Government Regulation of Social Media Companies

Government Regulation of Social Media Companies

Introduction

Social media companies in the US currently are facing threats of government involvement through regulation. With constant claims by the government on the possibility of the media firms being involved in terrorist incites, defamation, hate speech, and threats to public order, regulation of these companies remains a standstill option (Ruane, 2016). However, despite these allegations by the state authority, social media companies are governed by the policy of freedom of speech as stipulated in the US constitution. Therefore, unless the content is deemed harmful or violent, the regulation of social media firms remains uneventful.

According to Samples (2019), the American Law and culture, the government is vehemently opposed to regulating speech on any social media platform. Controlling social media restricts individual speech which might be geared towards helping the public or the whole country at large (Samples, 2019). The United States strongly values personal expression on the public sector hence making it difficult for regulation. Social activists also argue that there is no need for government regulation since instances of misinformation or fake news cannot be controlled. Ideally, as Allan (2017) claims, no one can contemplate or measure the extent of fake news; therefore, government regulation will tend to be complicated practically..

Likewise, the regulation of social media firms is unconstitutional in the US. Existence of freedom of speech as stipulated in the United States Constitution in the First Amendment circumscribes the government from restraining social media companies (Post, 2015). Moreover, speech is firmly safeguarded by the US Congress as well as the Supreme Court. These agencies protect social media firms against restrictions set forth by the government (Samples, 2019). They claim that there is no need for regulation if the content is not in any way illegal. The US Congress has also freed most of the technology companies from the liability of speech. Arguments put across by these agencies illuminate that it is difficult to determine what speech is prohibited or permitted. According to Samples (2019), it is hard for control since social media is only a platform for expression; therefore, it is liable for content from all corners of the country. Social media comprises of various types of people who consent to its content. First, the social media managers who host the speech, users who generate content, users who consume the content and the users who create commercial speech (Allan, 2017). Dissemination of speech among these four parties is quite a process which makes it hard if the government was to regulate.

Ruane (2016) claims that the government is entitled to control social media companies when their operations tend to compromise state security. For instance, if content produced is violent in any dimension, through extremist videos, the government is legible to apply its full authority. From a review by President Trump, he expresses his realization that Google tech is biased and limited only to political speeches (Samples, 2019). In this stance, the government may feel that such companies do not encompass total expectations the government has; therefore, its intervention may be prompt. Ruane (2016) states that social media companies may as well jeopardize a countries safety through terrorist incitement and defamation of a country’s legacy. Such exposes a state’s policies and unleashes it to outside intimidations (Samples, 2019). Likewise, when the content is harmful to the public, for instance, cases of child pornography, the government needs to intercede for the safety of the people, especially in terms of morality.

Conclusion

It is empirical for a state to understand and acknowledge the efforts put across by the social media firms. There is also a necessity to comprehend the fact that freedom of expression is integral to a healthy and thriving democracy of any state. Through this, citizens are informed as well as given a chance to present their views without fear. However, in cases of extreme state compromise by the same companies, the government may need to exercise full authority for the safety of the state. All in all, it is essential for governments to promptly create an enabling environment for these firms rather than curtailing their operations.

References

Allan, R. (2017). Hard questions: Who should decide what is hate speech in a global online community. Facebook Newsroom, 27.

Post, D. G. (2015). Protecting the First Amendment in the Internet Age. Washington Post.

Ruane, K. A. (2016). The Advocacy of Terrorism on the Internet: Freedom of Speech Issues and the Material Support Statutes. Congressional Research Service.

Samples, J. (2019). Why the government should not regulate content moderation of social media. Cato Institute Policy Analysis, (865).