Dignity Versus Liberty: The Two Western Cultures of Free Speech

Carmi, Guy E.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1246700

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, in the United States, it may be legally permissible to issue antisemitic statements in public. This is different from countries such as Germany, France, Austria, and Israel, in which specific laws outright ban, for instance, certain speech that denies the existence of the Holocaust (Carmi, 2008).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 88%

Platformed antisemitism on Twitter: Anti-Jewish rhetoric in political discourse surrounding the 2018 US midterm election

Riedl

Joseff

Soorholtz

et al. 2022

New Media & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What does antisemitism look like in the context of political discussions on Twitter? In this article, we introduce the notion of platformed antisemitism. We first define it as a platform-agnostic concept, and then explore it through an exemplary case study of Twitter and its affordances by way of a mixed-methods analysis of discourse surrounding the 2018 US midterm election. Via qualitative textual analysis, we document how political discourse on Twitter is marred by antisemitic conspiracy theories that intersect with QAnon and Trump/MAGA support. Through quantitative content analysis of a sample of 99,062 tweets, we highlight a list of terms and hashtags most often associated with antisemitic speech on Twitter and showcase how specific affordances on the platform (quote-tweets, hashtags) amplify and/or diminutize antisemitic speech. Via Lasso regression, we introduce an antisemitism classifier that can be used to further refine future detection efforts of antisemitic speech.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 88%

Platformed antisemitism on Twitter: Anti-Jewish rhetoric in political discourse surrounding the 2018 US midterm election

Riedl

Joseff

Soorholtz

et al. 2022

New Media & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whereas in Canada more criticism was directed towards GiveSendGo for their seeming complicity in harm, in the United States GoFundMe was targeted for their apparent lack of legitimacy as a fair and unbiased platform. Such diametrically opposed judgments reflects the continuing theoretical relevance of the 'two Western cultures of free speech' (Carmi, 2008), where the common US insistence on individual liberty-based models of free expression jarringly collides with collective safety and dignity-based models of other Western liberal democracies. These broad cultural preferences hold true when it comes to online platforms, with Europeans preferring greater self-regulation by platforms and wider scope for government intervention, while Americans view both law enforcement and platforms as less obliged to intervene, opting instead to prioritize free speech (Riedl et al, 2021).…”

Section: How Platforms Reveal Their Underlying Values Through (Non-)i...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reflecting in stark fashion the aforementioned 'two Western cultures of free speech' (Carmi, 2008), GiveSendGo was sharply rebuked by Canadian government authorities for their complicity with the Freedom Convoy. Alternatively, in the United States, GoFundMe was targeted for their apparent lack of resolve to protect individual liberty by continuing to host the Convoy.…”

Section: How Platforms Reveal Their Underlying Values Through (Non-)i...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Crowdfunding platforms as conduits for ideological struggle and extremism: On the need for greater regulation and digital constitutionalism

Wade,

Baker,

Walsh

2023

Policy & Internet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crowdfunding platforms remain understudied as conduits for ideological struggle. While other social media platforms may enable the expression of hateful and harmful ideas, crowdfunding can actively facilitate their enaction through financial support. In addressing such risks, crowdfunding platforms attempt to mitigate complicity but retain legitimacy. That is, ensuring their fundraising tools are not exploited for intolerant, violent or hate‐based purposes, yet simultaneously avoiding restrictive policies that undermine their legitimacy as ‘open’ platforms. Although social media platforms are routinely scrutinized for enabling misinformation, hateful rhetoric and extremism, crowdfunding has largely escaped critical inquiry, despite being repeatedly implicated in amplifying such threats. Drawing on the ‘Freedom Convoy’ movement as a case study, this article employs critical discourse analysis to trace how crowdfunding platforms reveal their underlying values in privileging either collective safety or personal liberty when hosting divisive causes. The radically different policy decisions adopted by crowdfunding platforms GoFundMe and GiveSendGo expose a concerning divide between ‘Big Tech’ and ‘Alt‐Tech’ platforms regarding what harms they are willing to risk, and the ideological rationales through which these determinations are made. There remain relatively few regulatory safeguards guiding such impactful strategic choices, leaving crowdfunding platforms susceptible to weaponization. With Alt‐Tech platforms aspiring to build an ‘alternative internet’, this paper highlights the urgent need to explore digital constitutionalism in the crowdfunding space, establishing firmer boundaries to better mitigate fundraising platforms becoming complicit in catastrophic harms.

show abstract

Liberdade de expressão e discurso de ódio: o direito brasileiro à procura de um modelo

Neto

Rodrigues

2021

Esp.Jur.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

O artigo analisa como o direito brasileiro vem tratando o discurso de ódio, especialmente no âmbito das redes sociais, e se está aparelhado para solucionar conflitos que põem em rota de colisão a liberdade de expressão e outros direitos fundamentais. Partindo-se da defesa de ampla liberdade de expressão, examina-se quais são os limites que se podem impor a discursos discriminatórios e ofensivos. Analisam-se as experiências jurídicas estadunidense e alemã em relação ao tema, bem como se apontam tentativas regulatórias das mídias sociais digitais na Europa e no Brasil, na tentativa de estabelecer limites ao hate speech. Propugna-se a implantação de um sistema de autorregulação regulada dos provedores de serviços de internet, com procedimentos e medidas eficazes a combater violações cometidas nas mídias sociais digitais, com o desenvolvimento de uma cultura de respeito à diversidade. Do ponto de vista jurisdicional, procurar-se-á indicar qual o modelo seguido pelo direito brasileiro. Aventa-se a hipótese de que embora a jurisprudência do STF tenha sido firme em prol de uma posição preferencial da liberdade de expressão, seguindo a tradição norte-americana, o mesmo não ocorre frente ao discurso de ódio. Aqui, o modelo seguido parece ser o alemão, em razão da maior proximidade dos documentos constitucionais vigentes em ambos os países, que igualmente protegem, até com maior destaque, a dignidade da pessoa humana e seus direitos de personalidade, previsões, estas, ausentes na constituição estadunidense. A pesquisa realizada é de natureza teórica e utilizou procedimento comparativo, com abordagem qualitativa e prescritiva, valendo-se da técnica bibliográfico-documental.

show abstract

Dignity Versus Liberty: The Two Western Cultures of Free Speech

Cited by 6 publications

References 36 publications

Platformed antisemitism on Twitter: Anti-Jewish rhetoric in political discourse surrounding the 2018 US midterm election

Platformed antisemitism on Twitter: Anti-Jewish rhetoric in political discourse surrounding the 2018 US midterm election

Crowdfunding platforms as conduits for ideological struggle and extremism: On the need for greater regulation and digital constitutionalism

Liberdade de expressão e discurso de ódio: o direito brasileiro à procura de um modelo

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About