Redefining online community Part 8: freedom of expression in online communities

Finding and holding a very delicate balance …
To be honest I’ve been looking forward to writing about this particular topic since I first envisioned this ten-part blog series. I’ve known from the very beginning of the Eos project that we’d be challenged to strike a delicate balance between providing an assuredly safe, healthy space for people to share their experiences, thoughts, ideas, and feelings while also encouraging people to show up in their most authentic way. Sometimes thoughts and feelings can be messy, and being real with people can sometimes mean saying things they don’t necessarily want to hear.  
​
Creating such a space to me ultimately comes down to a few clear guiding principles: community orientation, safety, respect, and integrity. Not coincidentally, those happen to be part of the core value set of The Intentional Living Collective, and they’re four of the core tenets of the Good Human Code of Conduct upon which the Eos content curation and member dispute processes are based. More on that later - but for now I’ll summarize this to say that all members agree to a.) value all member voices and strive for productive and healthy collaborations between all, b.) behave toward all members in ways that help them feel safe in all situations, c.) let their actions and words reflect our values and strive to meet our commitments, and d.) treat all members with respect at all times and use language that reflects appreciation of their wisdom and perspective. Further, all members agree to hold themselves and each other accountable for following these principles and we’ve built fair and transparent processes to help enforce them when needed.

​So about that first amendment …
Freedom of speech is the right to express opinions without government restraint, and in the United States the First Amendment guarantees free speech - though it also places limits on this freedom. I thought the SCOTUS decision in Texas v. Johnson was particularly interesting.  The First Amendment applies only to state actors, and there is a common misconception that it prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, including private, non-governmental entities. A private organization can and in some cases should place limits on speech in the interest of protecting its members - if it’s done in fairness and with respect to all involved.
​
Freedom of expression is considered by the United Nations (UNESCO) to be the cornerstone of democracy. International human rights laws protect freedom of expression, and one of the most fundamental documents is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) drafted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1948. In Article 19 of the UDHR, it states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Even though there are fundamental laws protecting freedom of expression, there are multiple international laws that expand on the UDHR and pose limitations and restrictions, specifically concerning the safety and protection of individuals. For example, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) addresses hate speech through the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and monitors its implementation by State parties. Also article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) prohibits national, religious, or racial hatred that incites violence, discrimination, or hostility.

​So who decides what content or speech is and isn’t acceptable?
Oh man, there’s a lot to explore here. If you want to explore this topic in more depth than I can possibly cover in a single blog post, please feel free to dive into this wiki on freedom of speech and expression. For now I’ll just touch on a couple of specific subtopics - obscenity and hate speech.

Obscenity. In a 1964 case about pornography, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, in Jacobellis v. Ohio, famously said that, although he could not precisely define pornography, "I know it when I see it". Later, the Court decided Miller v. California (1973) and said that a work is obscene if: (a) 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find the work, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest ... (b) ... the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) ... the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Interestingly, “Community" standards—not national standards—are applied to determine whether allegedly obscene material appeals to the prurient interest and is patently offensive. The standards of the Eos community, then, are the ones that will guide us as to what’s offensive and what isn’t.
​
Hate speech. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation". Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation". Laws against hate speech can generally be divided into two types: those intended to preserve public order and those intended to protect human dignity. The line between free speech and hate speech is a tricky one, as evidenced when the ACLU defended a neo-nazi group over freedom of speech. In the case of Eos, our content guidelines will serve both of those purposes - and not just in cases of obscenity or hate speech.

Community standards and content curation  
The concept of “Community standards” seems like a pretty reasonable place to start, right?  Except … someone has to define what those standards are. In defining the Eos “Good Human Code of Conduct” (GHCOC) we start with the understanding that we’re all unique individuals and that none of us want to be unnecessarily controlled or told how to behave. To that end, we knew it was important to give “clear enough” guidance on what is and isn’t okay while providing enough room for individuals to express themselves in their most authentic way. We based the GHCOC on the eight core values of The Intentional Living Collective: community, safety, integrity, respect, fairness, supportiveness, constructiveness, and organicness (yes, that’s really a word) and we put it right into the membership agreement that everyone signs before they can post any content on Eos. To reiterate - anyone can view the non-private content that’s posted in Eos, but only members that agree to behave according to the GHCOC can post content. While that may sound prescriptive on face value, I believe that this is the most fair and enforceable way to create a safe space for all members.

So if all members agree to follow the GHCOC when posting content or interacting with other members, who is responsible for enforcing the GHCOC and how will they do it? Simply put, the community is. The Eos content curation system, also clearly spelled out in the membership agreement, is based on three key principles: transparency, fairness, and community determination and enforcement. To summarize the process, members first hold themselves accountable to follow the GHCOC, then they gently hold each other accountable, then they can ask for moderator intervention if needed, and unresolved conflicts between members are ultimately decided by an escalation team run by actual community members. In the event that a member is an unrepentant jerk and keeps breaking the GHCOC with their content or posts, they will simply lose their account privileges.  

I’ll end this post with the same honesty I started it with - I can’t even pretend to know how well this is going to work at first. I do know that it isn’t going to be perfect, and I fully expect that it’ll be tested quite fully as more and more members join and then start posting content and interacting with each other. I think we’re based on solid principles and processes, and I know we’re going to learn and adjust as we go.  It’s a New Earth, and I’m super excited to be part of it!

Coming up next: Online security, privacy and safety