Author: admin

Free expression is a pressing issue, and many recommendations have been made for regulating and protecting the ever-growing digital public sphere. 

Societal advancements have opened infinite possibilities, however, it has come with drawbacks and complex issues that need to be addressed and handled to encourage the growth and stability of the digital public sphere.

Private Internet Companies

Private internet companies, or social media platforms, have radically changed the ability for global connectivity and collaboration. Social media, while performing its public functions, promotes political and cultural democracy, and the growth and spread of knowledge. 

Social media has made advancements in technological innovation and user personalization that have never been seen before. However, this progress does not come without drawbacks.

It has never been easier to speak and broadcast your voice to millions. However, this ability is not always used with positive intent as the spread of misinformation has rapidly increased since the development and popularization of the Internet.

Social media has also opened the door to the spread of hate speech and harmful content, as well as privacy violations and inconsistent moderation of content.

Private companies generally have the discretion to remove content on their sites and create a Terms of Service in an attempt to set the standard for user experiences.

To safeguard free expression, companies must factor in equal protection and discrimination issues, along with privacy laws in their regulatory approaches and proposals. 

The experience of users needs to be prioritized above all else, including continuing and enforcing the protection of their free speech and expression, while also protecting them against abuse or prejudice and privacy breaches.

Government and Policymaking

The prioritization of free expression by the government allows for a healthy and vibrant democratic society, where our First Amendment rights are protected and upheld with the utmost care. 

Free expression allows for a more transparent and accountable government, as well as encouraging the diversity of opinions and ideas held by individuals. However, in attempts to safeguard free expression, the government may contribute to its drawbacks. 

Regulation could result in stifling free speech as suppressing speech of dissent or criticism violates the First Amendment. 

Government surveillance and data manipulation would be prevalent in government-ran social media platforms along with the facilitation of government propaganda.

While the government should strive to uphold the freedom of speech and expression, a fully government-ran social media would run too many risks of suppression and control compared to the digital public sphere we have now.

Civil Society and Third-Party Researchers

These organizations and researchers can conduct individual investigations, voice concerns, and advocate for human rights without running the risk of government interference. Most importantly, they often inform the public through protected free expression of controversial information like COVID-19 or climate change. 

By acting as watchdogs for citizens, they push for further government transparency. However, these groups are often under threat due to their investigative work that may impact politicians or elites. 

Unfortunately, these organizations also face scrutiny for spreading bias or misinformation as they often form to advocate for certain issues that come with inherited biases.

These individuals need to focus on being the eyes and ears of the average citizen. They have the great ability to spread information at rates never seen before, so they have an even greater responsibility to report not only correct information but information that will aid in the betterment of society.

Media and the News Industry

The media and news industry are extremely important when it comes to protecting freedom of expression. They keep the public informed, hold those in power accountable, and provide an outlet for a wide variety of perspectives and viewpoints.

While the media and news industry are important in safeguarding First Amendment rights, they have their drawbacks as well.

Competition in the news reporting industry has led to the trend of ‘breaking news,’ which has unfortunately only bred more opportunities for the spread of misinformation at critically high speeds. This also leads to prioritizing sensationalized stories rather than more accurate or important news.

Media organizations owned by large corporations may fall victim to corporate influence, producing stories influenced by the financial interests of their owners rather than the general public.

Journalists are often under threat, like third-party researchers, due to their investigative journalism which may threaten the reputation of politicians or elites. 

These individuals must remember their journalistic ethics and report in the interest of the public rather than large corporations or powerful elites.

They can provide the public with new information and ideas, which only works to feed and strengthen our democratic society. With this power comes the great responsibility to seek and report the truth, while also acting independently and holding yourself accountable. 

The internet has vastly changed freedom of expression. In 2016, the UN declared that access to the internet is a human right. Today, the internet is a marketplace of differing opinions and ideas, and freedom of opinion and expression includes the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information through any necessary media.

The internet has greatly expanded the marketplace for ideas and opinions, with positive and negative outcomes. With access to unlimited information and user-generated content, social media platforms struggle to police their outlets and protect their users.

In the digital age, no value or right is more important than others. Balancing these values and rights is the only way to ensure a fair experience for all users.

Individuals have the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to access the expressions of others. Eliminating the opportunity for individuals to educate themselves on new information and differing opinions infringes upon their rights.

However, making the Internet even more widespread and accessible comes with a new array of problems. Hate speech, misinformation, censorship, and privacy violations plague the beauty of the Internet.

Hate speech can result in self-censorship or individuals refusing to participate in online platforms to protect themselves. While we have discussed the boundaries of hate speech regarding freedom of speech, online hate speech is often paired with misinformation and threats.

Lenny Posner lost his son in the devastating Sandy Hook school shooting, along with 25 others. Many people hold the opinion that this mass shooting was fake or that Posner’s son never existed in the first place.

This false information circulating online caused Posner to act, as Section 230 of the CDA doesn’t hold platforms responsible for what their users post. Posner isn’t alone in being maliciously targeted by conspiracy theorists, as Matya Benassi also faced online attacks after being accused of causing the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, false information is treated differently depending on who the information is allegedly about. Politicians and social media companies are often able to censor online expression through government interference, using internet blocks or group censorship, along with private sector regulation, allowing companies like Facebook and Twitter to remove posts deemed controversial.

These actions are not only unfair but unconstitutional as they violate our freedom of speech and expression, the right to access new information, and the right to peaceful assembly.

Another growing issue concerns the right to privacy. By participating in the age of digital information, individuals often unknowingly sacrifice personal information and privacy. The growing distrust of the Internet and tech companies may lead to a drop in information sharing online.

The government and social media companies working together to censor content and shut down platforms when deemed necessary, collect the data of unknowing users, and conduct unlawful surveillance are threats that need to be addressed sooner than others.

The government has the responsibility to uphold the freedoms and rights of its people, and exploiting their online activity is not necessary in doing so. However, social media companies are responsible for misinformation and hate speech on their platforms.

By denying individuals any of these freedoms and rights, all their freedoms and rights get threatened. Freedom of speech and expression is the foundation of all other rights; if these rights were to be taken, our other rights would soon follow.

Freedom of expression is even more important to uphold in our era of Digital Media and communication, and as society continues to evolve, the responsibilities of the government and tech companies grow alongside it.

State-level legislation in the United States designed to narrow various elements of freedom of expression is a direct threat to democracy and, thus, extremely concerning.

The Black Lives Matter movement caused a resurgence of public protests across the United States. As more individuals mobilized, state legislatures began introducing bills to suppress, restrict, or criminalize the right to protest at a steadily increasing rate.

Legislators often make it clear that their bills have been proposed with specific protests in mind. This often suggests the criminalization of tactics used at these protests, which highly resembles viewpoint-specific restraint on speech.

Criminalizing unpopular speech is a direct threat to our First and Fourth Amendment rights. Encouraging the viewpoint that today’s civil protests are acts of criminal disruption only continues to push ordinary citizens into silence and submission.

Peaceful protests are a way to make ordinary voices heard, and legislation is making it clear that those in power don’t care to listen and want to penalize this speech unless they agree.

Targeting Fourth Amendment rights is a threat to free speech and expression; similar tactics are often used in authoritarian governments. It is outright dangerous and unconstitutional to target citizens for criticizing government action or policy, no matter what political affiliations you have.

The legislation regarding anti-protest and voter suppression aims to silence voices and disproportionately affects people of color.

The Thurgood Marshall Institute found noticeable differences in police action at racial justice protests vs. non-racial justice protests:

• Police are 2.0 times more likely to show up at a racial justice protest than at non-racial justice protests.
•  Riot police are 3.0 times more likely to be at racial justice protests than at non-racial justice protests.
• Police are 1.4 more likely to make arrests at racial justice protests than at non-racial justice protests.
• Police are 3.8 times as likely to use projectiles and chemical weapons at racial justice protests than at non-racial justice protests.

The increased likelihood of arrest and the use of violent force at racial justice protests demonstrate how anti-protest legislation disproportionately impacts people of color, as these protests are more frequently targeted for specific reasons.

Systemic racism is prevalent in society, and it becomes even more pronounced when we consider our constitutional rights, as people of color are often held to different standards regarding what is protected under the Constitution.

Voter suppression is a serious risk to upholding a Democratic society in which all voices are heard to elect government officials, voting for who they feel best represents their opinions and concerns.

Making it more difficult for people to vote should be considered a direct civil rights violation, as voter suppression makes it more difficult for otherwise eligible voters to have their voices heard on the ballots.

I don’t believe policy is the most appropriate avenue to regulate freedom of speech. In some cases of obscenity, illegal material, or hate speech inciting imminent lawless action, having a policy is more appropriate as these acts are not directly protected under freedom of speech or expression.

However, the right to think and speak freely and criticize or protest what you disagree with is directly protected under our Constitutional rights as Americans and therefore, should not be policed or silenced.

The First Amendment should fully protect reporters and news organizations when covering breaking news and sharing information with the public. Democracy cannot be successful without freedom of the press, which means those exercising their right to speak and be heard must be protected.

In New York Times v. U.S. and Washington Post v. U.S., the court noted that the executive branch failed to remember the essential purpose of the First Amendment when seeking injunctions against newspaper companies.

The New York Times and The Washington Post were originally censored from publishing certain classified material that could cause government scrutiny and criticism from American citizens. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that these prior restraints were not justified.

The Supreme Court noted in its ruling that in the First Amendment, “The Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy.” With that, the press companies were free to publish and report on the classified information they were previously restrained from mentioning.

However, the protection and right to free expression have led some to develop new tactics to censor and control media. These tactics include weaponized defamation lawsuits and SLAPP suits.

These are tools created to intimidate and silence criticism through expensive and baseless legal proceedings. These attempts at silencing and controlling expression are extremely concerning.

The plaintiffs in these suits must prove they hold evidence that could result in a favorable verdict, as those who are being sued can make a motion to strike the suit on account of it being speech on a matter of public concern.

Therefore, if the plaintiff wants to be successful, they must prove the act of defamation occurred. What exactly is defamation? A more modern definition of the term is a statement that tends to harm the reputation of another to lower his place in the community.

However, even if the plaintiff can prove reputational harm, they may still lose the case as the law itself must recognize the statement as defamatory. Rethinking Defamation explains that the law of defamation takes notice of only certain kinds of attacks on reputation.

Therefore, defamation suits are often unrewarding for plaintiffs as they struggle to prove actual malicious intent as well as defamatory statements. Defendants are provided with privileges, defenses, and constitutional limitations, which are routinely successful. After expensive litigation, a remedy is still not provided for one’s damaged reputation.

Luibrand Law Firm discusses the key elements of a defamation claim as being the following: prove the defendant made a false statement, prove the statement has been published to a third party, prove the statement harmed the plaintiff’s reputation, and establish fault on the defendant.

The counterarguments I would suggest to a plaintiff in a defamation case would be to prove the statement is false and not an opinion of the defendant but an intentional spread of false information. I would also suggest proving the statement was given at a time when the defendant was not protected by absolute or qualified privilege.

I believe that threatening our First Amendment rights and attempting to silence speech is a direct threat to our other freedoms and rights, as well as to our democratic society. Weaponizing legal action to intimidate or silence is a severe misuse of power, as these suits are often filed assuming that the defendant doesn’t have the resources to pay for a legal team.

Anti-SLAPP statutes are very helpful while we examine weaponized defamation lawsuits. These statutes are meant to prevent people from threatening or using legal action to intimidate people exercising their First Amendment rights.

Having these statutes in place ensures that individuals with financial or political power are unable to silence or intimidate the voices that criticize them.

As the Supreme Court ruled in the New York Times and the Washington Post cases, the history and language of the First Amendment support the idea that the press must be left free to publish news, no matter the source, without censorship and injunctions or prior restraints.

Without a completely free press, democracy cannot thrive or properly function as it was intended. Silencing voices due to a difference of opinion or distaste for their statements is a direct violation of our constitutional rights.

Everyone who has a voice has the right to use it and the right for it to be heard. They also have the right to hear the voices of others, unrestrained and uncensored.

The concept of free expression is crucial in society for public and personal reasons. Free expression is a key concept in maintaining a democratic society, where people are born with the freedom to think, speak, and act freely, as long as it does not hinder others from doing the same.

Free expression holds public value as it allows individuals to exercise their rights and beliefs without fear, as we are given equality before the law. However, free expression holds personal value as it fulfills individuals by allowing them the ability to express thoughts, ideas, and opinions without censorship.

Foucault describes parrhesia as the decision to live as a truth-teller rather than being false to oneself. If one sees there is a risk in expressing themselves, they may refrain from sharing how they truly feel or think. By ensuring there is no risk, the individual can live safely in their truth and beliefs.

Public and personal identities are directly tied to free expression. Lauren Cusimano notes in the Module One Lecture Video that “identity is conceived and cultivated through the ability to express oneself.” Being denied free expression denies the individual of having their own identity, as a personal identity is tied tightly around one’s beliefs, opinions, and values.

Without free expression, a democratic society cannot exist, which would directly affect public identities. Cusimano states that expression is the ability to speak and be heard, as well as receive information. If those without power were denied the right to voice their opinions the society would not have equality and liberty for all.

A democratic society would cease to exist without free expression; therefore, it is worth protecting. To live in a free society, we must have the right to free expression.

While discussing that the oppressed, if given the chance, can speak and know their conditions, Spivak asks an important question: Can they speak? Are they being given the chance to? In ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ Spivak notes how Indigenous history has turned into a historian’s understanding of the events due to the silencing of Indigenous voices, removing the option for accurate information and replacing it with ‘models of imitation.’

Elizabeth LaPensée notes the importance of true representations while discussing the portrayal of Indigenous people in video games. The development process of video games excludes Indigenous communities which results in misrepresentations and stereotyping.

The consistent silencing of Indigenous voices prevents true Indigenous history from being shared and instead gives a historian with no understanding of Indigenous culture the opportunity to relay information based on their understanding.

By refusing individuals the right to free expression, we risk erasing other freedoms, as without free expression, we are directly controlled by those in power. We risk the erasure of history, as minorities’ voices are often stifled by those louder or more powerful than them.

Freedom of expression is critical in maintaining a balanced, secure, and established society.