言论自由、社交媒体审查和财产权

IF 0.5 Q4 COMMUNICATION
P. Slutskiy
{"title":"言论自由、社交媒体审查和财产权","authors":"P. Slutskiy","doi":"10.51698/TRIPODOS.2020.48P53-67","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sustainable Development Goal 16 stresses the importance of access to information. It is clearly emphasised in target 16.10 —“to ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements”. With social media becoming the default communication platforms, the questions of the extent to which their content moderating models are conducive to the implementation of public access to information and fundamental freedoms are becoming increasingly important. Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr as well as Twitter and other social media platforms have been recently criticised for censorship of user-generated content. This article looks at the controversy surrounding these policies from the property rights perspective —focusing on the role which property rights play in securing the freedom of expression. By recognising the owners’ right to control the legitimately owned property, I conclude that social media are not engaged in “censorship” —they merely exercise property rights. There is a difference between a private platform refusing to carry someone’s ideas on their property and a government prohibiting from speaking on a legitimately owned property. \nKeywords: SDG 16.10, freedom of expression, censorship, social media, property rights.","PeriodicalId":44263,"journal":{"name":"Tripodos","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Freedom of Expression, Social Media Censorship, and Property Rights\",\"authors\":\"P. Slutskiy\",\"doi\":\"10.51698/TRIPODOS.2020.48P53-67\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Sustainable Development Goal 16 stresses the importance of access to information. It is clearly emphasised in target 16.10 —“to ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements”. With social media becoming the default communication platforms, the questions of the extent to which their content moderating models are conducive to the implementation of public access to information and fundamental freedoms are becoming increasingly important. Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr as well as Twitter and other social media platforms have been recently criticised for censorship of user-generated content. This article looks at the controversy surrounding these policies from the property rights perspective —focusing on the role which property rights play in securing the freedom of expression. By recognising the owners’ right to control the legitimately owned property, I conclude that social media are not engaged in “censorship” —they merely exercise property rights. There is a difference between a private platform refusing to carry someone’s ideas on their property and a government prohibiting from speaking on a legitimately owned property. \\nKeywords: SDG 16.10, freedom of expression, censorship, social media, property rights.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44263,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tripodos\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tripodos\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.51698/TRIPODOS.2020.48P53-67\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tripodos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51698/TRIPODOS.2020.48P53-67","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

可持续发展目标16强调获取信息的重要性。目标16.10明确强调了这一点——“根据国家立法和国际协议,确保公众获得信息和保护基本自由”。随着社交媒体成为默认的交流平台,其内容审核模式在多大程度上有利于实现公众获取信息和基本自由的问题变得越来越重要。Facebook、Instagram、Tumblr以及Twitter和其他社交媒体平台最近因审查用户生成的内容而受到批评。本文从产权的角度审视围绕这些政策的争议,重点关注产权在保障言论自由方面所起的作用。通过承认所有者有权控制合法拥有的财产,我得出结论,社交媒体没有参与“审查”——它们只是行使财产权。一个私人平台拒绝在自己的财产上发表某人的观点,与一个政府禁止在合法拥有的财产上发表言论,这是有区别的。关键词:可持续发展目标16.10,言论自由,审查制度,社交媒体,产权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Freedom of Expression, Social Media Censorship, and Property Rights
Sustainable Development Goal 16 stresses the importance of access to information. It is clearly emphasised in target 16.10 —“to ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements”. With social media becoming the default communication platforms, the questions of the extent to which their content moderating models are conducive to the implementation of public access to information and fundamental freedoms are becoming increasingly important. Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr as well as Twitter and other social media platforms have been recently criticised for censorship of user-generated content. This article looks at the controversy surrounding these policies from the property rights perspective —focusing on the role which property rights play in securing the freedom of expression. By recognising the owners’ right to control the legitimately owned property, I conclude that social media are not engaged in “censorship” —they merely exercise property rights. There is a difference between a private platform refusing to carry someone’s ideas on their property and a government prohibiting from speaking on a legitimately owned property. Keywords: SDG 16.10, freedom of expression, censorship, social media, property rights.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Tripodos
Tripodos COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信