Ambiguous Threats: “Death to” Statements and the Moderation of Online Speech Acts

Sarah A. Fisher; Jeffrey W. Howard

doi:https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v28i2.3359

Volume 28, Number 2
August 2024

ARTICLE

Ambiguous Threats: “Death to” Statements and the Moderation of Online Speech Acts

and

Volume 28, Number 2, August 2024, Pages 208–229

https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v28i2.3359

PDF

Abstract

In a recent case, a Facebook user in Iran posted “death to Khamenei,” which the platform removed as a violation of its policy against threats and incitement. Facebook ultimately overturned the decision on the grounds that the speech, while contravening its rules, was newsworthy. Yet the company’s Oversight Board offered a distinct rationale for allowing the post: “death to Khamenei” was not a threat or an incitement at all, but rather a rhetorical expression of criticism, disdain, or disgust. Who was right? Drawing on longstanding distinctions in the philosophy of language, we argue that the answer depends on whether platform rules should primarily target an utterance’s illocutionary force or instead its perlocutionary effects. Using this case study to trace broader lessons for the proper governance of online speech, we argue that platforms’ rules should primarily target illocutionary force, only considering perlocutionary effects in cases where illocutionary force is ambiguous.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.

|

Who Do You Speak For? And How? Online Abuse as Collective Subordinating Speech Acts

Michael Randall Barnes

Delegitimizing Transphobic Views in Academia

Logan Mitchell

Refining the Argument from Democracy

Gabe Broughton

In Defense of Moderation: Culpable Ignorance and the Structure of Exculpation

James Goodrich

Can “More Speech” Counter Ignorant Speech?

Maxime Lepoutre