hum 176 free speech presentation

hum 176 free speech presentation

Exploring the Complexities of Free Speech: A Comprehensive Analysis

1. Introduction to Free Speech

The complexities of free speech cut across a variety of legal and policy domains. The law regarding free speech rights, a frequent source of controversy in its own right, extends beyond the commitment of the First Amendment. Also relevant are the regulations that bar private employers from penalizing strongly free speech-protected employee activities. Other pertinent rules range from the state of First Amendment jurisprudence at the state level to constitutional limitations on the power of the state to enact legislation directed at non-verbal communication, and elsewhere. International and comparative law environments are also implicated, most notably in the context of restrictions on hate speech. Cyber-specific factors range from the scope of the Communications Decency Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act to a number of global cyber-dimensions that affect the range and movement of speech. Still further, issues beyond law such as network structure and dynamics, economics questions over the impact of piracy on proprietors, censorship concerns for parents of select web content, etc., cut across what might reasonably be seen as the domain of law and policy hanging off the First Amendment.

Do societies allow speech rights such as hate speech, political propaganda, tabloid journalism, and the like, despite the disruptions and harms that might accompany these instances of speech? Do the upheavals brought on by the information age alter the boundaries of what has gone before? Indeed, does the technological ease enable the dissemination of information to now pose multiple novel ethics questions? The answers to these questions are complicated, and sound bites do no justice to the range and brio of the discussion. We go back to basics in this report.

As the 21st century digital revolution rages on, free speech issues are assuming ever-increasing significance in the public debate. One explanation is that a world linked through the internet, global in scope, allows relatively instantaneous communication to billions of people. Another reason for the increasing salience of free speech questions concerns the complex middle ground between censorship on the one hand and allowing pure and unadulterated speech rights on the other.

2. Historical Perspectives on Free Speech

The first piece of that historical terrain has to do with paradoxes and self-contradictions, and their importance and utility in the making, as well as the breaking, of freedom. The paradox in question is that the notion of free speech is scarcely visible at the heart of many debates about ancient democracy, while at the same time it functions as a healthy foundation for discussions of contemporary democracy. The second important feature of the historical record explored in this chapter is the remarkable range of purposes that free speech has served and the many inherent attributes of the general status of ‘speech’ itself.

Speech is simultaneously mundane and powerful, a laboratory for concepts crucial to all aspects of government, political theory, and legal analysis. Historical analysis takes us far beyond our conception of free speech. A central light of that history is this simple paradox: free speech was not a term or idea of significance until it had very firmly taken root as custom, written right, and integral part of what might loosely be called a popular aspiration to individual self-determination. Variants of the idea of free speech, including more generally free thought, expression, communication, and information, are deeply rooted in the heritage of Western thought, spanning civic, religious, and philosophical thought-critical components of the trial and error foundations of what we might call civil society theory.

3. Current Debates and Controversies

Fascist hate mongers as well as a few homophobes and sexists sometimes enroll as students or seek employment as faculty or administrators at institutions of higher education in the United States, just as they do other kinds of work. At the same time, neither a college or university education nor a college or university can serve any useful function unless serious disagreements both between and among at least some portion of the students, faculty, and administrators, that regularly assemble within these institutions, is for the most part a condition of diversity thought and expression which are not always to be found outside of the Academy.

There currently seems to be a collision of political silencing on college and university campuses between the kind of “hate speech” or “hate crime” laws and policy considerations that are at odds with even the most basic standards of free expression as a matter of constitutional law doctrine. In the Report of the Select Committee on Free Speech of the Council of the American Association of University Professors, the causes of the controversy and disputes are carefully described. According to the Report, explosive charges of racism and sexism at some universities, which have given rise to demands that offending professors and administrators be punished or removed from their positions, at the same time that there are instances of well-organized student groups and individual students disrupting formal talks or speeches delivered on campuses by previously invited speakers found controversial by those doing the protesting. Since speech politics is the most incendiary domestic issue in the United States, it is not surprising that controversies over the extent to which racial and gender and other civil rights should be brought into the setting in which the activities of students, faculty, and administrators have traditionally been debated and resolved should break out on college and university campuses. Yet it is especially troubling when those implicated in these disputes or who witness them taking place either forget the “fundamental principle that the solution to a problem in the context of liberal education is often found by asking a new question, rather than by giving an automatic answer” or feel that in these circumstances they cannot maintain the personal independence that is actually a requirement of the legitimate exercise of freedom of speech.

4. Legal Frameworks and Limitations

Free speech limitations: From theory to subsequent amendments to international laws, free speech is statutorily limited in some way. Free speech limitations can be justified under moral, legal, or practical reasons, and can be based on the method of speech, content of speech, time and place of speech, and the kind of entity doing the speaking. Also, free speech limitations are determined in accordance with the public’s morality, public order, state security, territorial integrity, prevention of crime, and more. The mere plurality of speech limitations is typical across all jurisdictions, albeit in diverging degrees. Typically, there is always an agreed-upon basic core of principles (no censorship of opinions or ideas in principle, subject only to the limitations that are clearly articulated, limited where necessary, and based on human rights conditions). Yet virtually all the world’s international speech agreements contain limitations that have been criticized as overly broad and vague, as not being necessary, and for being based on repressive laws in constant use.

Legal frameworks and limitations: Free speech has evolved into an internationally respected and recognized human right, as it is codified within various international legal instruments (with reasonable limitations). There is still inconsistency in the interpretation of free speech rights between some jurisdictions. In addition to the fact that each country has its own specific classification for what is considered free speech, countries’ obligations under the various international instruments are also incredibly difficult to enforce to ensure that they are being upheld. This chapter focuses on the specifics of legal/regulatory limitations and legal consequences of violating free speech principles, as determined by various regional and country-specific instruments.

5. The Future of Free Speech in the Digital Age

To be sure, many of these technological improvements bear important implications for free speech and democracy. The proliferation of fake news, heightened surveillance from tech-savvy authoritarian governments, as well as unprecedented influence from supranational and unelected organizations, are just a few (narrowly defined) examples. Extrapolating from the general trends associated with the overarching parenthesis of history, contemporary developments suggest the potentiality for much rapid change and disruption. Understanding these changing landscapes, identifying potential future threats, and thinking seriously about policies to ameliorate the possible negative consequences of these predictions should therefore be a priority. Nonetheless, we have learned lessons from the past about the benefits accrued from nurturing environments where free speech is respected as a fundamental right. Pragmatic justifications for its protection, far salve any doubts about libertarian foundational fairness. The powerful societal benefits collected from robust speech have important instrumental implications.

The future of free speech in the digital age is uncertain. Some argue that free speech may be nearing extinction, thanks to the suppression tactics of governments and private companies, which increasingly have control over what type of content is available. At the same time, free speech has also been facilitated in unprecedented ways by modern technology. As noted, the speed and reach of communication has effectively abolished traditional notions of time and space – today, anyone can communicate their opinions worldwide, almost instantaneously. Moreover, digital tools provide underrepresented voices with an opportunity to be heard and now the ability to connect and organize with others and enhance their influence. Innovative communication technology has even contributed to freeing those living under repressive regimes and dictatorships. For all these advances, critics argue that the increased ease by which we assemble in digital terms has also lessened the value of the individual act of association – that physical presence facilitates more meaningful, substantial, and sustainable collective action and deliberation.