The dichotomy between how the United States and Europe regulate hate speech online
Presentation Type
Abstract
Faculty Advisor
Thomas Loikith
Access Type
Event
Start Date
25-4-2025 1:30 PM
End Date
25-4-2025 2:29 PM
Description
As social media’s popularity grows, so does the online spread of hate speech and misinformation. In the United States, the First Amendment’s protections are broad and the Supreme Court has recognized few exceptions to it. Moreover, social media companies are largely unregulated due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Yet, online speech reaches a larger audience than offline speech, and the words never truly disappear. Other countries, such as Germany, have enacted laws to combat online hate speech and misinformation. What can be done in the United States to achieve a balance between rights of free speech and regulating the use of social media to spread hate speech and misinformation? This is a complex problem that requires interdisciplinary research to more fully understand the problem. I used qualitative research methodology, specifically textual analysis, analyzing sources to determine conflicting insights from the disciplines of law and comparative studies to examine how the United States and Germany address regulating online hate speech and misinformation. I then find common ground between such insights, and integrate them to arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of the problem. That understanding leads to suggested resolutions of the problem. I have not completed my research, but I am able to conclude that government regulation can impede free speech online. However, given the real harm that can be caused by it, the Supreme Court should recognize a new exception to First Amendment protections for hate speech and misinformation disseminated through private social media platforms.
The dichotomy between how the United States and Europe regulate hate speech online
As social media’s popularity grows, so does the online spread of hate speech and misinformation. In the United States, the First Amendment’s protections are broad and the Supreme Court has recognized few exceptions to it. Moreover, social media companies are largely unregulated due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Yet, online speech reaches a larger audience than offline speech, and the words never truly disappear. Other countries, such as Germany, have enacted laws to combat online hate speech and misinformation. What can be done in the United States to achieve a balance between rights of free speech and regulating the use of social media to spread hate speech and misinformation? This is a complex problem that requires interdisciplinary research to more fully understand the problem. I used qualitative research methodology, specifically textual analysis, analyzing sources to determine conflicting insights from the disciplines of law and comparative studies to examine how the United States and Germany address regulating online hate speech and misinformation. I then find common ground between such insights, and integrate them to arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of the problem. That understanding leads to suggested resolutions of the problem. I have not completed my research, but I am able to conclude that government regulation can impede free speech online. However, given the real harm that can be caused by it, the Supreme Court should recognize a new exception to First Amendment protections for hate speech and misinformation disseminated through private social media platforms.
Comments
Poster presentation at the 2025 Student Research Symposium.