A month
ago, if you asked me what the app Yik Yak was, I would have said it’s an app
where people in your surrounding location can post anonymously unto a feed
where people can post and comment on their posts – it’s kinda dumb. However, if
you were to ask me the same question two weeks, my answer would have been much
different. Two weeks ago, I would have said Yik Yak is where I get constant
updates about the racial equality protest currently on campus and I can see all
the harmful and hateful things people secretly think or believe. Reading the
posts people wrote onto the app during the time of the protest made me uneasy,
and at times, even scared. This app provided a forum for people to be critics,
comedians, newscasters, and politicians all behind a curtain of secrecy.
Anyone
who would say the things I saw on Yik Yak out loud, in public would clearly be
trying to start a fight or hurt someone’s feelings. It made me wonder how much
freedom of speech does Yik Yak give to the users of their app? And would it be
any different than someone posting something threatening on Facebook? When we
discussed Justin Carter’s Facebook post, where he stated he was going to “shoot
up a kindergarten and watch the blood of the innocent rain down and eat the
beating heart of one of them,” he was convicted and served 5 months in jail.
Would anything be different if Justin had said this on Yik Yak?
Since
Yik Yak is by location, often it distinguishes areas by colleges. Does that
mean that a college could punish a student for what they say on Yik Yak? According to the First Amendment Center, as
the Supreme Court has not heard a case about student Internet speech and has
not heard a pure First Amendment student speech case since 1988, the area of
whether a school can reprimand a student for posting something inappropriate
online remains hazy. I would imagine this gets even hazier when the speech is anonymous.
Curious
as to how far the privacy of Yik Yak actually goes, I checked the privacy
policy on the app’s website. Under the Privacy section, Yik Yak states that the
only information they collect from their users is account information,
geolocation data, content and usage, information that is collected
automatically (such as device ID, IP address, device name and model, etc.). So,
while they cannot actually find your name, the app can reveal your phone’s
identity. The app also claims that it will disclose the identity of a user in
times of legal issues and threats that involve the safety of another person.
But
then we come back to the standard question of when does speech become dangerous?
Sure, we have a standard of when speech is considered a true threat, but are
people less likely to take a true threat seriously when everything is
anonymous? I personally believe that people are more likely to sweep things
under the rug when it’s anonymous or does not apply directly to them. Yik Yak,
for me, blurs so many lines that it can be hard to know whether someone is
writing honestly or not, and even if they were, I would probably not pay as
much attention unless it was explicitly directed at me. As the app is decently new,
I think it will be interesting to see how it grows and how the First Amendment
might take on a bigger role.
Like you Betsy, I was horrified at some of the anonymous statements on Yik Yak during the protest. I feel that it definitely created a climate of fear, and it was hard to believe other fellow Billikens would write such hateful drivel. I think it’ll be interesting to see how issues with the First Amendment might play out where Yik Yak is concerned. Since the First Amendment doesn’t protect true threats against specific individuals, it’s a good thing that Yik Yak’s policy says it’ll divulge those names if necessary.
ReplyDeleteOnline communication is certainly fascinating: It’s ridiculous how vile certain comments are just because people feel anonymity grants them the right to be disrespectful. Part of the appeal of Yik Yak is that it allows users to remain anonymous, and it’s terrifying to think that these posts reflect actual thoughts. That being said however, I feel that online speech should be treated the same as hate speech—unless it’s a true threat that will result in imminent danger, it is protected under the First Amendment. Even if the colleges are involved, it should still be protected speech unless it violates the Tinker standard. In that case, colleges should have the right to punish the speech.
The controversy around Yik Yak in our school is certainly interesting. Sarah I agree with you-- unless the speech is defamation, a true threat, or incites imminent lawless action under the Brandenburg standard then it should be protected. It is awful that people say terrible things behind the veil of anonymity; yet, the First Amendment gives equal protection to speech whether it is offensive or not. Take for instance the Pro-Life blog we looked at in class or the Westboro Baptist Church twitter page (@GodHatesFagsWBC). While speech on these media outlets is hurtful to many, the right of free expression is more important than the effect it has on listeners. One of the reasons why the First Amendment exists is to protect unpleasant speech. As Voltaire said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." For this reason, even though I hate Yik Yak, I don't think the app should be banned or censored.
ReplyDeleteYik Yak is disgusting. It is a source of ignorance and blatant vulgarity. Cowards and hypocrites use this application to abuse their first amendment privileges. I think this is an interesting point you bring up, Betsy. Since, Yik Yak is relatively new, not enough attention has been drawn to the hateful speech the application attracts. Specifically, during the time of the recent on-campus protests at SLU, several hateful, racist comments were posted anonymously. Anonymous or not, a true threat is a true threat and should not be protected under the First Amendment. If a person posts a true threat statement anonymously on Yik Yak, their hidden identity should not serve as a guard protecting them from their unconstitutional speech. Comments were posted in declaration of ending peoples’ lives solely based on their race. This is not ok and cannot continue. Like I said, Yik Yak is a new application of the 21st century and the First Amendment has not exactly caught up with the times. There is a hazy area between what constitutes as speech online and especially on smart phone applications.
ReplyDelete