Defending Free Speech: From Assumptions to Contradictions - Essay Sample

Introduction

Free expression seems like a value so fundamental that no one needs to defend. However, it is important to occasionally question the assumptions that underlie this right, just like any other freedoms enshrined in the constitution (Illing, 2019). In any country, free speech has a breaking point, an extent where harmful or hateful information should lose its protection provided in the constitution (Joyce, 2015). Free speech has for a long time been a subject of contradiction in the public opinion. Studies show that most people in America strongly support general free speech, but many withdraw their support when surveys focus on specific forms of speech considered controversial (Marantz, 2019). Although regulating free speech has its downsides, it is beneficial in controlling harm that may arise from careless and malicious expressions.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Unregulated use of social media has been a problem everywhere in the world. There is more than enough evidence showing that noxious speech published on social media can spark physical violence (Hooker, 2019). There is a close relationship between what people say and what they do. In the last decade, free speech in social media has been associated with lots of unprecedented negative outcomes such as the Arab Spring, which left many countries in the Middle East completely devastated. Such outcomes of free speech on the internet contradict the once-popular belief that the internet media are only tools of progress and cannot hurt anyone.

Moreover, because there was no regulation of free speech, private users found it easy to propagate fake news on the internet, which fuelled the last presidential campaigns in the United States, India, and the Philippines. Besides politics, many people have lost their lives in attacks orchestrated by hate-mongering over the internet media. Unregulated free speech is to blame for example, for an incidence in 2017 where a driver rammed into protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, killing one and injuring many (Marantz, 2019). It is also the cause of the recent massacre of 51 in the Christchurch, New Zealand mosques where the murderer was found to have been championing white supremacy on social media for a long time (Wermiel, 2019).

The violence propagated through social media is dangerous because it is promoted by trolls, propagandists, and bigots who have mastered the art of turning fanatical positions into national agendas. Considering the extent of harm that noxious speech can cause, there is no denying that individual citizens, private organizations, and the government need to do something to regulate what can be shared on social media and what cannot (Macedo, 2017). Since we live in a digital age where viral ideas can easily slide into terror, I prefer to equate the debate around the regulation of free speech with the conversation about gun control. According to Posner (1986), leaving people to say whatever they want on the media without any gatekeeping is like allowing civilians to possess combat weapons without any requirement for background checks.

Moreover, it is not only morally bankrupt but also intellectually dishonest to use free speech as envisioned in the American constitution as a scape-goat for saying anything that can hurt or upset others (Massaro, 1990). Notably, the First Amendment does not extend the freedom of speech to private companies like Google and Facebook (Hooker, 2019). Similarly, there is no provision in the US constitution guaranteeing American anti-Semitics or neo-Nazis social media accounts. However, I am aware that someone may want to view social media as public utilities. Even so, it is important to note that the First Amendment does not protect all speech. Forms of speech such as child pornography, incitement to violence, and libel are not protected in the constitution yet they do not raise any controversy.

We can never overemphasize the value of free speech in a democracy. However, like all other bedrock nation values, it has to be held in balance with other values such as healthy democratic participation, safety, and equality. In any normal circumstance, free speech is a right that should be protected (Shiffrin, 1994). But this does not include speech meant to make a woman quit her job or promote felony in a country or make an adolescent commit suicide due to bullying (Macedo, 2017). The trade-offs among these important principles involve murky considerations that are not easy to navigate. Nonetheless, any progressive democracy that holds humans in high esteem cannot avoid facing them.

Although the need for speech regulation is greatest in internet-based media, conventional or professional media such as TV, radio, and newspaper have also had their fair share on harm in places where the controls are weak. For example, between 1994 and 1994, radio talk-hosts and journalists called for violence in Rwanda, leading to the infamous genocide that claimed nearly a million lives and displaced more others (Marantz, 2019). Arguably, such events could have been abated if there was a watchdog authority that regulated free speech in the country. It regrettable to note that the US was aware of these developments, and the administration of President Clinton had considered jamming the country's radio signals to stop the broadcasts (Marantz, 2019). However, in the spirit of free speech, Pentagon lawyers opposed the idea. It is thus true that there was a way to curtail the speech of the Rwandese propagandists and averting the genocide.

Similarly, the role and credibility of mainstream news media have become a subject of controversy in the United States and other democracies of the world due to accusations related to the publication of fake news. President Trump's consistent complaint about "fake news" and what he refers to as "fake news media" has put the question of credibility and role of traditional news media to the court of public opinion. There are many critics, influenced by Trump and others, now opposed to the popular perception that the mainstream news media are committed to the values of objectivity and fairness. The perception has been founded on the norm that the role of media is to disseminate factual information and serve as a public watchdog that keeps the government in check (Herbeck, 2018). The widespread erosion of the veracity of the news media in the United States is rare in countries where there is robust but fair regulation of the traditional media.

Furthermore, the growing attacks on the US mainstream news media are creating a new threat, and it is not the fear that the government will muzzle or censure the news media. Under the First Amendment, the US Supreme Court has certainly put in place enough safeguards to guarantee the free operation of the news media without any interference by the government. Rather, there is concern that the continuous questioning of the accuracy of the press will further hurt the trust of the public, which may respond with hostility towards journalists (Wermiel, 2019). There are also fears that making it acceptable for the people to ridicule the news media in the country may be used as an excuse to curtail media freedom in other parts of the world.

Conclusion

In conclusion, regulation of free speech has many benefits, which include preservation of credibility of the press, curtailing harms of noxious speech such as incitement to violence, and promoting responsible citizen journalism. It is possible to fairly regulate free speech without necessarily repealing the laws that enshrine freedom or banning unpopular or dissenting speech. It is crucial for any democracy to admit that unchecked speech has its risks, most of which can be prevented but cannot be reversed once they happen. Risks of ill-intended speech such as terrorism, suicide, genocide, and civil war can be mitigated if media gatekeepers take the right steps to stop inappropriate information before it enters the public domain.

References

Herbeck, D. A. (2018). Freedom of speech and the communication discipline: Defending the value of low-value speech. Communication Education, 67(2), 245-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2018.1428760

Hooker, M. (2019). Censorship, Free Speech & Facebook: Applying the First Amendment to Social Media Platforms via the Public Function Exception. Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts, 15(1).

Illing, S. (2019, March 10). A philosopher makes the case against free speech. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2019/3/4/18197209/free-speech-philosophy-politics-brian-leiter

Joyce, D. (2015). Internet freedom and human rights. European Journal of International Law, 26(2), 493-514. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chv021

Macedo Junior, R. P. (2017). Freedom of expression: What lessons should we learn from US experience? Revista Direito GV, 13(1), 274-302. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172201711

Marantz, A. (2019, October 4). Free speech is killing us. The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/free-speech-social-media-violence.html

Massaro, T. M. (1990). Equality and freedom of expression: The hate speech dilemma. Wm. & Mary L. Rev., 32, 211.

Posner, R. A. (1986). Free speech in an economic perspective. Suffolk UL Rev., 20, 1.Shiffrin, S. H. (1994). The Politics of the Mass Media and the Free Speech Principle.

Wermiel, S. J. (2019). The ongoing challenge to define free speech. American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/