Freedom of speech: principles, protections, and limitations

Freedom of Speech

There was much debate during the Constitutional Convention about which rights should be given to the new Republic. Many were fearful of "mobocracy" with too many freedoms, but it was James Madison who pushed for Freedom of Speech and the Press, noting that the idea of expression in writing, speaking and publishing was one of the seminal rights of liberty. Many have taken this to mean that freedom of speech means that one can say anything in the press that tests the legal limits of libel or injustice. Judith Lichtenberg, however, has a different definition and notes that "Freedom of the press…. Is an instrumental good: it is good if it does certain things and not especially good…. Otherwise" (Lichtenberg, 332).

Thus, there is a difference between Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech. If the press were to support principles that are antithetical to the core beliefs of the nation, then it would be detrimental to the overall health of the country to support Freedom of the Press. Unlike the press of the late 1700s, which was primarily run as a source for information, the modern press is almost entirely focused upon using news to capture a large audience so that it can sell advertising space. Rather than being information driven, it is economically driven through large corporations who have investors and need to ensure profit. Media reports on controversial and sensational "news," thus altering the message and for politicians and governmental officials, and "be a virtually unfiltered mouthpiece" (Lichtenberg, 330).

If we think about media stories, rather than objective reporting with a focus on analysis, we often get sound or video "bits and bites" that, by their framing and nature, distort the reality of the event. This makes sense in one way -- there must be a background and if sensationalism sells, then it is to the reporters advantage to frame their work accordingly. If there is a story about an inner city blight, for instance, and it is framed outside a dilapidated building with obvious signs of crime, and clips are shown of ethnic minorities, etc., then the overall perception is one that may or may not be accurate for that event. What is left out of the story may then be just as vital to the overall message as what is in the story. Further, backdrops can be manipulated through computer software to the point that a reporter can be standing in front of a blue screen in battle fatigues, reporting on a Middle Eastern conflict, and the audience is led to believe the reporter is in the midst of combat. This, Lichtenberg calls, "The Politics of Theater" (Lichtenberg, 331).

The broadcast media has an implied doctrine of fairness that requires them to give a more balanced portion of airtime to the "other" side of the story, or to present an overall viewpoint that is more representative of a broader approach to information; but the print media has no such doctrine. Instead, perhaps in being autonomous in our expectations of media, essentially polluting the idea of symbolic expression. "[T]here remains a distinction between autonomy, the ability to think for oneself, and self-expression, the communicating of one's thoughts to others. Both are important components of our interest in free speech" (Lichtenberg, 336).

Still some believe that any infringement upon the media would diminish the amount of true information disseminated into society. Truth, though, is filled with ambiguity and is intangible -- the "truth" of the media story is based on a moment in time, a slant from the reporter or producer, and if designed to promote the most controversial aspects of a story, becomes subjective truth simply out of necessity -- we are bound by our senses and certainly what we see, hear, and experience is fleeting, This, to Lichtenberg, is similar to the sliding scale of morality that we hold. She uses the example of a restaurant and an individual's personal dining table. We can legally discriminate on the basis of race in choosing whom to invite for dinner, even if it is morally abhorrent. We value choice and personal freedom to the point in which it overrides our views of equality. Yet, when that scenario turns commercial, not only is the principle of privacy revoked, but we now legislate morality and would never allow discrimination (Lichtenberg, 343).

In the 21st century, though, we now have a new conundrum -- what to do with cyberspace and media that is intangible, unregulated, and has a very different access paradigm than print and broadcast media? When adding social media, we find that "no other mode of communication in human history has facilitated the democratization of communication" (Deibert and Rohozinski, 43). The Internet is a tool, however, and we know that tools may be used for good or abject harm. While cyber communications have certainly aided the world towards openness and democracy, it has also allowed for extensive invasions to personal privacy. Digital communication may be tracked and thus a comment made online in a chat room in 1998 can become evidence against that same person in a trial in 2012.