Running Head: FACEBOOK HATE POLICY Jalloh 1

Facebook’s Hate Policy and The Connection to Freedom of Speech

JOMC 393

Dr. Gary C. Guffey

Kariatu Jalloh

North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University

Abstract
FACEBOOK HATE POLICY
Jalloh 2
This paper explores published articles that state the facts of Mike Zuckerberg’s efforts to enforce

strict content rules against “hate speech” on the Facebook platform. The various articles provide

different perspectives on the efforts and give both legal and ethical viewpoints to it’s researchers.

Abraham gives an inside scoop on what “flafing” entails and how it is used to counteract hate

speech laws. Eddy and Scott, on the other hand, give more of an international and political aspect

to the story. Ortutay’s article provides a brief timeline of the steps Zuckerberg has taken in order

to make his initiative. This paper will cultivate these three articles, as well as two others” in

order to give the audience a wider perspective of the Facebook hate speech laws in regard to the

First Amendment rights. The Online Civil Courage Initiative (OCCI) is one of the initiative’s

that was created during the manifestation of this policy.

Facebook’s Hate Policy and The Connection to Freedom of Speech

FACEBOOK HATE POLICY
Jalloh 3
There have been numerous theories developed revolving around the creation of the “hate

speech” law and whether or not it abides by the First Amendment. However, most people do not

know where and why this law was created to begin with. According to Staff (2016), Facebook’s

founder, Mark Zuckerberg, made an announcement in Berlin expressing that he needed enforce

stricter “hate speech” laws against migrants.

This realization came after the refugee crisis in Europe that led neo-Nazi sympathizers.

Originally, Facebook did not consider migrants a racial minority, which Zuckerberg admitted to

being a mistake. After learning more about the culture and law in Germany, Zuckerberg was

willing to correct that mistake and consider the Germans as a protected class. In September of

2016, Facebook announced that it would work with the German Justice Ministry to crack down

on the anti-migrant actions throughout the site (Staff 2016).

The Online Civil Courage Initiative was developed and announced in 2016 by the

Facebook COO, Sheryl Sandberg in Berlin. The initiative is supported by German Ministry of

Justice and Consumer Protection. According to Smith (2016), in the initial press release

Sandberg state that “with this new initiative, we are convinced to better understand and respond

to the challenges of the extremist speech on the internet.”

It took a lot of criticism from users for Facebook to actually begin to take a stand against

the issues within the site. There was a particular incident in Berlin that started a social media

uproar, “Jews Among Us”, that was created to harass local Jewish institutions and Israeli-owned

business. (Eddy, Scott 2016). Germany did not think Facebook reacted appropriately, according

to the article there were attempts to prosecute Mark Zuckerberg because of this situation.

Realistically, Facebook is not the only platform that experience users using hate speech to

lower another person’s self-esteem. Cyber-bullying occurs on numerous platforms but with
FACEBOOK HATE POLICY
Jalloh 4
Facebook being the powerhouse for social media, it makes the site an easier target. Facebook is

using their great social impact as a way to lead the fight against hate speech online after all of the

scrutiny received.

Looking at the law itself, Hate Speech isn’t something that is easy to interpret for most.

According to Katherine Gelber, regulation of hate speech conflicts with the principle of free

speech. Speech is supposed to be free of restrictions, so how is it that the hate speech law will be

putting those same restrictions on people and their opinions. Not everyone is positive or overall

“good” people. Gelber discusses the idea of finding a balance between the two policies. She

conducted a study over a three month period to examine all material in relation to the 568

complaints lodged under the New South Wales (NSW) racial anti-vilification stature. The NSW

legislation was introduced in light of the growing evidence that noted the scale of racial hatred in

the community and lack of legislative response. Information that was gathered from the study

tend to suggest that finding that very balance between allowing free speech and eliminating hate

speech is difficult to achieve.

There are people online that are miserable themselves which plays a factor in why they

cyberbully others. Gelber mentions her theory on using a “talk back” method that gives victims

the necessary tools and training needed to stand up for themselves in instances where they are

being attacked online. This is a self-defense tactic that could potentially lower the rate of hate

speech.

Attackers typically continue when they continuously get away with doing the act. If there

are people that can effectively stand up for themselves, the bullies will not be as confident in

being hateful.
FACEBOOK HATE POLICY
Jalloh 5
The tricky part is about how to go about how to differentiate opinion and “hate”.

Everyone is different and some people can tolerate more than others. How can you monitor a

person’s intentions through the internet if everyone is entitled to their own opinion? One

example is the “Black Lives Matter” movement. In efforts to eliminate hate speech, facebook

censured employees for replacing Black Lives Matter statements with “All Lives Matter”.

In late 2018, Facebook said that more than 2.8 billion fake accounts were disabled in that

year alone. There were actual employees going through and searching for inappropriate accounts

to delete in hopes to lower the rates of hate throughout Facebook.

The main targets of hate speech are minorities, women, and members of the LGBTQ

community. It is evident that these people have had their fair share of mental and emotional

turmoil due to these issues. There are an abundance of movies, tv series, and real life examples

of what cyber-bullying and hate-speech can lead to. Through all of the initiatives being put into

place, there is always a way to counter the efforts and figure out how to use the law to break the

law. Freedom of speech grants the right for citizens to express themselves freely without

repercussion and in a court of law, the amendment will trump any other initiative until it is made

legal. A more recent example on Instagram includes Beyonce and Jay-Z sitting courtside with

Nicole Curran has really caused an uproar on Instagram. Beyonce’s fans, also known as the

“BeyHive” attacked Curran and sent all sorts of threats to her via social media. Will any of them

be prosecuted or punished? I highly doubt it. This is the kind of behavior we see everyday on

these social media pages. The Shade Room is another place that spurs negativity around, yet they

still have millions of followers and supporters that visit their page daily. It is at the point where

The Shade Room has become the go-to place for the latest news.
FACEBOOK HATE POLICY
Jalloh 6
There are people that hide behind fake profiles and harass people all day long. Although

there are ways to filter who can comment and follow you, it is still difficult to catch every single

person. Especially for people in the public eye who make income from their social media outlets.

The hate speech issue has cause a spike in the need of mental health professionals because when

a person constantly gets hate comments, threats, etc. it can be very difficult to maintain your

mental health.

Facebook Flarf is like a black web version of Facebook that allows those who use it to

create different content through tags. This method goes to show that there will always be a

loophole to the rules and regulations of a site. If something like Facebook flarf can come to

existence then I am almost certain that anything can be done to counter policies meant to stop

hatred. There are hackers, code geniuses and IT gurus that can assist in finding ways for these

negative actions to continue.

What makes this all worse is the age limitations not being strictly enforced. It has become

easier for younger children to create accounts using a fake date of birth. With this being a social

media society and technology taking over, it is imperative that people pay attention to what their

children are being exposed to. It is bad enough that anyone has to experience hate on social

media, however, children are far more impressionable.

Youtube is another online site that should develop a policy that monitored their content.

There was an incident where someone disguised a scary creature that was sending horrible

messages out to children telling them to kill themselves. The videos seemed to be harmless until

you watch a couple of seconds of it, tricking viewers into thinking it was safe and child-friendly.

There are ways to bend the rules that have been implemented and it is difficult to control

when you are dealing with so many different cases. I respect Facebook’s attempts to put an end
FACEBOOK HATE POLICY
Jalloh 7
to hate speech and I know that the efforts will continue. According to all of the research gathered

from published articles, journals, and books it is proven that allowing this policy to go through is

not easy. Mark Zuckerberg himself had dealt with a lot of backlash in regards to these attempts.

Freedom of Speech is extremely important but in regard to other people’s wellbeing there needs

to be a strict boundary set to reduce cyberbullying and suicide rates.

There are too many people whose lives are altered and image is tainted due to a couple of

people’s negativity. Hopefully this isn’t the end of the the efforts to push the initiative. Germany

is where it all began but America is indeed a victim of hate speech daily throughout all platforms

and demographics. What may seem to be harmless can truly cause bad things to happen.

Works Cited

Staff, C. (2019). [online] Web.b.ebscohost.com.ncat.idm.oclc.org. Available at:

http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ncat.idm.oclc.org/pov/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=0ce6a45e-e2c8-4172-

bc9f-051f87061400%40pdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU

%3d#AN=113383839&db=pwh [Accessed 7 Jun. 2019].

FACEBOOK HATE POLICY
Jalloh 8
Ortutay, B. (2018). Facebook acts on hate speech. [online] Search-proquest-

com.ncat.idm.oclc.org. Available at: https://search-proquest-

com.ncat.idm.oclc.org/docview/2133928217 [Accessed 7 Jun. 2019].

Abraham, B. (2019). FCJ-170 Challenging Hate Speech With Facebook Flarf: The Role

of User Practices in Regulating Hate Speech on Facebook. [online]

Twentythree.fibreculturejournal.org. Available at: http://twentythree.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-

170-challenging-hate-speech-with-facebook-flarf-the-role-of-user-practices-in-regulating-hate-

speech-on-facebook/ [Accessed 7 Jun. 2019].

Gitlin, M. (Ed.). (2017). When is free speech hate speech?. Retrieved from

https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ncat.idm.oclc.org

Gelber, K. (2002). Speaking back : The free speech versus hate speech debate. Retrieved

from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ncat.idm.oclc.org