Freedom of speech is an essential aspect to a democracy as it permits and encourages participation in society without the fear of legal repercussions. In the United States, the freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States' "Bill of Rights," which also includes the freedom of: association, press, and exercise and establishment of religion.
Complete freedom of speech means that there are no legal restrictions over the content of speech. On the other hand, speech can be limited in two ways: by content or by time, place and manner. By restraining speech based on time, place and manner, the government does not limit the content of speech, simply the performance of speech based on location. Conversely, placing limitations on the content of speech is unconstitutional in the United States; however, there are a few restricted exceptions. Most commonly, commercial speech, such as advertising, can be regulated. Similarly, there can be legal repercussions if speech is found to be defamatory, obscene, 'fighting words' or if it incites imminent violence. While these forms of speech, if violated, may face consequences in court, it should be noted that these restrictions are not legislated due to the risk of unnecessarily restricting speech.
As per the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. This points to a society with complete freedom of speech. In many ways, this is ideal as people are encouraged to participate in political discussion and voice their opinions without the fear of backlash. The presence and enforcement of such a right aims to prevent oppression by the government. This right also prohibits the regulation of social interactions on the individual level, which serves to promote equality between people. The freedom of speech and freedom of the press protects the dissemination of information. This ensures the public can be accurately informed and further prevents governmental oppression.
On the flip side, the lack of regulation of speech means that individuals can use their right to harm others and the media could, in theory, publish anything. Using racial comments as an example, there is nothing stopping an individual from using insensitive or harmful speech towards another person. It is this very amendment that permits groups like the KKK to exist, under the freedom of assembly clause. Complete freedom of speech means that all speech and beliefs must be permitted; even if disagreeable.
While Congress may not pass laws that set restrictions on speech, there is nothing stopping individuals and private organizations from voicing their opposition to types of speech. As mentioned above, certain types of speech can be litigated if defamatory, obscene, 'fighting words' or inciting of imminent violence. Defamation is a civil wrong in which the good reputation of a person is damaged. Should someone choose to publish (either by spoken word or in writing) claims about another which results in damage to their character, they can be sued accordingly. Certain types of speech can be found to be 'obscene' meaning they include lewd, filthy, or disgusting words or pictures; such forms of speech are not protected by the First Amendment. The most common example would be child pornography which is illegal in all 50 states. The other two restrictions, 'fighting words' and 'incitement of imminent violence' are unprotected as they produce a clear and present danger. These restrictions provide a layer of protection and a means to counter free speech when used in a harmful manner.
An issue with these restrictions is that they only protect individuals after the harm has already been done. Thus, an argument in favor of limited free speech is that harmful communications can be prevented. Rather than facing considerable hours and fees in court, and suffering distress from harmful speech, it is arguably better to set preventative limitations on speech. By having legislated constraints on speech, people would be informed of the acceptable parameters of speech beforehand. This could benefit other areas such as national security, as the restrictions of certain types of speech could reduce the risk of incidents.
There is a clear and present danger to the restriction of speech, which can be succinctly put in the form of a question. Where do they draw the line? If the government is given permission to limit speech in certain areas, the laws could be interpreted to apply to others. Continuing with the example of racial comments, pretend that Congress were to prohibit all people from making references to race in an insulting manner. This raises more questions than it answers as there are points of ambiguity, namely "making references" and "insulting manner." It is unclear what constitutes a reference, or even what could be interpreted as insulting. Subjective interpretations vary depending on the person, thus application of the rule would vary between people, organizations and even the courts. Likewise, passing laws that limit speech for public policy or national security poses a great risk of similar ambiguity or undue restrictions.
In order to prevent passing rules that could be considered too restrictive or over-broad, it is safer to abstain from legislating the matter of speech altogether. In response the courts may analyze each case individually to determine the level of harm caused and applicability of retribution.
Freedom allows an individual to be the unique person they are and to live the life they want to live. Of all our freedoms speech, which here includes writing, speaking, and artistic works, is so integral to individual expression and dignity that freedom of speech is the very first right guaranteed in the very first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A country that protects its citizens' rights to be the best individuals they can be is a country that will in turn benefit from the best its citizens have to give.
Although complete freedom of speech may seem to be a wonderful ideal to some, there have been a few limitations on free expression from the founding of the United States, when Enlightenment thinkers proposed that complete freedom of speech was to be permitted except when harm to others would occur. This principle continues today with the free speech exceptions, which include incitement to violence and, recently, incitement to suicide.
While some jurisdictions and institutions attempt to limit hate speech, for example racist insults, in general such speech is protected in the United States from governmental censorship. The classical remedy for offensive speech is more and better speech. Racist speech can be successfully confronted by better arguments and even ridicule. The principle behind allowing almost all speech, even if offensive, is that bad ideas will eventually be discredited and the best ideas will prevail, to the benefit of all.
Today, more extensive limits on speech tend to be promulgated by private entities such as internet platforms and the media. Although theoretically users have choices and will gravitate to the outlets that allow the most freedom, realistically most of the important internet platforms are successfully censoring information and manipulating narratives. The media also tend to reinforce narratives with which they agree and censor by omission and opinion. This limitation on speech by internet platforms and the media can deny access to information needed by citizens to make informed decisions about their lives, which will tend to result in less freedom for everyone.
Arguments for both complete, and limited freedom of speech can be categorized as either moral, or pragmatic.
In favor of complete freedom of speech, the moral argument rests on the idea of absolute individual agency, based upon Locke's interpretation of the Social Contract. Locke argues that liberty as a fundamental right, which includes the absolute freedom of speech, cannot be taken away without just cause. In a social contract under this rule, the only acceptable limitation to freedom of speech would be anything that directly causes harm to the rights of another. Given that, as they say, sticks and stones may break bones, but words can never hurt, one could argue that morally, there is no justification to limit hurtful or racist comments, as those are just an expression of an individual's liberty.
The pragmatic argument for complete freedom of speech can be broken into two parts: harm reduction, and the ability for the government to enforce. Quite simply, at the point where the government is able to moderate what you say, it leads down a slippery slope towards communication monitoring, and potentially even a "thought police" scenario, which can stifle political protest and uprising in an unjust government. Furthermore, allowing complete freedom of speech ensures that all ideas can be presented in a democracy, which is fundamental to said democracy's existence. Additionally, it's quite simply impossible to enforce; would the government literally jail people who said contradictory things to their policies? Would racists and hate groups be banned from the internet, and driven further underground? Is that even legal?
In favor of limited freedom of speech, the moral argument is based on the idea that speech with the intention of promoting immoral acts or ideas, such as violence or racial hatred, is anti-utilitarian. Speech of this nature doesn't contribute positively to any society, and thus, there's no reason not to limit it.
The pragmatic argument for limited freedom of speech is very simple: sometimes, saying the wrong thing can lead to terrible consequences. In today's world, cyber-bullying has been positively linked with teen suicide in many cases, and some sort of protection for those teens would be beneficial. Furthermore, limiting speech limits harmful behavior, such as exposing minors to racist or violent ideals that they may not be old enough to understand and comprehend. Finally, the adage of "yelling fire in a crowded theater" holds true, in the sense that sometimes speech can lead to very real violence and panic, and loss of lives.
There are several arguments for complete freedom. For instance, people have the freedom of worship and can join any religion they want. In addition, complete freedom gives people the freedom of speech. Therefore, expression of opinions is not limited, which enables the freedom of press. For this reason, the government is not supposed to interfere with any information that is conveyed to the public by the media. Furthermore, this type of freedom enables creatives to broadcast information on mainstream media and the internet, which has a positive impact on the economy. Moreover, complete freedom promotes democracy. It also improves knowledge acquisition as people can access a wealth of information on the internet.
On the other hand, limited freedom has many benefits. For example, it prevents the distribution of content that is harmful to children such as pornography. Moreover, limiting freedom can prevent hate speech. Adult content that is accessible to children and hate speech can have violent and unethical results. Therefore, limiting freedom can make a country safe for its citizens. Moreover, it can reduce racism by restricting people from saying offensive things and also ensure that all religions are respected. Even more, national security can be improved by limiting freedom. For instance, the privacy of criminal suspects can be infringed upon for the sake of public safety.
No comments:
Post a Comment