Freedom of speech was introduced in the Bill of Rights in 1791 and is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution along with freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press as the civil rights of citizens from the United States. It is the protection for the citizens to express their own opinions without fear of suppressing by the government. Through fast step of times changes, the execution and idea of free speech protection are debatable among citizens. 

​

Free speech protection is the backbone of democracy in the US. In the United States, as a representative democracy, free speech is a fundamental right that enables citizens to participate in the critical election process and help shape the government. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that allows citizens to gather information and express their opinions without fear of government censorship or suppression. This right is essential to promoting open discussion on issues of public concern and holding those in power accountable to the people. In a democratic society, the ability to freely communicate and exchange ideas is critical to ensuring that individuals can participate fully in the political process and make informed decisions about issues that affect their lives. Growing up in a non-democratic country, I never fully grasped the importance of democracy and free speech until taking this class. At first, I questioned why people would argue so fiercely to protect or abolish free speech. After taking this class, I now understand that it is not merely a privilege or human right, but rather a crucial agreement between the government and citizens. Free speech empowers individuals to protect themselves and fosters the exchange of innovative ideas that can advance society. After understanding this basic concept, it is made clearer for me to understand the pluses and minuses of free speech nowadays, especially living in an information explosion society. While I recognize the importance of protecting individuals' rights to express their ideas and opinions, I am also aware of the potential negative effects that unregulated speech can have on society. In the age of social media and rapid dissemination of information, it is important to find a balance between protecting free speech and preventing the spread of harmful or false information. I started to reconsider the complexity of this issue and weigh the benefits and drawbacks of free speech in our modern world. Another insightful background concept in discussing free speech that I have gained from this course is the significant role that speech plays in shaping our society. Previously, I used to think that speech was not as important as thoughts, perhaps due to my upbringing in non-democratic countries where free expression was limited. I believed that having clear and truthful thoughts was more important than speech. However, this course has taught me that speech is just as important, if not more important than thought. It has the power to influence actions and generate consequences. Truth and open dialogue are fundamental to the concept of speech interaction, and it is through speech that we can express our opinions, values, and beliefs.

​

In light of several significant events, modern scholars have begun to reevaluate the importance of free speech in our contemporary society. Stanley Fish is an active literary theorist and critic of free speech. His popular book, there is no such thing as free speech and that’s a good thing, extensively argues that free speech is “just the name we give to verbal behavior that serves the substantive agendas we wish to advance.”(Fish, 1994).  He argues that free speech is often used by the government to control citizens and can even marginalize certain groups. He believes that the concept of free speech should not be treated as an abstract idea, but rather that we must carefully distinguish between different types of speech in order to truly have freedom of expression. Fish gives an example of the difficulty in distinguishing between "fighting words" and "merely expressive words,"(Fish, 1994) as this can vary depending on individual perspectives and experiences. This is troubling in a society that promotes diversity and inclusion, as we are still constrained by strict definitions of what constitutes free speech. He argues that the traditional liberal approach to free speech, which emphasizes the protection of all speech regardless of its content or context, can actually have a chilling effect on the speech of those who are already marginalized or disadvantaged. ((Fish, 1994) Besides, Fish made distinguished relation between speech and action. He argues that it is hard to separate speech from consequences. “Some forms of speech are not really speech because their purpose is to incite violence or because they are.” (Fish, 1996). We have learned the chilling effect of the case Gonzalez v. Google. In 2015, Gonzalez was killed in a terrorist attack in Paris, France and later ISIS claimed responsibility by issuing a written statement and releasing a YouTube video. Gonzalez sued Google aided the suggested content to users based on their viewing history which assists ISIS in spreading its message that led to the tragedy. Similar to how certain platforms can potentially facilitate harmful speech, Facebook has faced scrutiny for its handling of harmful speech, the spread of misinformation, and political marginalization. The January 6th Capitol attack continues to haunt the United States, and while it is difficult to argue that one platform was solely responsible, there is evidence to suggest that Facebook lacked control over the spread of harmful and misleading information regarding the election results. In an interview with ProPublica, it was revealed that Facebook failed to take sufficient action to monitor and address these issues during November and January. “Facebook dissolved the task force and rolled back other intensive enforcement measures. The results of that decision were clear in the data ProPublica and The Post examined: During the nine increasingly tense weeks that led up to Jan. 6, the groups were inundated with posts attacking the legitimacy of Biden’s election while the pace of removals noticeably slowed.” (Propublica, 2021). The examples above demonstrate the tension between harmful speech and public safety that validates Fish's arguments. Fish gives two outways of this situation in his book, stating that there should not be any exception in a free speech otherwise it would be restricted speech, or it is impossible to separate speech and action afterward. “The answer is that freedom of expression would only be a primary value if it didn't matter what was said, didn't matter in the sense that no one gave a damn but just liked to hear talk.” ( Fish, 1996).  The First Amendment protects the freedom of expression prior to any other rights but Fish argued that the idea is only a matter of subject but not practical in word and context. Fish makes an intriguing argument that schools should not prioritize free speech and protect it as a fundamental value for students in academic contexts. In his talk "Free Speech is Not an Academic Value" at the USD Center for Ethics, Economics, and Public Policy, Fish argues that schools operate differently from the free market in society, functioning instead as bureaucratic systems. He contends that schools should prioritize a commitment to the truth over protecting free speech, and should exclude speech that is deemed unworthy through a rigorous evaluation process. I think it is a very interesting argument given the context that democracy needs free speech to aim at helping individuals can participate fully in the political process and make informed decisions about issues that affect their lives.  Since professors dominate the academic environment, rather than students, it could be argued that free speech protections should not extend to schools. Therefore, Fish's argument suggests that while certain types of speech should be encouraged, others should be suppressed. However, it is hard for me to agree with this argument. While I understand the logic behind Fish's arguments within his specific context, I find them somewhat incomplete and unsatisfactory when considered in a broader context. If we protect the system by instilling fear in marginalized people to control the flow of information, it would not be helpful to prioritize certain types of speech over others. If a school prioritizes biblical studies over other forms of speech, like the theory of evolution, it may hinder students' ability to learn about and understand important scientific concepts. However, I agree with the statement that Fish argues that in the current digital age where information can spread rapidly and widely, it may be necessary to consider whether certain forms of speech should be abolished or restricted.

​

Owen Fiss takes a more moderate stance on free speech compared to Stanley Fish. Fiss emphasizes the importance of free speech as the backbone of democracy. The famous Street Corner Metaphor (Fiss, 1996) demonstrates the point that free speech protects citizens' right to speak without the fear of government suppression. In practice, the First Amendment protects the right to express political speech in order to maintain a democratic society. The principle of preferred speech implies that any law or regulation or executive act that limits political speech is almost always struck down by the court. In the 1968 landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that political expression, no matter how outrageous, is protected under the First Amendment. Similarly, in Fiss's story, citizens cannot be arrested for expressing unpopular political views on the street. This underscores the importance of preserving free speech as a fundamental right and the cornerstone of democracy. By protecting the right to express diverse opinions and engage in political discourse, we uphold the principles of democracy and promote a flow of exchange of ideas. The protection of free speech and protest is not only fundamental to citizens' rights but also essential for enabling the government to hear public voices and respond to societal needs.

 

Through the protection of protest, movements such as #MeToo and Black Lives Matter have been able to raise social awareness and promote greater opportunities for marginalized groups. These protests have played a crucial role in highlighting issues of social injustice and inequality, leading to important policy changes and social reforms. As Fiss stated, “It was only then that the shield around the speaker became worthy of a democracy.” (Fiss, 1996). However, in theory, the notion of free speech as a means to enable rich public debates for the greater good of humanity may be difficult to achieve in practice. Fiss stated that mediums such as CBS may be “insufficient to insure a rich public debate” and “destructive of that goal.” Private entities like CBS and Twitter have the right to select and publish the speech they choose on their platforms. As these platforms become more popular, they also become the gatekeepers of free speech, deciding what information is presented at prime times. With the rise of better algorithms and AI technology, the role of these gatekeepers has become more controversial. It is controversial that these technologies can be used to unfairly limit or promote certain viewpoints, potentially harming the diversity of perspectives that is essential to healthy public discourse. Especially with the release of recent GPT 4.0, the manual report indicates that the AI algorithm has improved in producing realistic targeted content. The spread of misinformation and disinformation through targeted content has put free speech in a precarious position. Without limiting the boundaries of free speech, marginalized people may be further suppressed. When individuals use their free speech rights to promote harmful messages, it can have a chilling effect on those who are already vulnerable or marginalized. Fiss proposed that “The first amendment does not require a revolution. It may require, however, a change in our attitude about the state.” (Fiss, 1996). Fiss thinks it's unrealistic to blame society as a whole but instead recognizes that free speech can either benefit or harm society, much like a knife can be used to cut or cause harm. Fiss argues that it may be necessary to limit some speech that is harmful and intended to marginalize people, as “restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others” (Fiss, 1996). According to Fiss, the government can intervene in regulating information as long as it serves the public good and fosters public debates. For example, fairness doctrines, presented by Federal Communications Commission in the United States, require broadcasts to provide an equal amount of time to air for all sides of controversial issues of public importance. The goal is to intend the public to make aware of all sides of the information to have an informed decision on voting, and also promote a diverse and inclusive environment. However, Fiss's argument for government intervention in free speech has been criticized for being unrealistic. Government intervention in free speech may lead to a political attack on suppressing opposing views. This creates a danger of political biases and restrictions on free speech. It is also a common concern to consider who gets to be the gatekeeper of free speech and how certain voices are prioritized over others. As a student with a background in journalism, I am often conflicted about whether news outlets should be the gatekeepers of the information we receive. Lowering the standards for producing and sharing information with the public may not be the best approach for ensuring that people receive accurate and reliable information. Journalists spent years of training to uphold objectivity and truth-seeking, but the rise of algorithm-driven content is causing people to lose trust in the news industry. I agree with Fiss's argument that the First Amendment is not flawed in its protection of free speech. Rather, the problem may lie in the ease of information dissemination which may cause us to easily marginalized the group of voiceless people.

​

However, some other scholars have different opinions on the First Amendment. Catharine A. MacKinnon, a feminist legal scholar, and activist argue that the First Amendment has been turned into a weapon to marginalize the less powerful people, such as woman and people of color. MacKinnon argues that “it is incapable of seeing hierarchy, markedly the rank ordering of white over not white, of male and masculine over female and feminine, that (among many other inequalities) defines inequality in reality.” Mackinnon argues that since the beginning of the First Amendment is introduced, our society has already formed a hierarchy which dominant by a certain group of people. When we prioritize content neutrality from the protection of free speech and expression, it has already been biased and favored one group of people over others. In a speech at AtlanticLIVE, she asserts that systemic white supremacy subordinates the majority of the country. (Geller, S. 2013). However, Mackinnon's critics could easily interpret that any speech of expression can seem offensive in some way. The purpose of free speech protection is to ensure everyone has the right to freely communicate without fear of judgment and critique. Focusing solely on equality at the expense of free speech could potentially undermine the purpose of free speech protection.

These three scholars have a good understanding of the issues surrounding free speech in today's world, and they make compelling arguments. However, some people abuse the power of free speech, leading to a society where hateful speech, discrimination, and the marginalization of vulnerable individuals. I'm unsure whether to advocate for free speech or its restriction. While I recognize that free expression is a valuable privilege, I believe it should serve to enhance democracy rather than be used to justify harm to marginalized groups. We need to ensure that the pursuit of freedom of speech doesn't come at the cost of the well-being of vulnerable individuals.

 

Citation 

Fish, S. (1994). There's no such thing as free speech, and it's a good thing, too. Academic Questions, 7(3), 21-35.

 

Fish, S. (2018). The harm in free speech. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Harm-in-Free-Speech/242795

 

Fiss, O. (1996). Free speech and social structure. Iowa Law Review, 81(4), 1265-1290. Geller, S. (2013, May 6). The Psychology of Self-Motivation. TEDx Talks.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWuiqeO9ueI&t=873s

 

MacKinnon, C. A. (2018). Weaponizing the First Amendment: An equality reading. Harvard Law Review, 131(6), 153-173.

 

Propublica. (2021, April 13). Facebook Hosted Surge of Misinformation and Insurrection Threats in Months Leading Up to Jan. 6 Attack, Records Show. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-hosted-surge-of-misinformation-and-insurr ction-threats-in-months-leading-up-to-jan-6-attack-records-show