Death threats, on the face it, appear to be exactly the sort of content that an online platform ought to censor – or ‘moderate’, as the preferred and obscuring term has it. Surely it is impermissible to threaten someone’s life and surely it is appropriate for online spaces like Facebook – or now Meta – to remove such speech.

But what if the statement isn’t really an urge towards violence, nor a declaration of one’s intent to kill? Sometimes, when people make death threats, say to dictators, might that really be more of a political slogan or a form of critique? What if there is no intent behind the threat, and the target isn’t in danger? And ought online platforms care about such nuance when thinking about what to leave up and what to take down.

We are joined by Jeffrey Howard, who is Associate Professor in Political Philosophy and Public Policy, and director of the Digital Speech Lab, and Sarah Fisher, a Research Fellow.

Mentioned in this episode:

Jeffrey Howard and Sarah Fisher. Ambiguous Threats: ‘Death-to’ Statements and the Moderation of Online Speech-Acts. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy (forthcoming)

UCL’s Department of Political Science and School of Public Policy offers a uniquely stimulating environment for the study of all fields of politics, including international relations, political theory, human rights, public policy-making and administration. The Department is recognised for its world-class research and policy impact, ranking among the top departments in the UK on both the 2021 Research Excellence Framework and the latest Guardian rankings.

Death Threats and Online Content Moderation