point in social media’s history.
Countless examples exist that confirm the connection between the vitriol of racialized aggressions dispensed online and the harm that follows. Clearly, racialized aggressions are a threat to the dignity of our existence and the common humanity that we share. The impact of encountering racialized aggressions on social media is of particular concern for the coming generations of our society, but we have yet to prioritize the eradication of racism within these online spaces as a moral imperative. Children, adolescents, and young adults are digital natives who regularly engage or will rely on social media throughout their lives; but these populations are already regularly exposed to racialized aggressions within these online spaces. Most concerning is evidence that found these young users are likely to develop depression, anxiety, fear of safety, lowered sense of belonging, and enhanced levels of cultural distrust as a result of encountering online racialized hostility. Given the wide-ranging consequences that racialized aggressions have on social media, it is essential efforts be made to combat these hostilities with movements of resistance that combat online hate.
Combating racialized aggressions
It’s not enough to opt out of platforms and forums where racialized aggressions exist or to simply ignore their presence on social media. Racism and bigotry in these spaces will continue to reproduce and become imminent threats to the values of inclusion and democracy if we are complacent to act. Similar to racial activism within the physical world, a collective anti-racist approach to justice is what is warranted on social media, which can be broadly defined as the actions and/or practices that seek to actively confront and eradicate all its forms of racism.
Online communities have shown that they can be effective forums to combat racialized hostility. For instance, Instagram was taken over by a “Blackout” of millions of photos of black squares to support the victims of police violence. Famously, fans of the Korean Pop boy band, BTS, mobilized on social media to thwart a “Make American Great Again” rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma in June 2020. The social media account “ckyourprivilege” boosts over 700,000 followers and leads social media followers in producing and spreading anti-racism education. TikTok developed and implemented a policy that prohibits “hateful behavior,” which includes bans on racial slurs and hateful ideology. Their actions compelled other social media to develop strong policies around racialized aggressions. High schools, colleges, universities, and even private workplaces have instituted codes of conduct that have consequences for authoring and endorsing racialized hate on social media. Yet. these emerging policies also call attention to the nuances and tensions that exist between the freedom of expression and our moral responsibility to safeguard against physical, emotional, and psychological violence.
While racialized hostility on social media is widely considered an incongruent value of a democratic society, blanket censorship of these objectionable online comments is likely to engender conflicts with the Constitutional rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Today, we are faced with the dilemma of identifying, assessing, and acting upon racialized aggressions in ways that convey our democratic commitment to reject those statements of hate while simultaneously maintaining individual rights of expression. This distinction is in the emerging stage of being shaped by legal decisions and is being complicated by the constantly expanding nature of the metaverse.
Early legal decisions (for example, Feine v. Parkland, Harrell v. Southern Oregon, and Rollins v. Cardinal Stritch) have generally given deference to specific organizational/institu- tional policies regarding the limitations of despicable speech when online assaults result in material harm within those environments. But, such deferral to individual institutions has necessitated that those entities embrace agendas, policies, and due process that
explicitly delineates when, where, and to what
56