Benefits and Drawbacks

There are a wide array of emergent issues facing free expression across various sectors.

Private Internet Companies—Social Media or Otherwise

Private internet companies, specifically social media companies, are key institutions in the 21st century digital public sphere. As a society, it has never been easier for individuals to connect and communicate with one another. We use the technology available to discuss and share art, thoughts, opinions, ideas, etc. Social media provides a platform where free expression seems readily available. However, it is not.

Social media companies are privately owned companies that have their own policies in place to regulate content based on their values and guidelines. While it seems necessary for the companies to moderate content to meet these norms, it means they do not provide a space in which the First Amendment can be fully exercised. This regulation and implementation of a company’s terms of service threaten one’s right to free expression. To overcome this threat, social media companies should work to find other trusted institutions to moderate content shared by their users.

“Without the connective tissue of trusted and trustworthy intermediate institutions guided by professional and public-regarding norms, the values that freedom of speech is designed to serve are increasingly at risk.”

Social media companies allow people to express themselves in new and exciting ways, but they must be careful not to infringe on free expression through their moderation of content.

Government and Policymaking

The government is in a tricky spot in today’s age, especially when it comes to social media. Because social media companies are privately owned, they have their own rules and standards they enforce. These policies, if regulated by government standards, would violate First Amendment rights.

“If social media companies are treated as state actors and have to abide by existing free speech doctrines—at least in the United States—they will simply not be able to moderate effectively…the minimum requirements for effective online moderation would violate the First Amendment.”

While the government cannot control content that is posted on social media, they do still participate in enforcing rules based on agreements users accept with different social media companies. Through New York Times vs. Sullivan, we saw controversy over free speech of content that was printed. The government does not have control over social media content, but the policies they create do influence what is protected under the First Amendment.

Media and the News Industry

The media and the news industry have been the biggest contributors to the growth of free expression being distributed to the masses. Through the years, media companies have created their own standards to uphold, which has influenced what content they will share.

“20th century media companies often limited speech far more than the law required.”

These standards safeguard the public and ensure decent content is shared with the public; however, they also mean free expression can be limited. Companies often pick and choose content they want to share that fits their brand. For example, porn would not be broadcast on a news channel. This type of standard is created and implemented by the company but is also backed up by legal requirements against defamation, obscenity, and indecency.

The landscape of free expression is undergoing significant shifts across various sectors, posing both opportunities and challenges. Thanks to advancements in technology, individuals enjoy unprecedented connectivity and the ability to exchange ideas through various outlets. Yet, the regulation of content by privately owned entities, guided by their own policies rather than constitutional principles, raises concerns about the full exercise of free speech rights. With these new platforms, we see a lot of benefits, but they also pose the challenge of upholding the essence of free expression.

It’s no secret that the internet has changed the playing field when it comes to mass communications and freedom of expression. There are countless platforms available where people can share just about anything they want. You no longer have to be a media professional, journalist, publishing company, or media conglomerate to publish content for the masses.

The accessibility and ease of use the internet provides have drastically impacted how people practice their First Amendment rights.

With this change, we’ve faced a new set of challenges regarding freedom of speech. We are constantly trying to find the balance between people’s rights and values and the assumed responsibility of protecting the public.

The idea of ranking values and rights in the digital age is an interesting perspective to consider.

Values are incredibly personal and can vary greatly depending on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, their upbringing, their community, and their religion. Because of this, it does not seem appropriate for any entity to rank values.

That leaves us with rights. Our government and private companies are constantly trying to determine and define what rights exist in the digital age. Does the introduction of new technology change people’s rights? The argument regarding regulation and where responsibility for content lies is ongoing.

Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act in 1996 as one piece of legislation that attempts to address this concern. This Act has important points that have helped to shape the dynamic of free speech and the regulation and responsibility of content on the internet.

“The statute effectively eliminates most ordinary legal responsibilities assumed by traditional publishers with respect to third-party content.”

This removal of responsibility for the content from the internet provider and placing it with each individual contributor suggests full freedom of expression for users. But there is still a constant battle over content and censorship.

Should the government, or any private company, be allowed to censor content?

In my opinion, no. One’s right to freedom of expression should not be infringed upon.

Not only was the First Amendment created to prevent any intervention from the government regarding free expression, but the United Nations has also created a Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlining the same.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any medium, regardless of frontiers.”

Multiple countries backing a document outlining freedom of expression, along with the U.S. Constitution, solidify the importance of humans’ right to express themselves without any sort of government regulation.

To really bring this point home and clear up any confusion based on interpretation, that same document ends with Article 30, which states, “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any state, group, or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”

Why, then, do we continue to see legislation designed to regulate and suppress free speech, specifically on the internet?

According to Access Now, “governments are leveraging the internet and digital technologies to quell dissent and strip people of their capacity for collective action, online and off, even in contravention of their own domestic laws and international human rights obligations.”

It seems clear that the influx of legislation and the drive to regulate and/or censor people are infringing on our right to freedom of expression. Even in the digital age, the right to freedom of speech should be upheld at all costs.

It should not be up to anyone to determine what is or is not important just because technology has created new ways for people to communicate. The government’s only responsibility should be to protect the rights outlined in the First Amendment and ensure no legislation is passed that limits a person’s ability to express themselves.

In recent years, there has been a significant rise in state-level legislation around the United States that impacts various elements of freedom of expression.

As mentioned in a PEN America article, “As a general trend, there is a clear and identifiable link between the increase in these legislative proposals and the rise of broad-based protest movements in the relevant states.”

These trends of increasing state legislation with regard to freedom of expression can be very concerning, especially when they are targeted to silence a specific group or benefit a specific line of beliefs. Referring to the point that “legislators sometimes make it explicitly clear that their bills have been proposed with specific protests in mind” suggests that our government is trying to steer people’s beliefs or silence them instead of encouraging an open forum.

The ability to express our beliefs is a strong value we hold in the United States. No matter what your stance is, you reserve the right to have it and to express it if you want. If legislation continues to increase in the same manner as it has for the last couple of years, it may make it increasingly difficult to participate in various forms of free expression.

With regard to policy as an avenue to regulate freedom of speech, it can be a slippery slope. Some policies are appropriate and should be used to protect citizens. The only time that the government should intervene in someone’s freedom of expression is when it is necessary to protect the public. Any protest should be allowed to take place as long as it is conducted in a peaceful manner, per the First Amendment, which protects the right to “assemble peaceably.”

There are two fairly recent instances in Arizona where peaceful protests posed a threat to public safety or became violent and caused damage to private property.

The first took place on May 30, 2020, in Scottsdale. “Hundreds of people converged on the mall in what started as a peaceful protest against police brutality. The night ended with smashed windows, walls tagged with graffiti, and people walking out with handfuls of merchandise.” The police intervened, and multiple arrests were made.

The second notable instance where peaceful protesting posed a threat to safety took place in both Tucson and Phoenix in June 2020. In both locations, protesters attempted to enter the I-10 freeway on foot. In Phoenix, police intervened to prevent people from walking onto the freeway. Neither arrests nor violence were reported in either instance, but the intervention in Phoenix was a means to keep protestors and people on the freeways from any harm.

I think it is beneficial for those organizing assemblies to be educated on ways they can express their views in a safe and peaceful manner. As stated in the American University Law Review, “Advocacy organizations’ work—in organizing and otherwise facilitating lawful protests and in training individuals to responsibly conduct nonviolent, direct civil action—merits protection under the First Amendment.”

Overall, any policy regarding peaceful assembly should only be in place to ensure public safety. Once a peaceful protest becomes violent or poses a threat to safety, the government should intervene.

Reporters and news outlets hold an interesting position in our country. They are allowed privileged access and are privy to a lot more information than the average citizen.

The First Amendment allows special access for reporters and news outlets to share information as they see fit. It is their job to keep the public well-informed on all matters going on in the country. But to what extent should the First Amendment protect reporters and news outlets? Should they be allowed to say whatever they want? Or should they legally be held to ethical standards that we, the public, would expect them to uphold?

I believe in everyone’s right to express themselves; however, I think that reporters and news outlets should be obligated to report the truth. If someone either lacks awareness that a statement is untrue or knowingly spreads falsehoods with malicious intent, the First Amendment should not shield them. People in the press hold a position of exceptional access, and the information they share can be incredibly impactful. It is their responsibility to ensure that what they are printing is true.

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the burden is placed on Sullivan to prove that the New York Times knowingly published misinformation. I do not think this should be for the public to prove. It should be the responsibility of the reporter and the news outlet to confirm that anything they are printing is true prior to publishing it.

A weaponized defamation lawsuit leverages the large cost of defending a defamation action and the defendant’s uncertainty regarding the outcome to stifle criticism of a public figure that may be legitimate.

I find the use of weaponized defamation lawsuits against members of the media concerning. The threat of this type of lawsuit can have negative repercussions when it comes to accurate reporting, as reporters or news outlets may shy away from sharing certain unfavorable information with the public. Specifically in politics and legal reporting, the public has a right to know, and it should not be impacted because reporters are scared to do their job.

When going to court for a defamation lawsuit, it is currently up to the plaintiff to prove the defendant had malicious intent. While I do not agree with where the burden is placed in these lawsuits, there are certain things a plaintiff will want to have prepared for their arguments.

Some counterarguments that a plaintiff would want to address in a defamation suit include any public records that prove the information is false. Having public records would show that a reporter did not do their due diligence in ensuring what they were reporting was true. In addition, they would want to review any previous reporting from that specific person or outlet to show any bias that has already been set against the public figure. Finally, they would want to have proof of any damages caused by the false information.

Anti-SLAPP statutes are in place to prevent the misuse of the legal system by giving extra protections to people sued for using their First Amendment rights. “SLAPP” stands for a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

In theory, anti-SLAPP statutes should help those who are being sued in an attempt to silence them and prevent them from exercising their First Amendment rights because they have said or written something that someone doesn’t like.

However, with 17 states not having any anti-SLAPP statutes in place and nine states with statutes graded lower than C, they may not currently be as effective as we would think.

Good news, though! This is an ever-evolving landscape that has shown significant improvement over the past year. Hopefully this will continue to progress, and we will see reporters only reporting the truth, and people will not feel threatened to exercise their First Amendment rights.

Freedom of speech is a topic that everyone has an opinion on. It seems like a straight-forward ideal, but why does it cause so much controversy? What exactly is freedom of speech? What does the First Amendment actually protect? Is free expression at risk with the rise of new technology and social media?

In this discussion, I’ll refer to the First Amendment as the foundation for understanding freedom of speech. The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof, abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

My interpretation of this is that we, as United States citizens, should be able to say, write, or protest our beliefs without government interference.

This type of free expression is both a public and a personal value. Whether you want to have your voice heard by just one person or by the masses will determine where the value lies for each person individually.

The roots of freedom of speech can be traced back to Ancient Greece, where two terms, Isegoria and Parrhesia, shed light on its complexities. These are two different terms that can be translated as the same but that hold different meanings.

Isegoria, meaning equal speech in public, emphasizes equal speech in public, focusing on the equality of the ability to speak.

Parrhesia, meaning all saying, focuses on speaking freely and frankly, highlighting the liberty to speak freely and frankly.

The two different interpretations make it evident why there is so much controversy over what free expression means today and why it can be both a public and a personal value. In the United States, we see this struggle for its real meaning in a variety of court cases. These court cases continue to contribute to the evolving understanding of free expression in our country.

With the rise of social media, the ability to express oneself, in terms of parrhesia, has become increasingly important to us. We use social media as a space to show the world who we are, to express our personal views, and to connect with others. In addition, we also strongly value social media as a space where ideas, debate, and civil controversy can thrive.

In the media, whether it be the news or video games, the need for truth has become increasingly paramount. When Rivers Were Trails highlights the importance of truth in expression in the form of a video game; however, the need for truth applies to all forms of expression. By disregarding the truth, whether through ignorance or malice, we end up causing a lot of harm.

While the ability to participate in free expression, as parrhesia, is an ideal we have grown accustomed to, it is important that we focus on equality and representing the truth from all parties, as isegoria.

I believe that free expression must be protected at all costs. As we have seen throughout history, silencing people can be devastating. Every person has a voice, and every person should have the ability to express themselves, especially in the face of adversity. Whether it be a personal story, a political viewpoint, a religious tradition, or a work of art, each of these facets contributes to defining who we are, and everyone should have the ability to share their identity with the world.