Abstract
ABSTRACTThis article poses the following questions: Do digital intermediaries (sites such as Facebook or Twitter) have a duty to prevent or ameliorate harm to victims of vile speech? Or do they have a duty to ensure that as much speech as possible gets published on their platforms? To dissect this dilemma, this article offers ethical rationales behind these competing goals. The rationale for promoting speech is founded on a concern for the facilitation of discourse democracy, while the rationale for preventing harm is based on a concern for human dignity. The article concludes by discussing issues of accountability in digital intermediaries’ self-regulatory regimes.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
