Decoded by Danielle

recent posts

about

  • Sector Issues & Free Expression

    Whew. We have come a long way from week 1! As we near the end of our journey in this class, many things in regard to freedom of speech/expression have become abundantly clear. Freedom of expression is very complex and influenced by a myriad of factors and circumstances, including the government, our society, the private sector, and the media, all of which either positively contribute or negatively impact freedom of expression. Below I will discuss how each play a part. 

    Policymakers and the government have the ability to do either. In Daphne Keller’s article, If Lawmakers Don’t Like Platforms’ Speech Rules, policymakers have very limited ways of not creating new problems or unintentionally undermine current speech protections. Lines get blurred and things get tricky because some of the government & policymakers moves seem like they’re supporting accountability, when some are doing the opposite and limiting and suppressing free speech. An example that comes to mind is the Arizona Bill to criminalize filming the police; this bill would put strong limits on public oversight. On a more global scale, the Article 19 assessment of Russia’s proposed UN cybercrime convention highlights how the government and policymakers use the language to justify more government surveillance and control. Our society also plays a critical role in aiming to ensure accountability. Organizations like The Knight Institute and Article 19 help to identify things that can sometimes get overlooked by the government and other institutions.  They have limited resources, however. In order for society to keep documenting risk & harm, they need resources and support so they can keep advocating for change and reform. 

    The private sector and their platforms influence the way we communicate. Again, there are benefits and disadvantages to this one of the benefits is these platforms and companies allow for millions of people to communicate quickly and effectively and instantly organize. In our reading by Jack Balkin, How to Regulate and not Regulate Social Media, he highlights the importance that these private companies and their platforms created for global participation in discussions that traditional media was never able to do. Like I mentioned above, there are disadvantages as well. The private sector and their platforms all have the capability to amplify harmful speech/expression. The Facebook Oversight Board Casehighlights just how difficult it is to moderate content online… it’s nearly impossible. The Policy Advisory on Sharing of Private Residential Information highlights wanting improvement and attempting to improve their approach, but shows how uneven enforcement is. As I have mentioned in previous blog posts and class discussions, the design of these platforms is ultimately what need to be restructured. In order for these platforms to safeguard free speech/expression, the private sector needs transparency when it comes to their rules and user protections. The media, news and journalists have and continue to be critical for a thriving, healthy democracy. With the emergence of new media, including social media platforms, journalist today face many risks. The January 6 analysis by Gene Policincki, highlights the press’ safety when it comes to political hostility and misinformation. Attempts must be made by the news industry to make certain that journalists are safe, and continue to invest in strong journalism and responsible reporting and they also need to acknowledge that public trust is diminishing because of budgets being cut which weakens resources and the ability to correct mistakes and misinformation. 

    Free expression is impacted by each of these sectors, and each of these sectors have its strengths and weaknesses. Not one sector can safeguard it alone. In order for our democracy to thrive, it’s essential that each of these sectors knows its strengths and weaknesses and agree to a broader scope to keep the public’s confidence, while maintaining a safe and equitable platform. 

  • The Digital Age & Freedom of Expression

    Over the last century, there has been so much advancement in communications, media and the press. One of the most pivotal communications shifts has come in the form of the internet. I think that the amount of information readily available to the public is extraordinary, and a technological feat, so much so, that we may not see another in our lifetime. In our cases and readings from this week we see just how much impact and questions this advancement in tech has created. In the FCC v. Pacifica Foundation case, it was apparent that different types of media bring up different questions in regard to the First Amendment. In the United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. case, the court realized that restrictions on speech have to be streamlined and accurate in order to be protected. The digital era highlights these issues because the internet has become every communications platform all at once. 

    There have been so many wonderful things that have come out of the digital era and the accessibility to the internet to the greater public. It’s made it easier for the public to participate in conversations, organize movements and speak their mind(s) without the fear of being censored (for the most part). The Communications Decency Act has played a significant role in this transformation. In The Test of Time: Section 230 Turns 20, the protections of the Communications Decency Act still allowed for platforms to host a wide variety of content while still making sure to keep an eye out for anything super harmful. Without section 230, speech and thoughts online would be heavily restricted and most of the online platforms that are key players in the public discourse arena would be obsolete. 

    One of the recurring themes that I noticed from the readings this week is how freedom of expression on the internet is heavily linked to human rights. The three readings on international free expression law from this week each highlight different ways human rights are protected. The Universal Declaration of Human Rightsexists to protect the right to look for and get information. The next reading, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, highlights what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects, but on a more international level. The Internet as a Human Right contends access to the internet is a critical means to participate in society and I’d have to say that I wholeheartedly agree. If the ability to circulate ideas and if people have the basic right to speak and obtain information, then access to the internet should be viewed as a modern form of said rights. 

    With the good, always comes the bad. In this case, the internet does bring risk for harm that we, as a society, can’t ignore. The Ford Foundation Interview discusses issues surrounding things that can silence people (harassment, shutdowns, oversight) before they even have the chance to express themselves. The Access Now article, New World Disorder: Digital Attacks on Freedom of Assembly highlights how the government utilizes digital tools and platforms to stop activism, organizing and protests.

    These readings have really made me think about the future and highlight why, in this digital age, we need a ranking of rights. What I mean by this is that my position on this is that in order for information to flow freely and to keep our democracy moving, we need a balanced, equitable structure where freedom of speech and expression is at the forefront of the hierarchy. This way, everything else will seamlessly fall into place. The structure would look something like this: 

    1. At the top- Freedom of Speech and Expression & equal access to all information
    2. Privacy Rights
    3. Access to all viewpoints/thoughts
    4. Targeted harm protection

    Like I mentioned in the first few sentences of this post, the internet changed so much and has been the most pivotal communications shift in modern history. It’s changed how we talk, who we talk to, who gets to participate and who can hear and see what we have to say. Any resolution has to aim to protect access and fairness. If we let those core values slip away, our democracy and the promise of the First Amendment start to crack. 

  • The Balance Between the Courts & Policymakers

    I think that the First Amendment has withstood the test of time because of its unwavering flexibility, especially since it lies at the foundation of our democracy. Through all of the flexibility, it’s gone through trials and tribulations, yet still remained the backbone of our society. Since its inception, the First Amendment has faced similar tests in regards to balancing between freedom of expression and regulation. Since it is an ever-evolving framework designed to be flexible with changing societal needs, it helps fuel our society, ultimately keeping our democracy alive and thriving. 

    In the first reading this week Hague v. CIO, it was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court that public places need to always remain open to the public for citizens to meet, protest and speak. The court’s decision upheld that the democratic process cannot be separated from freedom of speech and assembly. This case was important because it set a precedent that any form of government should not regulate when or how citizens meet, protest and speak. This case was so instrumental because it didn’t just protect speech and expression, it protected speech and expression in public gathering spaces, too. This is relatable to things that are happening today, as we see attempts by government to stop or control protests under the pretext of “maintaining order.” 

    I think my stance has remained clear throughout that any attempt by policymakers through legislation to regulate speech slowly eats away at the foundation of our democracy. Today, we see some of these constraints popping up by policymakers introducing state-level legislation designed to restrict or limit what is considered “acceptable” speech and/or expression. In the  Pen America’s Arresting Dissent reading from this week, it highlights new laws that heavily prohibit protests and prosecute citizens with heavy penalties for civil disobedience. Much of this legislation surfaced as a direct reaction to environmental activism and racial justice. This legislation is a direct backlash to the advocacy efforts mentioned above and shows that it is anything but neutral, highlighting its partiality and bias. These attempts by policymakers to limit citizen’s rights to freedom of speech/expression only weaken our democracy as I’ve discussed time and time again. 

    Policy is absolutely NOT and never will be an appropriate avenue to regulate freedom of speech. It should never be the determinant of whose voices matter and whose don’t. As soon as policymakers start making laws and rules that determine what kind of speech/expression is and isn’t “acceptable,” our democracy starts to crumble. By defining what speech is or isn’t acceptable, this opens the flood gates to censorship disguised as regulation, and when this happens, the foundation of the democracy cracks. We’ve seen past instances of government overreach before. In Butler v. Michigan, the court made it abundantly clear that legislation made to protect morality can rapidly turn into censorship. This ruling still applies and is still relevant today; trying to decide which speech and ideas are acceptable, is a direct attack on free speech. 

    Policy is great and needed for many things. However, it is not necessary to govern which speech is acceptable and which speech is not. Freedom can only be kept alive when we protect the expansive nature of the First Amendment. 

  • Protecting Our Democracy

    I think that we can all agree that in today’s political and media environment, the First Amendment is in a sort of limbo state; it’s still considered powerful, however, it’s starting to show its fragile elements as well. The goal of the First Amendment is to protect journalists from being censored, especially censored from the government, and to hold those powers accountable. They are like the eyes and ears of the citizens and when they’re challenged through defamation lawsuits, their protections are challenged. The problems that we’ve faced since the inception of the First Amendment is highlighted in our readings this week. The readings really highlight that accountability and freedom of speech/expression are oftentimes contrasting, making the courts debate the line that divides the two. 

    Like I mentioned above, the goal of the First Amendment is to protect reporters, especially when their stories and work serves to bring information to light to the citizens and general public. In the readings this week, The Grosjean v. American Press Co., highlights when the Supreme Court struck down a law in Louisiana that was designed to suppress and penalize newspapers that were critical of the government. This case was one of the earliest establishers of freedom of speech/expression/press that protected against censorship, setting a precedent for our current protections, today. Especially in today’s political landscape, this case reminds all of us of what the function of the First Amendment was created to do; protect journalists from government censorship. 

    One of the most well-known First Amendment cases is the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case, which we also read about this week. This is probably the most famous case in regards to free speech since it revolutionized defamation law as we know it today. This is where “actual malice” was introduced and standardized and ruled that public officials weren’t able to receive damages for claims of defamation unless actual malice could be proven. Again, this case ruling solidified the idea that in a democratic society, the press is free to criticize the government and/or those in power. Prior to this ruling, journalists and reporters were scared of litigation, and their voices were therefore somewhat silenced for fear of retaliation. 

    Of course, over the years these cases have been met with challenging interpretations both in the eyes of the court and public opinion, where boundaries have shifted organically over time, as seen in the Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. case. In this case, the court separated public and private figures, saying that private figures no longer need to meet “actual malice” to prove defamation. The goal of this ruling was to try to find a middle ground between free speech/expression and protecting reputations. The thing is, this ruling made it easier for people to be more aggressive in their quest for favorable litigation and this is why so many cases make their way to the courts today. 

    I hold tight on my stance that the First Amendment should be protected and always aim to protect media outlets, their work and reporters, especially when the work that they are doing serves the citizens and is of public interest. One of the readings from this week that has me concerned is The Weaponized Lawsuit Against the Media because I feel like this is how journalists are silenced and information is suppressed. Cases like this jeopardize a free and fair press by using the legal system as a means to suppress information. This exposes the vulnerabilities of journalists, oftentimes leaving them helpless and voiceless. 

    To combat this, I think that anti-SLAPP laws are critical.  Laws that protect journalists, like those explained in the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Understanding anti-SLAPP laws, help protect journalists, the media and everyday citizens from retaliatory litigation because of what they say and/or write. It’s a mandatory safeguard that helps to keep our democracy healthy and thriving. Without the First Amendment and its protections, the government and people in power wouldn’t be held accountable and our democracy as we know it would begin to shatter. 

  • Societal Values

    Ahhh, freedom of expression. It’s a topic that is very relevant in today’s political landscape. It’s a concept that we’ve all pretty much taken for granted until things happen to challenge the status quo. In the United States, we are ruled by a democracy, where free speech and the right to peaceful protest are synonymous with our freedoms. However, recently we have had to really think about what freedom of expression means. Like, what it really means. Not just the legalities and rights afforded to us by the constitution, but the capability to tell our stories even when we feel scared and/or scrutinized when doing so.

    The terms parrhesia and isegoria are Ancient Greek terms that describe different types of free speech. Isegoria is a term that means that all citizens are equal and therefore can equally voice their thoughts and opinions in public, which was an early idea of democracy as we know it today. Parrhesia is a term that means that honesty is at the forefront of those who voice their ideas and opinions, even if it’s risky and/or the citizen feels scared to do so. Through the required readings this week, I was prompted to think about our current media landscape and how our society (today) struggles with balancing the right to speak and having the courage to do so, freely. Michel Foucault’s Discourse and Truth: The Problematization of Parrhesia prompted me to think about how today’s fear of cancel culture can make people apprehensively hold back on saying things. With the emergence of social media, I think that today’s society aligns more with the idea of isegoria rather than parrhesia. I say this because social media platforms (X, Threads, Instagram, TikTok, Meta, etc.) have given free reign to the masses and have given them a platform to voice their opinions and thoughts, although certain individuals (and voices) have more influence than others, while certain individuals are censored or silenced. In Gayatri Spivak’s piece Can the Subaltern Speak, she mentions that marginalized people (women, colonized people, poor people) can’t speak for themselves, instead more powerful people (people of stature and respect) speak about them as opposed to being heard, which ultimately causes their voices to get lost. Therefore, the idea of our society having the right to speak doesn’t matter if your voice isn’t heard.

    A valuable democratic society is one that allows and protects free expression. Openly allowing citizens to grow, disagree, agree, and connect on thoughts and issues shows just how closely democracies and identities are connected. In order for a democracy to thrive, it is imperative that ALL citizens are equally able to speak freely, openly and without fear.