Social networking sites (SNS) routinely ban aggressive users. Such bans are sometimes perceived as a limitation to the right to free speech. While research has examined SNS users' perceptions of online aggression, little is known about how observers make trade-offs between free speech and the desire to punish aggression. By focusing on reactions to an SNS ban, this study explores under what circumstances users consider the protection of the right to free speech as more important than the suppression of aggression. We propose a model of moderated mediation that explains under what circumstances online aggression increases the acceptance of a ban. When posts display aggression, the ban is less likely to be perceived as violating free speech and as unfair. Consequently, aggression reduces the likelihood that users will protest through negative word of mouth. Moreover, users protest against an SNS ban only when this affects an in-group user (rather than an out-group user). This in-group bias, however, diminishes when an in-group aggressor targets a high warmth out-group user. The study raises managerial implications for the effective management of aggressive interactions on SNS and for the persuasive communication of a decision to ban a user engaging in aggressive behavior.

中文翻译：

---

“如果我同意你的观点，我将捍卫你的言论自由权”：社交媒体用户如何（或不）对在线外群体攻击做出反应

社交网站 (SNS) 经常禁止攻击性用户。此类禁令有时被视为对言论自由权的限制。虽然研究调查了 SNS 用户对在线攻击的看法，但对于观察者如何在言论自由和惩罚攻击的愿望之间进行权衡，我们知之甚少。通过关注对 SNS 禁令的反应，本研究探讨了在什么情况下用户认为保护言论自由权比压制侵略更重要。我们提出了一种适度调解模型，该模型解释了在什么情况下在线攻击会增加对禁令的接受。当帖子表现出侵略性时，禁令不太可能被视为违反言论自由和不公平。最后，攻击性降低了用户通过负面口碑进行抗议的可能性。此外，只有当这影响到组内用户（而不是组外用户）时，用户才会抗议 SNS 禁令。然而，当群内攻击者针对高热情的外群用户时，这种内群偏见会减少。该研究对有效管理 SNS 上的攻击性互动以及对禁止用户从事攻击性行为的决定进行有说服力的交流提出了管理意义。