The Pros And Cons Of Internet Censorship

During the most recent presidential election a new political movement was catapulted from the internet into the forefront of the 2016 presidential election. The alt-right became a topic of discussion by both the media and the candidates for their unwavering support of Trump, their political incorrectness, and the far-right ideas their most well-known supporters held. The alt-right also became embroiled in free speech debate as their events became increasingly boycotted by the left-wing due to what the alt-right said or more importantly what they did not overtly say at their events. This led to a nationwide discussion over the censorship of fringe and politically incorrect ideas. The term alt-right itself was created in the late aughts

Due to its anonymous nature discussion in alt-right forums became filled with racist, sexist, and other forms of hate speech. Although not all of its discriminatory content can be blamed solely on internet culture when one of its founders is the white nationalist Richard Spencer( adl.org). Because of this the alt-right at its core harbors white nationalist beliefs. Specifically, the internet gives them forums where they can discuss their beliefs without fear of censorship that would occur in traditional media due to corporate sponsor, although with YouTube’s new policies this seems to be a growing concern amongst right-wing YouTube

Freedom of Speech is protected in the first amendment of the Constitution and is one of the most important rights the Constitution gives its citizens. For that reason the alt-right uses this to portray the Left and politically correct culture as an unamerican and quasi-dictatorial. Freedom of speech is necessary to maintain a healthy democracy in place. There are plenty of examples where the Supreme Court has censored controversial speech, figuratively and literally. An example would be the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision on Schenck v United States, where Schenck was arrested for distributing anti-war pamphlets that urged Americans to avoid the draft. The Supreme Court ruled that Schenck was not protected by the First Amendment since his actions constituted a ‘clear and present danger’ to the United States in times of war (Schenck v United States). Another test the Supreme Court uses to determine whether a specific action is protected or not is the imminent danger test, which was established in the Brandenburg v Ohio case. If an action is determined to incite imminent lawless or violent action then it is not protected by First Amendment (Brandenburg v Ohio). Because of its use of dog whistles and coded language the alt-right can