List of Question to practice for our next class

 Should the right to speech be absolute?


 When do you feel that censorship should be applied to the Internet?

 Who should implement censorship? And who should monitor acceptable
behavior?

 Can people be trusted to handle an unlimited range of information and ideas
without any government intervention? If not, where should the lines be drawn?

 How do you perceive the impact of anonymity to the new ways of interacting in
the internet? Do you feel anonymity might trigger unwanted behavior? Expand

 People belonging to real world groups (communities, towns, cities, organizations,
communities etc) behave in a manner that is encouraged, accepted by the group.
When they don’t, they are expelled or punished by the same group. Do you think
the Internet shares these characteristics? Please, expand

 Should pornography be protected?


 What you think of the policies on free speech adopted by Facebook (read the
following article).

- By Richard Allan, Vice President of Policy

- People post some truly vile things on Facebook. Baseless conspiracy theories,
offensive ideas, bald-faced lies. However demeaning, polarizing or plainly false
these posts might be, the question is whether people should be allowed to
express such views. Do posts like these constitute free expression or should
they be erased entirely?
- Governments around the world face similar challenges and the laws that define
their values run the spectrum. Many European countries encourage expression
but have laws against hate speech, while the US holds firmly to the ideal that free
speech is a constitutional right that the government should not interfere with. And
in dictatorial or authoritarian regimes, any sort offensive or simply oppositional
speech is often forced into silence.
- Summary on Facebook policies on free speech
- Facebook is a platform for voices around the world. According to what they
state, they moderate content shared by billions of people and do so in a way that
gives free expression maximum possible range. But they list critical exceptions:
They do not, for example, allow content that could physically or financially
 endanger people, that intimidates people through hateful language, or that
aims to profit by tricking people using Facebook.
- They are also a member a global initiative that offers internet companies a
framework for applying human rights principles to their platforms. They seek
guidance in documents like Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR), which set standards for when it’s appropriate to place
restrictions on freedom of expression. ICCPR maintains that everyone has the
right to freedom of expression — and restrictions on this right are only
allowed when they are “provided by law and are necessary for: (a) the
respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) for the protection of
national security or of the public order, or of public health or morals.”
The core concept here is whether a particular restriction of speech is necessary
to prevent harm. Short of that, the ICCPR holds that speech should be allowed.
This is the same test Facebook uses to draw the line. After all, - they say - giving
everyone a voice is a positive force in the world, increasing the diversity of ideas
shared in public discourse. Whether it’s a peaceful protest in the streets, an op-
ed in a newspaper or a post on social media, free expression is key to a thriving
society. So, barring other factors, they lean toward free expression.

- Exceptions to Free Expression

- To understand what is allowed on Facebook — and why — it’s helpful to look
more closely at what is not. First is the personal harm category. Posts that
contain a credible threat of violence are perhaps the most obvious instances
where restricting speech is necessary to prevent harm. Disagreement and even
disdain are important parts of free expression, but when someone crosses the
line and calls for actual violence or makes a threat that sounds real, we take
down the post and work with the appropriate authorities when we think there’s a
high risk of physical harm.
- Hate speech too can constitute harm because it creates an environment of
intimidation and exclusion and in some cases may have dangerous offline
implications. It is perhaps one of the most challenging of our standards to enforce
because determining whether something is hate speech is so dependent on the
context in which it is shared. Even in countries where there are very detailed laws
about hate speech, like Germany, there is disagreement.
- The Right to Say Something That’s Not True
- It’s important to note that whether or not a Facebook post is accurate is not itself
a reason to block it. Human rights law extends the same right to expression to
those who wish to claim that the world is flat as to those who state that it is round
— and so does Facebook. It may be the case that false content breaks our other
rules — but not always. And rather than blocking content for being untrue,
we demote posts in the News Feed when rated false by fact-checkers and also
point people to accurate articles on the same subject.
- We also adapt our policies when necessary. Just last month, we made a change
to our policy when it became clear that our existing policies didn’t go far enough
 to defend against imminent violence or physical harm provoked by
misinformation. We’ve started working with independent organizations who flag
fake news and rumors that will likely have violent, real-world consequences. We
then assess their report and take down the post.
- Grounded in Core Principles
- Trying to piece together a framework for speech that works for everyone — and
making sure we effectively enforce that framework — is challenging. But as we
make clear in our Community Standards, every policy we have is grounded in
three core principles: giving people a voice, keeping people safe, and treating
people equitably. The frustrations we hear about our policies — outside and
internally as well — come from the inevitable tension between these three
principles.