Abstract

ABSTRACTThis article poses the following questions: Do digital intermediaries 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.