Let the sound of our voices resonate like our ideas
[Free speech is a touchy subject — especially now at a time of such political divisiveness. But, Gen Z and millennials are increasingly turned off by the liberties taken in the name of free speech. I believe that exercising the right to free speech is important — now more than ever before. It is necessary for our country to heal and for us to come together. I wrote this essay for an assignment and wanted to share it with you all in the blog.]
Why is free speech important to initiate change?
Free speech is responsible for heralding some of the most notable changes in history, while its antithesis, censorship, is dangerously counterproductive to the very people, causes, or movements that it seeks to protect. The Suffragettes used “tactics and techniques (like) aggressive agitation, relentless lobbying, clever publicity stunts, civil disobedience, and nonviolent confrontation” sanctioned by the First Amendment, to help women win the right to vote (Library of Congress). Free Speech also protected John Tinker and Mary Beth for wearing black armbands during the Vietnam War protests, because it was considered “pure speech” by the Supreme Court in the case of Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 1969. During the Civil Rights movement, the First Amendment enabled activists to defend themselves in courts. These examples illustrate that free speech may not always adhere to popular mob sentiments but it is valuable during times of political turmoil to protect the powerless, the weak, and the underdog. As Frederick Douglas, an Abolitionist Leader stated in 1860, “Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants” (Douglass 1860).
Restrictive regulations against free speech enable the elite to manipulate ordinary citizens, who may exist in rarefied pockets of isolation within their closed communities. Censorship may appear to be the panacea, but in reality, it fuels frustration, which results in people feeling belittled, ignored, or unheard. Interestingly, the 2016 elections are often portrayed as the revenge of “the silent majority”. Censorship creates election waves of populism or protests and they become the unintended collateral damage of identity politics. Well-intended efforts to ban offensive speech can backfire, leading violators to adopt stealthy channels or coded language to purvey hateful messages that encourage divisiveness and destroys the potential for real, long-term change. Punishing unpalatable free speech may have a chilling effect on genuine objections and worthy points and free speech may be touted selectively by politicians to further their vested interests, so that gun-wielding protesters may become the embodiment of free speech principles, while NFL players taking a knee to protest racism are criticized. Free speech based on a marketplace of ideas ultimately leads to the truth and is the backbone of a true liberal democracy. As President Thomas Jefferson argued, it is safe to tolerate an “error of opinion […] where reason is left free to combat it” (Jefferson, 1801).
We must educate ourselves on the nuances of the constitutional provisions and how they can be effectively used to address a variety of situations and foster change. The Fourteenth Amendment forbids any state from depriving “any person … life, liberty, or property without “due process of law” applies to all “persons,” not just citizens. This clause in conjunction with the First Amendment may allow non-citizens like the dreamers, to exercise free speech and be protected by our Constitution (Canuto, 2019). Instead of advocating for censorship, we must reintroduce civics in the American public education curriculum to understand the operations of government and defend our stance on issues effectively by engaging in the civic life of our country.
Why should Gen z be against censorship?
Studies reveal that millennials, gen Z, women, and liberals predominantly support censorship, especially of “offensive statements against minorities” (Wike et al, 2015). Having faced the impact of many apocalyptic events, we feel justified to denigrate the value of free speech, especially when it is weaponized to contradict our world view and experiences at times fraught with partisanship. We feel conflicted when the two most fundamental values of democracy — free speech and equality — seem to be mutually contradictory (De Luca, 2007). However, free speech is particularly important at a time of political divisiveness because it is the fundamental precursor of all other rights in civic society.
Recently, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) became a lightning rod for criticism, when two social media giants — Facebook and Twitter, took very contradictory stances. While Twitter banned political advertising and fact-checked tweets, Facebook refused to block fake political advertising because it would violate free speech. Content moderation is always open to criticism and it is especially important to uphold free speech online to generate awareness of other opinions. As global citizens of a “digital world”, we have access to multiple sources of information and should feel powerful because we can collect, cross-reference, disseminate, and stream information in diverse formats through multiple channels of social media (blogs, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, WhatsApp, TikTok) to billions of users around the world. Our voices can resonate louder and stronger to influence public opinion and by exercising our constitutional right to free speech we can appropriate power from the traditional gatekeepers of the media. Instead of nurturing a herd mentality and expressing knee-jerk reactions to opposing political viewpoints, we must allow societies to evolve through the tension of conflicting ideas that result from discussions because only ideas that stand the test of time can bring long-term change. Therefore, free speech is a tool of enlightenment and empowerment, which can help to isolate loopholes in arguments, understand the merits of opposing viewpoints, identify common ground, and enrich the debate.
Ultimately, we must not concern ourselves with the media optics or morality of issues and instead, focus on the true worth of this fundamental right, which may be used to persuade people and change their minds, rather than “compel” them to submission.
Works Cited
Canuto, Vanessa. “IMMIGRANTS ARE ‘PEOPLE’ TOO: CONSTITUTIONALIZING FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS FOR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS.” UNC First Amendment Law Review, vol. 17, no. Spring, 2019, falrunc.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/immigrants-are-people-too-constitutionalizing-free-speech-protections-for-undocumented-immigrants.pdf.
Cohen, Sacha Baron. “Sacha Baron Cohen’s Keynote Address at ADL’s 2019 Never Is Now Summit on Anti-Semitism and Hate. ” ADL: Fighting Hate for Good, uploaded by ADL, 21 Nov. 2019, www.adl.org/news/article/sacha-baron-cohens-keynote-address-at-adls-2019-never-is-now-summit-on-anti-semitism.
De Luca, Tom (2007) Free Speech, Political Equality, and Campaign Finance Reform: A Paradox for Democracy?, New Political Science, 29:2, 145–166, DOI: 10.1080/07393140701431813
Douglass, Frederick “A plea for Freedom of Speech in Boston,” December 9, 1860, in Frederick Douglass Papers, series One, Speeches, Debates, and Interviews, ed. John W. Blassingame et al., 5 vols. (New Haven, CT: Yale University press, 1979–92), 3:420–24.
Jefferson, Thomas. Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address. Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address, 4 Mar. 1801, Washington DC, US.
Library of Congress, “TACTICS AND TECHNIQUES OF THE NATIONAL WOMAN’S PARTY SUFFRAGE CAMPAIGN.” Library of Congress Digital Collections: Women of Protest: Photographs from the Records of the National Woman’s Party, www.loc.gov/collections/women-of-protest/articles-and-essays/tactics-and-techniques-of-the-national-womans-party-suffrage-campaign.
Wike, Richard, and Katie Simmons. “Global Support for Principle of Free Expression, but Opposition to Some Forms of Speech Americans Especially Likely to Embrace Individual Liberties.” PEW Research Center, Nov. 2015, www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/11/18/global-support-for-principle-of-free-expression-but-opposition-to-some-forms-of-speech.
Winegard, Bo & Clark, Cory & Bunnel, Ethan. (2019). The Ideology of Censorship.
