Everyone has heard about the Dark Web. I’ll be the first to admit that when I was in middle school I was completely under the impression that it was literally just Google but dark and you could search for illegal stuff. In my mind, all you had to do to get there was type “dark web” into the search bar. Contrary to the less-informed beliefs of my twelve-year-old self, the Dark Web is obviously far more complex than that. At its best, it is a network for those who desire unfettered communication; at its worst, it is a marketplace for society’s most despicable to do their bidding. From the more egregious side of meme-culture to child sex trafficking, it exists on the Dark Web. One corner of the internet that teeters between the light and dark is the disturbing platform known as 8Chan. What began as a response to the popular imageboard 4Chan developed into a hotbed of conspiracy that captured the idle minds of millions.
If you’re reading this and have no idea what I’m talking about, think about 4Chan as anonymous Reddit. 8Chan is that, but almost completely unmonitored. The imageboard runs rampant with child pornography, nazism, and disgusting displays of all sorts of misogyny. It’s interesting how the people that often desire “complete freedom of speech” often use what they believe to be their right to infringe on the safety of others. By this, I mean that 8Chan has been linked to various hate crimes, most notably the New Zealand mosque shooting that claimed multiple lives and was broadcasted onto the website live. The moderators of the site, all interviewed heavily in the ongoing HBO docuseries Q: Into The Storm, claim they took down the board as quickly as they found out, however, the lasting scar it left on humanity can’t be healed so quickly. It begs the question: where is the line between freedom of speech, and, well, whatever the hell is going on on 8Chan? How can we draw that line legally? Many users would argue that there should be no cap on what you can and can’t say. Many tech giants, such as Reddit owner Alexis Ohanian, believe that free speech ends when activism to commit a crime begins. I think this is certainly an interesting definition, and one getting increasingly more attention on debate floors and in courtrooms. The dangers of the internet our lawmakers have been hesitant to tackle are finally becoming too prominent to ignore.
Free speech and anonymity are two values that American people hold dearly, and with reason, too. Free speech is a necessity I too hold close, especially as an aspiring truth-teller. The ability to do things like openly criticize the government, or even things as simple as watching uncensored television shows, is a privilege many citizens of the world are not afforded, and I am grateful for it daily. However, like anything else, it is a double-edged sword. With this privilege, things like QAnon come to exist, and ladies, gentlemen, and non-binary friends, this is precisely why we can’t have nice things. It seems as though every “free speech” platform quickly becomes infested by nazis, incels, and white supremacists. People don’t make an 8Chan to post their grandma’s soup recipes. And while I am a firm proponent of free speech, I think it is painfully obvious that we need to find a way to adjust our regulations to prevent people from being able to coordinate shootings on imageboards.
In the docuseries, which I have been watching with fervent anxiety and many pauses to look at my girlfriend in utter horror, there is a clip rolled of a protest that took place around the time when a Nazi group organized a march in a Chicago suburb with a heavily Jewish population. Understandably outraged, a woman is seen screaming at an officer that Nazis have no rights. It is difficult to stomach the visible pain this woman is in. And in all honesty, I can easily sympathize with her sentiment. Earlier this year, freedom of speech enabled one of the most terrifying onslaughts of domestic terrorism our country has ever seen, and legislative proceedings in the wake of this event will likely cross dangerous territory. Watching it all unfold, I felt sick thinking that our courts will fight to protect the very people attempting to destroy what our nation has built; that white supremacists are also protected by free speech under the Constitution, and they can use it to fly a flag that symbolizes the desire to own other human beings. A flag that symbolizes the blood shed by men who would rather die than not be able to own slaves. Is the First Amendment subject to change, or will we continue to allow sites like 8Chan and Parler to enable events like the one we witnessed at the Capitol? Does freedom of speech encompass flying a confederate flag at the Capitol building? Are these men, who call themselves patriots, the ones who need a platform to conspire against the government? And if we take these platforms away, what will it mean for the First Amendment?
QAnon, a mystery social media person (or persons) has managed to start a cult without ever revealing himself. His followers are willing to take his words to the grave. Uploading “drops” to 8Chan with his alleged “Q Clearance” status under the Trump Administration, he created something so ugly and complex I can’t begin to cover its intricacies in a single article. The implications of his words, and the impact they have on his followers, speak multitudes of the America I wish I wasn’t a part of. However, we must take responsibility for this part of our country as well. Those who would rather believe that all the Big Shot Democrats are part of some satanic cult that eats babies in the basement of a DC pizzeria (yes, this is really what it’s about) than focus on the grossly uninvestigated cases of missing indigenous women, cases that really have substantial evidence to work with. Our country, our world, is not short of problems. People with platforms that point attention to false issues are distracting from the ones our energy should really be going to.
The future of free speech is unknown. The Founding Fathers of this stolen nation could not have foreseen this age of iPhones and assault rifles, but the Constitution was made a living document; because at the very least, these men knew that times would change. The need for new amendments would be unavoidable. So, in these deeply perplexing cases of constitutional law, we sit agonizing over what those four men would have done in our shoes, when maybe what we should be doing is thinking of what needs to be done by us.