“Digital Democracy”: A Threat to the Democratic System or Oxygenation of Representative Democracy and Free Speech?

Abstract

AbstractThe so-called “digital democracy” has little to do with representative democracy or even with deliberative democracy, functioning rather, in liberal or libertarian logic, as a multipolar channel of free speech in pluralist societies, which develops without dependence on the filter media, predicting in the future, a growing impact on political action. The political use of social networks in cyberspace in democratic states can both oxygenate representative democracy, stimulating direct communication between politicians and citizens and improving public debate, as well as degrading its quality through hate speech, false news, and vexing messages. However, in the second case, network communications do not, by themselves, constitute a threat to the same democracy but rather a strain on its quality. Since cyberspace cannot be a “land without law”, surveillance of fake or extreme online discourse must be based on balanced rules that allow public and private entities to prevent and repress the incitement or practice of serious crimes but avoiding the use of direct or collateral censorship aimed at shaping a single thought pattern or an index of “cursed” political thoughts. In Europe, there is sometimes an exaggerated perception of virtual risks linked to communication in cyberspace, which means that in some countries, like Germany, the curbing of political debate operates through a “bureaucratic” private and collateral soft form of censorship imposed by public authorities on digital platforms, subsidizing the action of the courts, which constitutes a constitutionally problematic restriction on freedom of expression. In the United States, the platforms generated some sort of digital cartel banning or suspending, sometimes concertedly, citizens and social networks based on their deontological codes of behaviour without further control. In any case, in electoral periods, courts with electoral functions must have effective power to intervene, especially in the removal of messages that involve manifestly fake news with major social impact and also relevant manipulative communications in the elective process, namely those created artificially from abroad or that involve gross violation of citizen’s data protection rules.KeywordsSocial networksHate speechFree speechBalanced cyberegulationQuality of democracy