The United States (U.S.) was in chaos recently when supporters of former President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6. The riot was part of an attempt to nullify the outcome of the presidential election in which Donald Trump had been defeated by Joe Biden. One of the consequences of the disturbing mob riot was Google and Apple's decision to shut down Parler, a mobile app that provides a platform for free speech, after the app was linked to the violent uprisings. While Google and Apple justified their actions as “eradicating the source of fake news,” some expressed worries over it becoming an example of the infringement of the freedom of speech.
Originally marketed as an unbiased social network, Parler has been populated with right-wing extremists since its launch in 2017. It contained highly biased content and conspiracies that could lead to false, legally liable accusations against politicians. The messages of violence on Parler intensified during the days preceding the Capitol attack, related to unfounded claims about fraud in the recent election. Several users claimed that the election had been “rigged” against Trump and urged joint action to overturn the results. Google explained that the site made no effort to remove any content that actively proposed violent actions and shut down the app. Similarly, Apple removed Parler from its app store, citing a violation of its content-moderation requirements.
The companies’ choices were meaningful in regard to their intention to prevent further violent uprisings that would undermine democracy and national security. The uprising not only resulted in four deaths, but was also an attempt to undermine a democratically agreed-upon decision. However, shutting down the app leads to debate over the freedom of speech, a basic yet potent right and raises the question of whether it was the best solution.
Google and Apple’s audacious decision was backed by the claim that Parler was the source of highly dangerous misinformation. However, it is unclear what information should be classified as “highly dangerous.” With no direct connection between the site and the uprising, the decision to shut down the site was hasty. Admittedly, free speech cannot be a catch-all excuse for defamation and conspiracies. Still, arbitrarily classifying the inappropriateness of the content and shutting down a platform may set a bad example of oppressing the freedom of speech. If this example were to be followed, any information could be classified as dangerous depending on individual companies’ viewpoints and interests. Even if the content may seem disturbing and misleading, it is vital to let public decide their value rather than to silence the speakers.
Free speech is fundamental, yet its concept is still quite abstract. No concrete guidelines on the extent of free speech exist. However, it withers from the slightest attempt to undermine it, thus threatening the future of democracy. Thus, careful approaches should be taken to the debate over free speech because, just like dominoes, one bad example could easily lead to several others. It must not be forgotten that the violent posts on Parler are the symptoms of the problems, not the cause. They simply reflected the deep national conflict that must be solved for the country to advance. Tearing down a platform filled with complaints may be equivalent to snatching away the chance to identify and fix the problems. The nation is required to carefully investigate the root causes of problematic online content before hastily silencing it.