By Liv Dennis
Social media has quickly become an integral part of daily life. It is where people share news, debate ideas, and sometimes spread rumors just for the fun of it. That has led to a big question. Should social media censor what we see, or should people have the right to say whatever they please online?
Take the video of political commentator Charlie Kirk’s death. According to PBS, within hours of the shooting, clips spread across various social media platforms and were seen more than 40 million times. Some people shared them to document what happened, others to mock him, and many just to get attention. Should platforms remove the footage because it is graphic and upsetting, or should people have the right to view it?
People should have access to videos like this, but with clear warnings. Tragedies are uncomfortable to watch, yet they are also real. Shielding the public from reality does not make it disappear. Sometimes seeing hard things is what pushes us as a society to have important conversations. At the same time, viewers deserve a choice. To honor this, platforms can put content warnings in place so people know what they are about to see, instead of scrubbing the video from existence.
Beyond tragic events, the same question applies to everyday social media use. Everything should not be censored. People should be able to express themselves unless what they are saying is directly harmful to someone else. That means no libel, no slander, and no calls for violence. But outside of those clear lines, speech should be protected, even if it makes others uncomfortable.
The danger of too much censorship is that it can go too far. Once platforms start deciding which opinions are acceptable, it becomes a slippery slope. One person’s harmful content might be another person’s political view. If platforms erase everything that sparks controversy, we lose the open debate that keeps democracy strong.
On the other hand, ignoring harmful content entirely is not the answer either. We have already seen the damage misinformation can do. During the COVID-19 pandemic, false claims about vaccines influenced people’s health decisions. Hate speech online has also led to violence in real life. Free speech does not mean freedom to put others in danger.
The best balance is in the middle. Platforms should remove content that directly harms people, like threats, targeted harassment, and proven falsehoods that cause serious damage. For everything else, they should rely on warnings, context labels, or fact checks. That approach protects free expression while still holding people accountable.
Censorship might feel like protection, but too much of it can silence important voices. The internet should not be a place where ideas are erased. It should be a place where people share thoughts, even unpopular ones, and where readers can decide what to believe.
We all benefit from hearing different perspectives, including the ones we disagree with. Free expression matters most when it is difficult, and social media should reflect that.
––
Photo courtesy of Pixabay.