Running head: DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 1

Digital Democracy: Political Discourse in a Technological Era

Caleb T. Knox

Legal Studies Academy

First Colonial High School

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 2

Abstract

Democracies have long understood the necessity of political discourse to protect a nation and

finding the greatest solution to its problems, but the means through which political speech is

shared has fundamentally shifted with the advent of social media platforms stepping into the role

of the modern public square. The discussion that follows is not about freedom of speech at large,

nor does it concern the surge of social media platforms in general, rather it delves into why

political speech is important, how it has been affected by the modern means of discourse, and

what is the proper route of action. This paper explores said development, beginning with

outlining the role political speech has for a free people. Secondly, it looks into how social media

has morphed political conversation, and finally, the paper ends with a discussion of what

regulations would look like and how they can be done correctly to uphold a healthy mode of

discussion.
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 3

Digital Democracy: Political Discourse in a Digital Era

Essential to upholding the American experiment is the right to speak freely of legislative

affairs without fear of state interference (Gamreklidze, 2015). With the advent of a technological

boom, the modern American most likely finds themselves hearing and discussing a majority of

political opinions on social media platforms (Shearer & Matsa, 2018). These expanded

infrastructures bring with them a whole new array of legal, ethical, and psychological questions

on the role of the state, the companies, and the individual.

Searching for the best way to go about working through these modern dilemmas requires

a nuanced solution that takes into account the complexities of each actor. Upholding the

blessings of free speech in the face of a new technology will require social media platforms, the

government, and the end-user to each play a part in protecting public discourse.

Political Speech

The Significance of Political Speech

In ​Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce​ (1990) The United States Supreme Court

articulated that "the right to engage in political expression is fundamental to our constitutional

system." Although not chronologically aligned, this reasoning is what brought Justice Williams

to conclude in the landmark Supreme Court case of N​ew York Times Co. v. Sullivan​ (1964), that

there is a “profound national commitment that debate on public issues should be uninhibited,

robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes

unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

It is not self-evident why the courts consider the right to speak freely on political matters

so important. For instance, two centuries of First Amendment Jurisprudence has established that
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 4

there is communication that lies outside the protections the Constitution offers (Galloway, 1991).

Even within the bounds of protected speech, the degree to which the state can infringe is

hierarchically oriented, placing the greatest amount of scrutiny on legislative attempts to control

speech relating to “public discourse” (Weinstein, 2009).

The answer to the sacralization of political speech, at least in the eyes of the courts, finds

its origin embedded in America’s founding. The framers saw freedom of speech not solely as a

natural right, but also a right that serves the purpose to help uphold the political structure at

large, ensuring the survival of natural rights. In Cato’s Letters, a series of political commentaries

that spurred classical republicanism in Great Britain and American colonies, the author outlines

that “Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as

publick liberty, without freedom of speech” (Eijnatten, 2011). This derives from free speech

holding an “enlightenment function” as outlined in ​Whitney v. California​ (1927) where the court

ruled that the “Freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to

the discovery and spread of political truth.”

The primacy of freedom of speech stems from the idea that truth is necessary to discern

good ideas from the bad. The essence of political speech becomes finding the closest sembence

to this truth, so a nation may be guided in making the necessary qualitative distinctions to an ever

changing amount of problems. In this process there exists somewhat of an epistemological

roadblock, namely nobody can know a-priori what this truth is (Milton, 1644). Each person,

bound by biases and blindspots, is in a position removed from a greater view of the truth that can

only be rectified through a discussion with other subjective agents who see the world lay itself

out in a different manner (Peterson, 17). In an L.A. Times article from 1987, Howard Rosenburg
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 5

found himself reporting on the dangerous development of neo-natzism when he pointed out that,

"Presuppos[ing] that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of

tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many that is, and always will be

folly; but we have staked upon it our all” (1987). To this, political speech has to be understood

not as a monologue, but as a continuous dialogue.

Defining Political Speech

In understanding the architecture of political speech, it must be thoroughly defined. There

is no way for a nation to censor, protect, or let alone address political speech without thoroughly

defining it. In ​Wells v. State of Illinois ​Justice Barnes of the Court of Appeals of Indiana offered

a legal definition: “Expressive activity (speech included (Duhaime Law Dictionary)) is political

if its point is to comment on government action, including criticizing the conduct of an official

acting under color of law.” This definition can be applicable to any issue that the government

may handle whether it’s concerning its action or inaction.

One intricacy of defining political events is it’s ever widening scope. In Alexis De

Tocqueville’s classic, ​Democracy in America (​ 1835), he argues that democratic nations have a

natural impetus toward centralizing power. Individualist democracies free people from the state

but also from bonds with one another, so when a problem presents itself outside the bounds of

the individual, the natural impulse is to outsource said problem to the state, seen as the abstracted

will of the individual. The government, therefore, becomes the primary centripetal force in a

large democratic nation, creating a positive feedback loop with a strong central power at its base.

Regardless of whether or not the solvency for problems ends up developing from central

power, what this process does is bring a steady flow of problems into the political sphere. David
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 6

Brooks, a social critique writing for The New York Times, reported earlier this year how this

process has been amplified in a digital era. An upcoming generation of voters are forming their

political consciousness from online voices, where they will see an expanding amount of

problems as political ones as they spend an increased amount of time on these platforms (Bialik,

14). So when defining political speech in keeping with Justice Barnes definition provided in

Wells v. State of Illinois,​ it is important to understand that online political discourse will

increasingly mark a majority of national discourse for upcoming years as more issues are brought

into the political arena (Ortner,19).

How the Digital Era is Changing Political Discourse

Writing for the majority, in the 2017 United States Supreme Court case of​ Packingham v.

North Carolina​, now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy “called the cyber age a revolution of

historic proportions” prophesying that “we cannot appreciate yet its full dimensions and vast

potential to alter how we think, express ourselves, and define who we want to be” as

“cyberspace” becomes “the most important place . . . for the exchange of views” (Hudson, 2019).

But bringing about this “modern Gutenberg Revolution” was not an isolated event of this past

year, but imbedded in the development of social media’s politicization (Peterson, 17).

The social media of today finds itself in quite a different place than it was at its

conception (Haidt & Rose-Stockwell, 2019). Early internet infrastructures like Facebook and

Myspace appeared between 2002 and 2004, with the goal of “helping users connect with

friends.” Come 2006, with the introduction of Twitter to the market, came the timeline, and with

it Facebook added the news feed, each designed to deliver a continuous diet short updates. This

effectively allowed any post, from any user, to spread like wildfire as long as it generates views.
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 7

By 2009, Twitter would also update its airways adding the retweet, which “essentially enabled

the frictionless spread of content”.

Social media crossed the rubicon in the early 2010s when Upworthy, among other

pioneers in the industry, began conducting a series of psychological tests, looking at multiple

variations of headlines to develop the thread that generated the engagement. This brought the

advent of clickbait paired with images “tested and selected to make us click impulsively,” paving

the way for a corrupted mode of discourse (Haidt & Rose-Stockwell, 2019).

By 2014 this technology was first harnessed for political ends with its ability to distribute

political sentiments that have international reach. In bypassing the top-down style that news

media offers, social media delivers a more spontaneous and inclusive approach (Miller, 19).

Combined with the blessings of an expanded dialogue, social media has presented new problems

to our Republic. In the section below some of these issues will be briefly outlined in their

relation to modern technology.

Political Polarization

Humans evolved in tribal terms, this makes our conceptual framework view the world in

“us vs them” manner. Simply put, we see people either as part of our tribe or not (Goldberg,

2018). In Federalist No. 10 James Madison articulated the dangers of the modern tribe, the

“faction,” which “inflamed (men) with mutual animosity,” abandoning any sense of common

good. Madison saw the geographical diversity and multiplicity of associations as a check against

polarization, because political whims could not transcend regional differences.

But social media serves to exploit the inner barbarian in the modern man, flattening

regional differences (Merkovity, Imre, & Owen, n.d.), making it easier for any idea, no matter
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 8

how extreme, to find an ally, but more importantly to find a common enemy. In 2017, a group of

social psychologists at NYU measured the manifestation of 500,000 tweets, finding that each

“moral or emotional word” used in a tweet increased its engagement by an average of 20 percent.

On social media, posts that exhibit “indignant disagreement” received nearly twice as many

views, likes, and shares as any other category of content (Haidt & Rose-Stockwell, 2019).

Over the course of a 25 year study, Pew Research has been documenting America’s

polarization. The pollsters, in getting peoples opinions on ten political questions, were able to

test “ideological consistency.” In 1994, only 10% of American were either consistently

conservative or liberal, this stayed relatively constant a decade later in 2004 at 11% ideological

consistency. A leap occurred in 2014, after social media took its developing role in our public

forums; the national ideological consistency increased to 21%. Among many issues, this has

diminished moderate thought from our political discourse. In 1994 and 2001 about half (49%) of

the population took an equal number of conservative and liberal positions. Come 2014, this

number of moderates dropped to 39% (Pew Research, 18).

Social media enables this trend by allowing individuals to exist in an “echochamber,” a

falsified construction of reality where views contrary to the end-user can be suppressed and taken

off of their feed with ease (Bolter, 19). For instance, Youtube’s “associative linking” has “turned

into a mechanism for political indoctrination.'' Algorithms grant a steady-stream of confirmation

bias to end-users, creating ideologs who are trained not to engage with ideas, but to instead

suppress those which they disagree with (Haidt, 19).

Simplifying Dialogue
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 9

By establishing a political structure that rests the source of power in the people,

liberalism depends upon an informed populous. One which understands that matters of policy

entails complexities beyond party l​ines and does not present a clear differentiation between good

and evil or right and wrong (Anderson & Enevoldsen, 2005). This was obvious to prior

generations, for instance the now infamous Lincoln-Douglas Debates​ would begin each

discussion with an hour opening statement, followed by an hour and a half rebuttal, with a final

thirty minute rebuttal from the opening speaker (NPS, 2017). These longer forum discussions

were seen as necessary to find the truth lying at the heart of political speech.

Modern technology, by the implied consent of the end user, has traded longer, nuanced

discussions for soundbites and 140-character t​weets, and rather than generating a dialogue that

promotes thoughtful discussion it devolves into ideological reductions (Ebeling, 2017). More

than ever, individuals are relying on social media sites for their political news (Shearer & Matsa,

2018), but these individuals enter an environment which incentivizes ideologies jabs over

expounded ideas(Haidt & Rose-Stockwell, 2019).

Trump has been on the frontier of harnessing social media’s ability to compress a

message. From his first two years alone, he has “tweeted more than 600 times about Russia and

collusion, more than 400 times lamenting fake news, and more than 200 times each about

Clinton and Obama. Often, the tweets carry a simple, emotional conclusion, such as ‘No

Collusion’ or ‘Just more Fake News.’” (Bolter, 2018). Far from being a partisan divide the

development of political correctness has weaponized words such as “hate speech, equality, and

white supremacist” to call forth a message that lay latent in ideologically charged words
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 10

(Emmons & Wilson, 2019). Trump’s base is aware of the message “Fake News” entails without

it being fully articulated, the politically correct types know what calls for “Equality” embody.

The majority of those participating in online political discussion aren’t searching for truth

in an attempt to find the best route of action, rather it is advocacy, with a-priori ideological

reductions designed to make simplified statements that will simultaneously spark outrage and fit

preconceived notions("Section 5: Political," 2014). Among our leaders this phenomena is not

unique to Trump; it is the most ideological members of congress who post the most on social

media (Kessel, Hughes, & Messing, 2018). As I stated earlier “political speech has to be

understood not as a monologue, but as a continuous dialogue”, but the modern forum for

political speech enables ideological oversimplifications in a stunted conversation; rather than

give the search for truth the gravitas it deserves.

Distributing Misinformation

It is nearly impossible to quantify how much of our online political discourse consists of

falsified information (Read, 18). But as posts between laymen became primary means of political

discourse, popularity became a modern measurement of accuracy. Despite the benefit of

expanding this political discourse to an extended number of citizens, there is no evidence it is

making people educated on political questions. The researchers concluded this is the result of

the modern end-user’s inability to distinguish “the signal from the noise” (Fabrega & Sajuria,

2013).

Our modern conception of fake news was generated in the digital environment, as a

personal opinion, grounded in no truth, was given the same look and feel as a story from The

Atlantic (Fabrega & Sajuria, 2013). Misinformation is disseminated by both private and public
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 11

actors, on a global scale (Omidyar, 2017). International entities from “Russian bots” to “chinese

click farms” have developed an army of “online bots” with the sole purpose of spreading

disinformation online (Read, 18).

This manifested itself most clearly in the last presidential election, as Russia in particular

used “social media in an unprecedented way in terms of not just political advertising, but more

specifically (the) creation of fake accounts that spread misinformation and

disinformation”(Laslo, 18). A study (Bovet & Makse, 19) on the “​Influence of fake news in

Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election” found ​that 25% of information generated from

American news outlets or users tagged in the United States was falsified or misleading. Domestic

and international actors now hold the capacity to manipulate information at levels not possible

before social media.

Hate Speech or Political Speech?

​Social media infrastructure are receiving political pressure from separate schools of

thought to carry out contradictory roles. The open arena of information combined with a

polarized fervor has brought out an increase in “hate speech.” In response to these the

commonality between companies has been to suppress voices (Hudson, 2019). Being

unchartered territory, infrastructures cast a wide net in an attempt to censor or dampen hateful

speech on their platform. Yet lacking a concrete legal definition, hate speech became, regardless

of intent, a tool of suppressing not just hate speech, but political voices at large (Strossen, 2018).

Continuing below is not meant to be a general discussion on the line between hate speech and

political speech, rather pointing out how this question plays itself out on a digital platform.
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 12

There exists a near universal agreement that there is online speech that can be destructive,

but there is no agreement on its criteria or what it includes (Masnick, 19). Sheryl Sandberg, the

Chief Operating Officer of Facebook, spoke of the difficulty of determining what types of speech

would violate company standards barring hate speech (Brannon, 2019).

Just recently, Twitter suspended a group of journalists for referencing the Pensacola

shooter’s manifesto. To justify the suspension, Twitter claimed the journalist had posted the

manifesto. However, the manifesto was never posted, and only one of the journalists posted a

scre​enshot of it​ (Slatz, 2019)​. PragerU, a right wing political organization that speaks on

controversial topics, had a series of their videos restricted from Youtube. After filing a

compliment, they were to​ld their “videos aren't appropriate for the younger audiences..." (Youtbe

continues, n.d.). At one point, Facebook had the Declaration of Independence flagged as hate

speech, with an automated note claiming “goes against our standards of hate speech” but

reversed this decision after enough backlash (Morton, 2018).

In understanding online hate speech, a study in 2017 found a correlation between

anti-refugee Facebook posts and attacks on refugees in Germany (Muller & Schwarz, 2017).

Domestically, prosecutors said the Charleston church shooter, who in 2015 opened fire on a

church, killing nine black clergy and worshippers, was in a “self-learning process” online. This

brought him to believe that the goal of white supremacy required violent action (Laub, 2017).

The Pittsburg synagogue shooter was an end-user on Gab, a new social media site claiming to be

a “free speech alternative”. Although it is not clear if he was radicalized online, he did send a

final message on it’s server, with the chilling remark: “Screw your optics, I’m going in.”
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 13

These six examples are to show that both statements are simultaneously true. 1) “No

principled distinction can be drawn between public hate speech and other forms of political

expression” (Heyman, 09). Private regulation of hate speech will continue to infiltrate political

discourse, hindering our search of truth (Leetaru, 2019). 2) Without a means of regulating

content, social media will continue to be weaponized as a tool of radicalization. This

radicalization brings people to commit heinous crimes (Laub, 2019).

In becoming “the most important place . . . for the exchange of views” (​Packingham v.

North Carolina, ​2017), social media infrastructures have been given the impossible task of

upholding First Amendment values and protecting its end users from potentially dangerous

content. Answering these questions are not unique to social media, but the expanded dialogue

these companies offer magnifies these issues at large. Within the friction between political

speech and hate speech, political discourse has been corrupted by the digital era.

In the eyes of the public, the wealth of services these corporations may provide, or the

ideals they profess, have been outweighed by the issues mentioned above; giving rise to a unified

negative sentiments from all over the political spectrum, among both politicians and citizens,

against social media companies (Masnick, 2019). These companies have recognized their

responsibility in the modern cultural landscape as providing “platforms for speech” (Brannon,

2019). The disconnect between these separate stakeholders becomes apparent on the legislative

question, technology is developing faster than laws can keep up, and different coalitions are

calling for modern infrastructures to take responsibility for different, often contradictory roles.

This transitions into the next element of the paper; the significance of political speech has been
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 14

established, the way it has changed with the advent of technology has been discussed. What is

left to consider is: what limits should be placed and upon what actor should they fall?

How to Regulate Political Speech in a Digital Setting

Any discussion concerning free speech needs to include limits (Van Mill, 2018). Great

free speech apologists, among them John Locke and John Stuart Mill, presupposes a certain

degree of limits, legal or not, when defending the free to speak. The question was rather not

what but who defines the limits and what do they look like? The section that follows will attempt

to take a nuanced and multi-leveled look at how speech can be best regulated in a digital era to

preserve a healthy public square.

“Free Speech is a Triangle”

The common conception of free speech is grounded in legal jurisprudence leading all the

way up through the twentieth century (Balkin, 2018). It is often referred to as a “Dyadic Model,”

on the one hand exists the state, who governs and regulates those on the other hand, the speakers

and publishers of content. But the twenty-first Century, with its technological advancements,

requires a new mode of understanding the metrics of Free Speech, a triangle. This triangle

composes, the state on one corner, social media infrastructures at the other, and the end-user at

the final corner (Balkin, 2018).

Jack Balkin, the scholar who developed this idea, is a Professor of Constitutional Law

and the First Amendment at Yale Law School. His theory, articulated as “Free Speech is a

Triangle,” (which will be laid out in greater detail below) provides the best framework to answer

questions surrounding how to limit political speech online. This updated mode of
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 15

conceptualizing free speech is the most realistic means through which any regulatory attempts

would occur.

Prior to the advent of social media, existing under the “Dyadic Model,” speech was

limited through what Balkin (2004) refers to as “old school regulation.” This means of regulation

aims directly “at speakers and publishers of content”, utilizing “traditional methods of

enforcement”, such as fines, imprisonment, and in extreme cases, violence or the threat of it; all

in an attempt to disincentivize speakers and publishers from certain actions. Updating this

method, the triangle model employs “new school regulation” which does not aim directly at

speakers or publishers, but instead the digital infrastructure they operate on.

The primary example of new school regulation is collateral censorship, defined as when

the “state targets entity A (social media for the purposes of this paper) to control the speech of

another entity, B (end-user for the purposes of this paper)… In effect, collateral censorship

attempts to harness a private organization to regulate speech on the state’s behalf”. Congress,

through the use of collateral censorship of many forms has private governance do their jobs for

them (Balkin, 2018).

Congress grants companies immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency

Act, protecting them from legal objections “decisions to host content created by others and for

actions taken voluntarily and in good faith to restrict access to objectionable material” (Zeran v.

Am. Online, 1997). This effectively allows companies free reign to allow and censor material.

Showing its pragmatic effects, Professor at Yale Law School, Jed Rubenfield points out “If an

article or advertisement in the New York Times libels you, you can sue the Times; if an article or

advertisement on Facebook does the same thing, Facebook is immune.”

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 16

According to Professor Dawn Nunziato, Congress grants this immunity for two reasons

already mentioned: First, they lack the technological capacity to efficiently regulate the airways.

Secondly, the First Amendment restricts the state from restricting “harmful, offensive, and

otherwise undesirable speech” (Rubenfeld, 2019). Binding the airways to this same guideline

would stop any ability to interfere on content over the ways of the internet, outside of political

speech (Brannon, 2019).

By enabling this freedom, infrastructures have grown into private bureaucratic states

“almost by accident” (Balkin, 2018). Through the use of collateral censorship the state has

outsourced this responsibility to private infrastructures. Forcing upon them the creation of

“elaborate bureaucracies, which are effectively governance structures” (Grimmelman, 2015).

Any post today “exists in an architecture of privately owned websites, servers, routers, and

backbones,” forcing its existence online to be bound to the rules of those private governments

(Peters, 17).

Although these companies may function like governments, they are not bound by The

rule of law, the First Amendment, or due process (Regulating social, 2018). Infrastructures lack

transparency. Facebook’s criteria for censoring content had to be leaked to the press (Hopkins,

2018). Furthermore, censorship occurs behind closed doors by a bureaucrat or algorithm, there

is no judicial restraint restricting companies decision to remove content (Balkin, 2018). This

becomes extremely problematic with Facebook alone flagging more than one million posts per

day (Buni & Chemaly, 2016).

Limits from Social Media

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 17

The first solution would be to mandate a system of judicial restraint upon infrastructures.

These companies would hold the same immunity and autonomy to regulate speech as they

please, but in doing so there has to be a process. End-users have to understand the rules which

guide their online existence, and expect due process if they violate them (Balkin, 2018). Most

likely these will not work if imposed politically, rather through voluntary adoption to preserve

the norms of individual infrastructures, ensuring legitimacy (Masnick, 2019). The only current

solution as to what this would look like is “The Manila Principles”, a series of proposals

developed by civil society organizations in 2015 to curb internet dominance. These are a

roadmap, as previously stated, the groundwork for rules that would be imposed voluntarily. They

require, among other reforms (1) “clear and public notice of the content-regulation policies

companies actually employ; (2) an explanation and an effective right to be heard before content

is removed; and (3) when this is impractical, an obligation to provide a post facto explanation

and review of a decision to remove content as soon as practically possible.”(Manila

principles,n.d.).

By ensuring due process companies could retain their freedom in regulating content, but

protect the end-user in the process by diminishing the chance of tyrannical and arbitrary limits

(Leetura, 2019). Judicial restraint would actively serve in finding a line between political and

hate speech as companies would have articulate rules that could be discussed and tried.

Limits from the State

As explained in the triangle, most regulations from the government would be placed not

directly on the end-user, but instead on the company. The state needs to place content-neutral

regulations, defined as limits on “the time, place, and manner of speech in contrast to
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 18

content-based laws, which regulate speech based on content” (Hudson, n.d.). This means they

can not force regulation of specific views (Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of University of

Virginia, 1995), but apply broad regulations upon the manner in which content is displayed. In

the realm of political speech, this is a well documented mode of action from the state.

In the case of ​Ward v. Rock Against Racism​ (1989), the Supreme Court of the United

States adopted a three-pronged guide to approving state regulation of political speech (direct or

indirect): 1) “It must be content-neutral.” 2) “It must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant

governmental interest.” 3) “It must leave open ample alternative channels for communicating the

speaker’s message.” These would be placed in collateral censorship, giving infrastructures a

basis outside of content on what to regulate.

This allows for the government to regulate a certain variance of speech when it presents a

threat outside of content as an example stopping foreign interference in elections, regardless of

what viewpoint the speaker represents. Content-neutral regulation also halt the dangers of

legislatively suppressing voices based on their opinion (Hare & Weinstein, 2009). Aside from

being beneficial, content-neutral regulations are most likely the only regulation the court would

allow Congress to pass (Hudson, n.d.).

Concurrent Solution - Decentralization

As discussed in the beginning of this discussion, any realistic solution will require a joint

effort of the private and public sector. Above I outlined what social media companies can do and

what the state can do, but of greater importance is their combined effort.

Much of the conversation surrounding social media regulation can be boiled down to the

same attack - big structures. Some believe that social media has become too big and powerful
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 19

and must be regulated by the government. Others rebut this by outlining the dangers of the state,

another big power, interfering in political discourse. Both ideas recognize the problems of having

big structures regulating speech, and switching one for the other will not solve the fundamental

issue.

It has been established that social media platforms have been pushed into developing

massive systems of private governance to regulate the airways. This translates into a

responsibility that has no time for due process, the formation of thousands of low paid workers

or AI to flag millions of posts daily, and massive corporations applying one central set of rules to

international networks (Hopkins, 2018). The best solution seems to be decentralizing social

media platforms, on two seperate levels through legislative means and market developments. As

Mike Masnick explained in his recent article, “Protocols, not platforms: A technological

approach to free speech”

A protocol-based system, however, moves much of the decision making ​away from the

center and gives it to the ends of the network.​ Rather than relying on a single centralized

platform, with all of the internal biases and incentives that that entails, anyone would be

able to create their own set of rules—including which content they do not want to see and

which content they would like to see promoted.

This breaks up social media companies within their own infrastructure, decentralizing

what rules, due process, and norms ought to look like, as opposed to super-imposing a vague

definition from a central location which inevitably disenfranchises some group of users.

The state. ​To help in this process the government would need to impose

“pre-competition regulation.” In the status quo, Facebook and the other major networks have
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 20

gridlocked the system pushing competition out of the picture (Griffith, 2017). Having a few

major platforms stalls innovation, makes us more susceptible to large scale interference from a

foreign power, and removes any friction from misinformation spreading at large. By introducing

this regulation more competition would introduce itself to the market allowing for norms

conforming more to localized ideals rather than absolutizing one set of beliefs (Flock, 17).

One example of this has been Jordan Peterson’s creation of “Thinkspot”, concerned by

the simplification of dialogue, addressed in section two; his platform has a minimum character

limit rather than a maximum. This allows for an expanded conversation rather than ideological

reduction.

The infrastructures. ​Jack Dorsey, the founder and CEO of Twitter, announced on

December 11 through a thread of tweets that Twitter was looking into decentralizing their

platform. He admitted to the “new challenges centralized solutions are struggling to meet…

which is why the work must be done transparently in the open, not owned by any single private

corporation, furthering the open & decentralized principles of the internet.”

Dorsey later explains that it is difficult to know what this would look like practically but

Twitter has built a team called @bluesky to redesign how twitter works. The decentralized plan,

laid out by Mike Masnick (which Jack Dorsey referred to in the thread), is becoming a reality

through market principles. Although this will most likely take time, especially in relation to

other companies, the market is moving this way.

Section two of this paper explores many of the problems of social media, many of them,

for instance, political polarization could be curbed through decentralization. As explained, our

founders saw regionalism as a check to tyranny. Rather than forcing all players with different
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 21

values to enter into the same online norms, decentralized levels would allow for people to craft

their own regional identity. On the matter of disinformation, localities could establish a burden of

evidence to post content. Decentralizing allows problem solving to happen, there just needs to

exist 1) inter-network competition, increasing amount of platforms available on the market and

2) intra-network competition, allowing autonomy to be transferred to localized communities on

social media platforms.

The individual.​ As mentioned when defining political speech, democracies have a

natural inclination to look to centralized forces when problems present themselves (De

Tocqueville, 1865). While it is the case that the issues explored in this paper have to be

addressed in large part through policy, it does not matter how many regulations are laid out and

in what fashion they exist if individuals are not filing their expanded role as citizens of a republic

(Knox, 2019). Each right, exists only embedded inside the context of a responsibility, and free

speech is not exempt from this (​Anderson & Enevoldsen, 2005)​.

In 1644 the English poet John Milton wrote a letter to Parliament when they considered

licensing political and religious speech, explaining that the state is not needed to regulate speech

because the individual can do it for themselves. Free speech is built from the ground up,

beginning with the end-user, the speaker, operating as the fundamental unit of analysis from

which the whole structure is generated (Peterson, 2019). In the words of psychologist Carl Jung

“the psychology of the individual is reflected in the psychology of the nation. What the nation

does is done by each individual, and so long as the individual continues to do it, the nation will

do likewise. Only a change in the attitude of the individual can initiate a change in the

psychology of the nation.”

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 22

Conclusion

Liberal democracy has sacralized the necessity of political discourse in protecting a

nation and finding the greatest solution. But the means by which these topics have been

discussed have shifted, with social media platforms stepping into the role of the modern public

square. Although they have played an active role in expanding the political conversation to

many, platforms have played a large role in corrupting our discourse through polarizing forces,

enabling foreign interference, spreading misinformation, just to name a few of the topics

discussed. Limits are required but what they look like is not self-evident, any solution requires

nuance and an understanding of the role all shareholders play. Through combining solutions

with social media companies, the state, and the individual, the digital public square can return to

finding the best solutions to problems, rather than help create them.
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 23

References

Anderson, D. C. T., & Enevoldsen, D. (2005). Educated or intellectual. In ​Me, my country, my

God​ (pp. 35-61). Phoenix, Ariz.: Winword.

Applebaum, A. (2019, February 1). Regulate social media now. The future of democracy is at

stake. Retrieved from Anne Applebaum website:

https://www.anneapplebaum.com/2019/02/01/regulate-social-media-now-the-future-of-de

mocracy-is-at-stake/

Balkin, Jack M., "Free Speech in the Algorithmic Society: Big Data, Private Governance, and

New School Speech Regulation" (2018). Faculty Scholarship Series. 5160.

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/5160

Balkin, J. M., (2018, May 28). Free Speech is a Triangle . Columbia Law Review, 2018,

Forthcoming; Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 640. Available at

SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3186205

Balkin, J. M. (2004). How Rights Change: Freedom of Speech in the Digital Era. ​Yale Law

School Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship Series,​ ​26(​ 00). Retrieved from

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co

m/&httpsredir=1&article=1241&context=fss_papers

Barnhart, B. (2019, August 13). Everything you need to know about social media algorithms.

Retrieved from Sprout Social website:

https://sproutsocial.com/insights/social-media-algorithms/
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 24

Bialik, K. (2018, August 15). 14% of Americans have changed their mind about an issue because

of something they saw on social media. Retrieved from Pew Research website:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/15/14-of-americans-have-changed-their-

mind-about-an-issue-because-of-something-they-saw-on-social-media/

Bite-Sized Philosophy. (2017, March 7). ​Jordan Peterson - Liberals And Conservatives Need

Each Other​ [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ho5VZp_ps4

Bolter, J. D. (2019, May 19). Social Media Is Ruining Political Discourse. Retrieved from The

Atlantic website:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/05/why-social-media-ruining-politi

cal-discourse/589108/

Bovet, A., & Makse, H. A. (2019, January 2). Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016

US presidential election. Retrieved from

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07761-2 website:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07761-2

Brannon, V. C. (2019, March 27). ​Congressional Research Service Report: Vol. R45650. Free

Speech and the Regulation of Social Media Content​ (Research Report No. R45650).

Retrieved from Congressional Research Service website:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45650.pdf

Brown, R. H., & Irving, L. (1993, December). ​The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes​.

Retrieved from The National Telecommunications and Information Administration

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 25

(NTIA) website:

https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/reports/1993/TelecomHateCrimes1993.pdf

Buni, C., & Chemaly, S. (2014, April 13). The secret rules of the internet. Retrieved from The

Verge website:

https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/13/11387934/internet-moderator-history-youtube-face

book-reddit-censorship-free-speech

Carl Jung: Analytical psychology. (n.d.). Retrieved from King's Psychology Network website:

http://www.psyking.net/id160.htm

Clark, M. J. (n.d.). Village of Skokie v. Nat'l Socialist Party of America. Retrieved from Justia

US Law website: https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/1978/49769-6.html

Cliteur, P. B. (2001). ​Eric Voegelins critique of ideology and the functions of ideology under

modern democratic conditions​. Retrieved from

https://sites01.lsu.edu/faculty/voegelin/wp-content/uploads/sites/80/2015/09/Cliteur.pdf

Confessore, N., & Rosenburg, M. (2018, November 17). Facebook fallout ruptures Democrats'

longtime alliance with Silicon Valley. Retrieved from The New York Times website:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/17/technology/facebook-democrats-congress.html

Conger, K. (2019, October 30). Twitter Will Ban All Political Ads, C.E.O. Jack Dorsey Says.

Retrieved from The New York Times website:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/technology/twitter-political-ads-ban.html

Cook, S. (2017, February 10). The First Amendment and what it means for free speech online.

Retrieved from comparitech website:

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 26

https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/the-first-amendment-what-it-means-free-

speech-online/

Cost, J. (2017, September 4). James Madison: Free Speech Rights Must Be Absolute, Nearly.

Retrieved from National Review website:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/james-madison-free-speech-rights-must-be-abs

olute-nearly/

East, S. (2016, August 1). Teens: This is how social media affects your brain. Retrieved from

CNN website: https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/health/social-media-brain/index.html

Ebeling, R. M. (2017, August 11). Would-be tyrants capture language to control thought.

Retrieved from Foundation of Economic Education website:

https://fee.org/articles/would-be-tyrants-capture-language-to-control-thought/

Eijnatten, J. V. (2011). In Praise of Moderate Enlightenment: A Taxonomy of Early Modern

Arguments in Favor of Freedom of Expression. In E. Powers (Author), ​Apercus:

Histories Texts Cultures: Freedom of Speech The History of an Idea​ (p. 36). Lanham,

MA: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.

Eijnatten, J. V. (2011). In Praise of Moderate Enlightenment: A Taxonomy of Early Modern

Arguments in Favor of Freedom of Expression. In E. Powers (Author), ​Apercus:

Histories Texts Cultures: Freedom of Speech The History of an Idea​ (p. 31). Lanham,

MA: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.

(​El Ciudadano Imparcial​, no. 5 (1813), 40; Orlando Pelayo Galindo, "La libertad de prensa: un

debate publico en el foro de la prensa madrilena. De mayo a diciembre de 1813," in ​La

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 27

prensa en la Revolucion liberal,​ ed. Alberto Gil Novales (Madrid: Edit. Universidad

Complutense, 1983), 89-90 and 94).

Emmons, L., & Wilson, B. (2019, June). The Guardian unwittingly gives Jordan Peterson's new

platform free advertising . Retrieved from The Post Millennial website:

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/the-guardian-unwittingly-gives-jordan-petersons-new

-platform-free-advertising/

Fabrega, J., & Sajuria, J. (2013, August 6). ​The Emergence of Political Discourse on Digital

Networks: The Case of the Occupy Movement​. Retrieved from arXiv (Cornell University)

website: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.1176.pdf

Federalist No. 51 (1788). (n.d.). Retrieved from The Bill of Rights Institute website:

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/the-federa

list-papers/federalist-papers-no-51/

Finck, M. (2019, January). ​Artificial intelligence and online hate speech.​ Retrieved from Centre

on Regulation in Europe website:

https://www.cerre.eu/sites/cerre/files/CERRE_Hate%20Speech%20and%20AI_IssuePape

r.pdf

Flock, E. (2017, August 18). Spotify has removed white power music from its platform. But it's

still available on dozens of other sites. Retrieved from PBS News Hour website:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/spotify-removed-white-power-music-platform-still-av

ailable-dozens-sites
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 28

Florida, R. (n.d.). Shift Power Back to the Local Level. Retrieved from Politico website:

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-in-america/polarization/s

hift-power-back-to-the-local-level/

Gadde, Vijaya. (2019, October 3). hi - here's our current definition: 1/ Ads that refer to an

election or a candidate, or 2/ Ads that advocate for or against legislative issues of national

importance (such as: climate change, healthcare, immigration, national security, taxes)

(Tweet). https://twitter.com/vijaya/status/1189664481263046656

Galloway, R. W. (1991, January). ​Santa Clara Law Review: Vol. 2. Basic Free Speech Analysis​.

Retrieved from Santa Clara University School of Law website:

https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1689&context=lawrevie

Galton, F. (n.d.). The Wisdom of Crowds (Vox Populi) by Francis Galton (Originally Published

in 1906). Retrieved from ALL-ABOUT-PSYCHOLOGY website:

https://www.all-about-psychology.com/the-wisdom-of-crowds.html

Gamreklidze, E. (2015, October 1). Political Speech Protection and the Supreme Court of the

United States. Retrieved from National Communication Association website:

https://www.natcom.org/communication-currents/political-speech-protection-and-suprem

e-court-united-states

Gifis, Steven H. ​Law Dictionary​ ​Fourth Edition,​ p. 86

Gohmert, L. (2018, December 20). [ Gohmert Introduces bill that removes liability protections

for social media companies that use algorithms to hide, promote, or filter user content].
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 29

Retrieved from gohmert.house.gov website:

https://gohmert.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398676

Griffith, E. (2017, October 25). Will Facebook kill all future Facebooks? Retrieved from Wired

website:

https://www.wired.com/story/facebooks-aggressive-moves-on-startups-threaten-innovatio

n/

Grimmelmann, J. (2015). The virtues of moderation. ​Yale Journal of Law and Technology​,

17​(1), 44-108. Retrieved from

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=yjolt

Guynn, J. (2019, April 10). Ted Cruz threatens to regulate Facebook, Google and Twitter over

charges of anti-conservative bias. Retrieved from USA Today website:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/04/10/ted-cruz-threatens-regulate-facebook-t

witter-over-alleged-bias/3423095002/

H. Rosenberg, (1987, November 24) Neo-Nazis Cloud the Utah Air: "Aryan Nations" to Debut

OverTiny Salt Lake Cit Station, L.A. Times,

Haidt, J. (n.d.). More Social Media Regulation. Retrieved from Politico website:

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-in-america/polarization/m

ore-social-media-regulation/

Haidt, J., & Rose-Stockwell, T. (2019, December). The Dark Psychology of Social Networks.

The Atlantic,​ Politics.

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 30

Hare, I., & Weinstein, J. (2009). General Introduction: Free Speech, Democracy, and the

Suppression of Extreme Speech Past and Present [Introduction]. In ​Extreme Speech and

Democracy​ (pp. 1-7).

Haun, W. J. (2017, September 18). The Natural Law of Free Speech. Retrieved from Law &

Liberty website: https://www.lawliberty.org/2017/09/18/the-natural-law-of-free-speech/

Heyman, S.J. (2009). Hate Speech, Public Discourse, and the First Amendment. In I. Hare & J.

Weinstein (Authors), ​Extreme speech and democracy​ (pp. 158-181).

Hopkins, N. (2017, May 21). Revealed: Facebook's internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and

violence. Retrieved from The Guardian website:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/21/revealed-facebook-internal-rulebook-se

x-terrorism-violencehttps://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/21/revealed-facebook-

internal-rulebook-sex-terrorism-violence

Hudson, D. L., Jr. (n.d.). In the Age of Social Media, Expand the Reach of the First Amendment.

Retrieved from American Bar Association website:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the

-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/in-the-age-of-socia-media-first-amendment/

Hudson, D. L., Jr. (2019, April 1). Free speech or censorship? Social media litigation is a hot

legal battleground. Retrieved from ABA Journal website:

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/social-clashes-digital-free-speech

Hudson Jr, D. L. (n.d.). Content Based. Retrieved from The First Amendment Encyclopedia

website: https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/935/content-based
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 31

Hudson Jr., D. L. (n.d.). Content Neutral. Retrieved from The First Amendment Encyclopedia

website: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/937/content-neutral

Intermediary Liability & Content Regulation. (n.d.). Retrieved from Global Network Initiative

website:

https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/policy-issues/intermediary-liability-content-regulation/

iqsquared. (2018, February 12). ​Brave new world vs nineteen eighty-four​ [Video file]. Retrieved

from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31CcclqEiZw&hl=id&client=mv-google&gl=ID&ful

ldescription=1&app=desktop&persist_app=1

John, R. R. (2019). Freedom of expression in the digital age: A historian's perspective. ​Taylor &

Francis Online​, ​4​(1). Retrieved from

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23753234.2019.1565918

Juan de Olavarria, "Reflexiones a las Cortes" y ostros escritos politicos, ed. Claude Morange

(Bilbao: Universidad del Pais Vasco), 180.

Kessel, P. V., Hughes, A., & Messing, S. (2018, January 19). Very liberal or conservative

legislators most likely to share news on Facebook. Retrieved from Pew Research website:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/19/very-liberal-or-conservative-legislator

s-most-likely-to-share-news-on-facebook/

Knox, C. (2019, October). ​Paradox of Liberalism.​ Retrieved from Acadamia website:

file:///Users/calebknox12/Downloads/Paradox_of_Liberalism.pdf

Laslo, M. (2018, April 6). A conversation with Mark Warner: Russia, Facebook and the Trump

campaign. Retrieved from wvtf music Virginia's Public Radio website:

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 32

https://www.wvtf.org/post/conversation-mark-warner-russia-facebook-and-trump-campai

gn#stream/0

Laub, Z. (2019, June 7). Hate speech on social media: Global comparisons. Retrieved from

Council on Foreign Relations website:

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons

Leetaru, K. (2019, August 24). Social Media Platforms Will Increasingly Define 'Truth'.

Retrieved from Forbes website:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/08/24/social-media-platforms-will-increa

singly-define-truth/#7b4301496427

Lerer, L. (2019, November 21). Debate night: The 'on politics' breakdown. ​The New York Times

On Politics​. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/us/politics/democratic-debate-analysis.html?search

ResultPosition=6

The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. (2017, February 16). Retrieved from National Park

Service (NPS) website: https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debates.htm

Mackowiak, M. (2019, November 13). Competitors challenge Facebook's liberal bias. Retrieved

from The Washington Times website:

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/13/facebooks-liberal-bias-challenged-co

mpetitors/

Mak, T. (2019, August 14). Senator pushes bill to curb 'exploitative and addictive' social media

practices. Retrieved from National Public Radio website:

DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 33

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/14/750585438/senator-pushes-bill-to-curb-exploitative-and-

addictive-social-media-practices

Malik, M. (2011). Extreme Speech and Liberalism. In I. Hare (Author), ​Extreme Speech and

Democracy​ (pp. 96-120) [PDF e-book]

Manila Principles on intermediary liability. (n.d.). Retrieved from Manila Principles website:

https://www.manilaprinciples.org/

Masnick, M. (2019, August 21). Protocols, not platforms: A technological approach to free

speech. Retrieved from Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University

website:

https://knightcolumbia.org/content/protocols-not-platforms-a-technological-approach-to-f

ree-speech

Mbongo, P. (2011). Hate Speech, Extreme Speech, and Collective Defamation in French Law. In

I. Hare (Author), ​Extreme Speech and Democracy​ (pp. 229-230) [PDF e-book]. Retrieved

from

https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.eztcc.vccs.edu:2443/lib/tidewater/reader.action?docID

=4700863&ppg=280

McColley, G. (1937). ​Smith College Studies in History: Vol. 22. The Defense of Galileo.​

Merkovity, N., Imre, R., & Owen, S. (n.d.). ​Homogenizing social media – affect/effect and

globalization of media and the public sphere​. Retrieved from

https://www.academia.edu/27480991/Homogenizing_Social_Media_Affect_Effect_and_

Globalization_of_Media_and_the_Public_Sphere
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 34

Miller, S. (2019, November 5). The top trending featured news story on Twitter is a story no

journalists are really talking about and no major news network or outlet is covering.

There is a fundamental disconnect between media and audience and that's why

Facebook/Social Media isn't going anywhere. [Tweet]. Retrieved from

https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1191808759187685376

Milton, J. (2019). ​Areopagitica​ (W. Jonson, Comp.). Middletown, DE. (Original work published

1644)

Morton, V. (2018, July 4). Facebook flags Declaration of Independence as hate speech.

Retrieved from The Washington Times website:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/4/facebook-flags-declaration-independ

ence-hate-speec/

Muller, K., & Schwarz, C. (2017, December). ​Fanning the Flames of Hate: Social Media and

Hate Crime.​ Retrieved from

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3082972

Omidyar, P. (2017, October 9). Pierre Omidyar: 6 ways social media has become a direct threat

to democracy. Retrieved from The Washington Post website:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2017/10/09/pierre-omidyar-6-w

ays-social-media-has-become-a-direct-threat-to-democracy/

O'Neill, K. F. (n.d.). Time, Place and Manner Restrictions. Retrieved from The First Amendment

Encyclopedia website:

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1023/time-place-and-manner-restrictions
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 35

Ortner, D. (2019, August 12). Government regulation of social media would kill the internet —

and free speech. ​The Hill​. Retrieved from

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/456900-government-regulation-of-social-media-w

ould-kill-the-internet-and-free

Our ongoing work to tackle hate [Blog post]. (2019, June 5). Retrieved from Youtube Official

Blog: https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/06/our-ongoing-work-to-tackle-hate.html

Peters, J. (2017). The "Sovereigns of cyberspace" and state action: The First Amendment's

application—or lack thereof—to third–party platforms . ​Berkeley technology law journal

, ​32​(989), 989-1026. Retrieved from

http://btlj.org/data/articles2017/vol32/32_2/peters_web.pdf

Peterson, J. B. (2017, January 16). ​2017 maps of meaning 01: Context and background​ [Video

file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8Xc2_FtpHI&feature=youtu.be&list=PL22J3VaeA

BQAT-0aSPq-OKOpQlHyR4k5h&t=6401

Read, M. (2018, December 26). How much of the internet is fake? Turns out, a lot of it, actually.

Retrieved from New York Magazine website:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/how-much-of-the-internet-is-fake.html

Regulating social media: we need a new model that protects free expression. (2018, April 25).

Retrieved from Article 19 website:

https://www.article19.org/resources/regulating-social-media-need-new-model-protects-fr

ee-expression/
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 36

Roose, K. (2018, October 28). On Gab, an extremist-friendly site, Pittsburgh shooting suspect

aired his hatred in full. Retrieved from The New York Times website:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/us/gab-robert-bowers-pittsburgh-synagogue-shooti

ngs.html?auth=login-email&login=email

Rubenfeld, J. (2019, November 4). Are Facebook and Google State Actors? Retrieved from

Lawfare Blog: https://www.lawfareblog.com/are-facebook-and-google-state-actors

Schulze, F., & Ssymank, P. W. (1910). ​Das Deutsche Studententum von den Aeltesten Zeiten bis

zur Gegenwart​ (Vol. 1).

Sebastian, J. F. (2011). The Crisis of the Hispanic World: Tolerance and the Limits of Freedom

of Expression in a Catholic Society. In E. Powers (Comp.), ​Apercus: Histories Texts

Cultures: Freedom of speech: The history of an idea​ (pp. 103-131). Lewisburg [Pa.]:

Bucknell University Press.

Section 5: Political engagement and activism. (2014, June 12). Retrieved from Pew Research

website:

https://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/section-5-political-engagement-and-activism/

Section 1: Growing ideological consistency. (2014, June 12). Retrieved from Pew Research

website:

https://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

Shearer, E., & Matsa, K. E. (2018, September 10). News Use Across Social Media Platforms

2018. Retrieved from Pew Research Center Journalism and Media website:

https://www.journalism.org/2018/09/10/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2018/
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 37

Slatz, A. (2019, December). Journalists suspended from Twitter for reporting on Pensacola

Shooter's motivation . Retrieved from The Post Millenial website:

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/journalists-suspended-from-twitter-for-reporting-on-p

ensacola-shooters-motivation/

STATE of Indiana v. Scott D. WELLS, 53A01-0405-CR-229. N.E.2d (June 15, 2006).

Duhaime's Law Dictionary

Strossen, N. (2018). ​Hate: Why we should resist it with free speech, not censorship.​ New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Sutton, R. (1953). The Phrase Libertas Philosophandi. ​Journal of the History of Ideas,​ ​14​(2),

310-316. doi:10.2307/2707480

Truth, D. O. (2017, December 7). Youtube is the modern day Gutenberg press- Jordan Peterson.

Retrieved from Youtube website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nALQe3L9Os

van Mill, David, "Freedom of Speech", ​The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy​ (Summer 2018

Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =

<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/freedom-speech/>.

Weinstein, J. (2009). An Overview of American Free Speech Doctrine and its Application to

Extreme Speech. In I. Hare & J. Weinstein (Authors), ​Extreme speech and democracy

(pp. 81-91).

Wilson, B. (2019, October). Trudeau will censor your social media if reelected . Retrieved from

The Post Millennial website:

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/trudeau-will-censor-your-social-media-if-reelected/
DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 38

Wong, J. C. (2019, March 11). #BreakUpBigTech: Elizabeth Warren says Facebook just proved

her point. Retrieved from The Guardian website:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/11/elizabeth-warren-facebook-ads-brea

k-up-big-tech

YouTube bans 'malicious insults and veiled threats'. (2019, December 11). Retrieved from BBC

website: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50733180

YouTube continues to restrict many PragerU videos. Fight back. (n.d.). Retrieved from PragerU

website: https://www.prageru.com/petition/youtube/