531845412.

docx

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology: Division of Humanities, Center for
Language Education
HUMA 1000: Cultures and Values: Cover sheet for final essay
Full name FANG Zihang
Student ID 20677562
Writing workshop section number T1O
Writing workshop instructor Levi LAM
Essay prompt (please copy and paste from Some people argue that social media
the document on Canvas) companies are obligated to restrict or
censor speech on their platforms that
breaks no laws but may cause offence or
controversy. What is your moral position in
this debate?

Declaration: The attached essay represents my own work. I have read and understood the
University’s policies on academic honesty, and I confirm that the attached work conforms to
these policies.
Please type your name: FANG Zihang
Response to feedback (25%): List all the revisions you made to respond to all the entries in
the 'items requiring major attention' in the feedback table returned with your draft essay.
Or give reasons below if you decided not to respond to any feedback.
1. [adding the citation of my introduction] “…, some people accuse social media
companies of not fulfilling their responsibility to filter on the platforms the speeches that
are perceived as controversy or offence to some groups (Koetsier, 2020)”
2. [deleted for it is unnecessary] “Significant counterargument defending the necessity for
companies to censor controversial speeches will also be discussed and refuted.”after
deleting not harming my structure and arguments.
3. all places containing “, etc.” have been reconsidered whether it is necessary and
revised.
4. [New Ideas in conclusion deleted] “Although the censoring still finds its wide existence
in countries like China, the article may still add insights to the ideal patterns of expression
on social media in the future, which should be pursed and maintained by the social media
companies.”unnecessary to include and can be deleted without harming my arguments.
5. [more clarity] “Therefore, if user-A harbours the idea to silence others via companies’
censoring on offensive speeches, he or she should bear the consequence that maxims
referenced by themselves could be applied inversely; ……….should be restricted on social
media.”Therefore, if one perceives the offensive speeches should be banned by social
media companies, he or she must assure their speeches are free of offence or be willing to
bear the implication that his or her expressions would be restricted for its possible
offensiveness or controversy as well
6. [More clarity] “Second, since dissidence never disappear, it is implausible for companies
1
 531845412.docx

to distinguish whether a speech is controversial or not, bearing the stakes of losing web
users. Debating on one controversial topic, if companies restricting on either one side of
the stance, the camp adhering to the opposing view would possibly quit this social media
platform and turn to other platforms to utter. Thus, given the temporal limitations and
pragmatic interests, it is difficult for companies to censor or restrict the speeches on social
media when breaching no law.”replaced by: “Same thing applied to the sex pertinent
topics which are unimaginable to talk publicly many decades ago. In China after opening-
up policy in 1980s, increasing adolescents and parents show more positive attitude
towards education of sex at school (Lyu, 2020). Netizens on Weibo begin to advocate that
we do not have to be shameful about speaking of condom usage, sanitary napkins which
are as common as diet and breath. Thus, given the temporal limitations and evolving
perceptions, it is difficult for companies to censor or restrict the possibly offensive
speeches on social media when breaching no law”.
Write your essay below:
Social media companies have enjoyed unprecedented proliferation and prosperity
nowadays, thanks to which majority of people can enjoy access to diversified social media,
giving rise to the spilling of pluralistic speeches on social media platforms, such as Facebook,
Instagram, Weibo. While the majority are obtaining pleasure from this explosion of
information and swift exchange of ideas, some people accuse social media companies of not
fulfilling their responsibility to filter on the platforms the speeches that are perceived as
controversy or offence to some groups (Koetsier, 2020). This essay, nonetheless, will argue
that social media companies should not be obligated to restrict or censor on the possibly
controversial or offensive speeches on both pragmatic and moral grounds: first, given the
perception’s limitations by times and widely existent disunity, it is difficult for companies to
discern what is truly controversial; second, censoring speeches, or limiting freedom of
expression stands lame under categorical imperative theory and market for ideas theory.
Social media companies are difficult to distinguish if a speech is controversial or offensive,
given the limitation of times they live in. First, a justifiable statement is that what used to be
offensive might turn neutral or even to be encouraged to speak of with time passing by.
Same-sex marriage (SSM) for instance was perceived as a highly controversial topic and
even a pathology in various regions, but last two decades have witnessed a substantial
improvement respecting the same-sex relationship. Netherlands in 2001 was the first to
legalize the SSM, and in 2004 Massachusetts flagged the first state in U.S. to legally
recognize the SSM, the Supreme Court followed 12 years later (Sansone, 2019). This
legalization trend across the world embodies that multiplying groups of people have
become more acceptable to the SSM, the topic that used to be controversial, unspeakable
but now is as normal as heterosexual marriage. Same thing applied to the sex pertinent
topics which are unimaginable to talk publicly many decades ago. In China after opening-up
policy in 1980s, increasing adolescents and parents show more positive attitude towards
education of sex at school (Lyu, 2020). Netizens on Weibo begin to advocate that we do not
have to be shameful about speaking of condom usage, sanitary napkins which are as
common as diet and breath. Thus, given the temporal limitations and evolving perceptions,
it is difficult for companies to censor or restrict the possibly offensive speeches on social
media when breaching no law.

2
 531845412.docx

Restricting speeches for they might be controversial to some people is either immoral
according to categorical imperative or irrational pursuant to freedom of speech (Nam, 2020;
Breton & Wintrobe, 1992). People appealing for censoring speeches offensive to them treat
others who think otherwise as a mere means to cater for their own demands. As civilized
human beings however, it is reminded by Kant that we ought to treat others always as
“ends in themselves” and the moral judgements established should be obeyed
unexceptionally (Nam, 2020). Therefore, if one perceives the offensive speeches should be
banned by social media companies, he or she must assure their speeches are free of offence
or be willing to bear the implication that his or her expressions would be restricted for its
possible offensiveness or controversy as well. But since not majority of people surfing the
internet opt for self-speaking, social media users are morally justifiable to voice and
exchange thoughts on their wills unless law is offended. Moreover, defying companies to
censor speeches can contribute to “market for ideas” (Breton & Wintrobe, 1992) as well, a
public platform where pluralistic ideas clash, getting the truth per se recognized widely by
competitive debating (Sung & Douai, 2012). Since it is hard for groups of divergent opinions
to unilaterally decide where the truth lies, debates on social media is a pragmatically
efficacious means to convey information from one camp and other, which could either be
conducive to the possible unveiling of truth or enrich the knowledge of social media users
not initially involved in the controversy. Hence, from the perspectives of categorical
imperative and freedom of speech, it is morally unjustifiable for companies to censor
controversial speeches.
Though with many justifications to oppose censoring, some may still deplore social media
platforms for giving the leeway of disseminating hate speeches or engendering
cyberviolence, hence arguing the obligation for companies to filter the cyberspace. A recent
meta-analysis (Castaño-Pulgarín et al., 2021) even suggests that cyberhate seems to be
exacerbated by internet and social media. Nonetheless, using these as excuse for censoring
online speeches is problematic. First, internet space did give space for some egregious ideas
to grow and disperse though, speeches of this kind will be redressed by law. Speech
jeopardizing the national security, posing immediate threats will not be protected under the
First Amendment in U.S. (Sung & Douai, 2012). Extremely nonsense defamation on personal
identity could be sued according to the PRC Civil Code on Personality right (The NPC, 2020).
Second, even though the social media has contributed to the cyberviolence, censoring on
social media’s controversial speeches have not been proved as genuinely effective in
reducing the cyberviolence as well despite some limited short-term effects. Conversely,
restrictive regulations within the social media platforms will further aggravate the “online
hate”, making for “dark pools” where people with similar abhorrent ideas may get together
without debating with the opposite views and thus changing standpoints (Johnson, N. F., et
al., 2019). The abovementioned two arguments, therefore, reveal that the internet does
give rise to some downsides though, it is insufficient for companies to censor possibly
offensive speeches which either can be tackled legally or will further retrograde
cyberenvironment.
To conclude, social media companies censoring or restricting the speeches possibly
controversial or offensive to some people may have some immediate effects on repressing
the online verbal assailants, it is in the long run, neither pragmatic in discerning what is
genuinely controversial nor morally justifiable in limiting the free expression, nor effective in
solving the cyberviolence problem for companies to restrict expression when no law is
3
 531845412.docx

breached. (999
words)
References:

Breton, A. & Wintrobe, R. (1992). Freedom of speech vs. efficient regulation in markets of ideas.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 17(2), 217-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-
2681(92)90002-S

Castaño-Pulgarín, S. A., Suárez-Betancur, N., Vega, L. M. T. & López, H. M. H. (2021). Internet, social
media and online hate speech: Systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 58, 101608.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2021.101608

Johnson, N. F., Leahy, R., Restrepo, N. J., Velasquez, N., Zheng, M., Manrique, P., Devkota, P., &
Wuchty, S. (2019). Hidden resilience and adaptive dynamics of the global online hate ecology.
Nature, 573(7773), 261–265. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1494-7

Koetsier, J. (2020). Social censorship: Should social media’s policy be free speech? Forbes. Retrieved
on 6 May 2021 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/10/25/social-censorship-
should-social-medias-policy-be-free-speech/?sh=4ab97279489a

Lyu, J., Shen, X. & Hesketh, T. (2020). Sexual knowledge, attitudes and behaviours among
undergraduate students in China—Implications for sex education. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186716

Nam, S. L. (2020). Categorical Imperative in Kantianism. Lecture notes. Retrieved 14 Apr 2021 from
https://canvas.ust.hk/courses/36563/pages/milos-ppt-script-and-readings 2b?
module_item_id=584072.

Sansone, D. (2019). Pink work: Same-sex marriage, employment and discrimination. Journal of Public
Economics, 180, 104086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2019.104086

Sung, W. K. & Douai, A. (2012). Google vs. China’s “Great Firewall”: Ethical implications fro free
speech and sovereignty. Technology in Society, 34(2), 174-181.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2012.02.002

The National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China. (28 May 2020). People’s Republic
of China’s Civil Code. Retrieved 15 Apr 2021 from
http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c30834/202006/75ba6483b8344591abd07917e1d25cc8.shtml