, I truly saw the conflict that Youtube creates.

In America, where the company was born, insults and false accusations do fall under the legal standard for protected speech, but since this website is accessed by people all over the world, they risk violating the rights of their foreign customers. So "where is the balance between the rights of various parties in cyberspace when your website is accessible around the world?"(2)

I don't really know the answer to that question considering its complexity, but websites like Youtube are changing the world and with the globalization of Youtube might come the globalization of true freedom of speech...all I know is that the only constant is change.



Sources:
1.) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1000263
2.)http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/09/01/opinion/opinion_30047344.php
3.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube
4.)http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=376&invol=254
5.)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7081747.stm