Speech and censorship face off—the irrepressible against the dogged. This month’s headlines come from Russia, China, Myanmar and, unfortunately, the United States. The others are hopeless, but let me comment on our country.
Numerous debates are now underway on the constitutional boundaries of free speech and there are important reasons why none of us should be complacent. Let me look forward with a glancing look back.
I chaired the Federal Communications Commission when, attempting to protect children from Howard Stern’s vulgar national radio broadcasts, we fined his network company for breaches of what Congress called “indecent broadcasting.” This eventually forced the company to move Stern to a subscriber tier on satellite radio. But, deciding when speech can be constitutionally censored is not easy work.
A debate is now underway on the extent to which Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 enables Internet computer services to censor online sources of expression. There are many providers, but the headlines normally cite Facebook or Twitter. The law gives companies that have chosen to moderate their users speech the right to exclude speech that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” Keep those words in mind.
Free speech talks back. I have noticed that readers of The Spy are not reluctant to express themselves, sometimes aggressively. And free speakers are frequently critics and power is not enamored with criticism.
Certainly many, if not most, recoil at the censorious aggression of the Woke culture as its outrage seeps into education, publishing and more. The Woke culture frequently sows division while claiming to preclude it.
Also, increasingly businesses have become censorious. For example, Amazon, which has a streaming service and is “promoting a wide array of films as a part of Black History Month, choose not to include a PBS produced show called “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words.” The film was available to stream on Amazon, but not anymore.
The political Right is angry believing it is being barred from Facebook and Twitter, among others. My concern goes beyond the current headlines. What about the potential to trigger attacks? Post-January 6th we don’t have to stretch our imaginations to envision mobs on the loose. Or what about intrusion from countries like Russia? Also we should remind ourselves that credulity is an invitation to manipulate. Indeed, can a democracy be healthy when a significant percentage of people accept outrage commentary at face value?
Historically when we think about speech, we think about words. Today hardcore agitation is frequently accompanied by images. Take a look at what Adobe’s Photoshop service lets you do with images. Or look up images of Tom Cruise in recent TikTok videos. These are referred to as deepfake productions which refers to the use of algorithms to replace the person in the original video with someone else. Images used to be primary evidence of truth. Not anymore.
What happens when manipulated images and incendiary words are paired with what I think of as outrage contagion by an organization whose name is a public relation agent’s concoction? Computer services know who is easily riled and again, after January 6th our imagination is no longer necessary in understanding what can happen.
The debate about online speech is underway. It is a debate that will test your span of attention, but remember your speech can count and if businesses offend you, shop elsewhere. Feedback, indeed pushback, are protected responses.
Let me close with some questions. Most importantly, what should be the limits of the free speech guarantee? Should online speakers have to identify themselves? Should the marketing of combustible speech have any effect on its constitutionality? There are many questions, but mostly difficult answers.
Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al recently published Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books.
Rev Julie Hart says
With freedom comes responsibility. Therein lies the biggest problem in any culture. Just because it can be said, doesn’t mean it should be said.
Here is a Christian Scriptural reference, “For freedom Christ has set us free.” (Galatians 5:1) The verse has a larger context; it does not stand alone. That freedom had/has a heavy price tag attached to it. Generally speaking any freedom does have a price tag attached. There is a context. I think that we more often than not don’t think about that when we “fire off.” We need to ask questions such as, is what I am about to say or respond to worthy of that price tag? Do my words add to and further the conversation? Are my words meant to shut down discussion?Are my words a very personal response that are best shared with a trusted friend? Are my words meant to hurt and cause pain for others and that is my main objective?
We do have freedom of speech, but we also live in community, We are connected in many and various ways to other people. We have context, and that context also has a voice. We have responsibility to the larger community. We do not live unto ourselves.
Peace,
Rev Julie Hart
Barbara Denton says
The Supreme Court has given us the guidelines for free speech. Facebook and Twitter are using formulas and key words from the CCP to determine what should be blocked. Needless to say, all of this is pointed and used against conservatives to remove them from the public platform. All the Hunter Biden scandals were hidden by the public and not allowed to be discussed not only on facebook and twitter but also by every MSM outlet. Since many do not have the time to try and figure out what is going on they ignore the lack of veracity being poured out by these organizations. It is the civic duty of citizens of the United States to point out criminal behavior, unconstitutional laws and lies being spread to harm different groups. Our children are not being educated in the duties of citizenship and have not been for at least the last 40 years. It is no wonder they are slowly watching their rights being removed and they do not even realize it. I remember reading 1984 in high school and thinking to myself this could never happen in the United States of America. Wake up people, big brother is here.
W. Dalton says
I agree that the Supreme Court has defined what is free speech and what is not. Just recently the speech used by our former President when he incited an insurrection on January 6th was claimed to be free speech. The Supreme held years ago,ago that speech like his under the circumstances present at the time would not pass the test for free speech. Similar but not the same is falsely shouting fire in a theater.In the absence of any controlling case law I would favor letting the media used make the determination as a matter of necessity. Maybe there are existing standards and general rules set out in case law that should be followed. Difficult choices must be made depending on circumstances including the norms of the time. Common sense (mine) must be used. I would hold speech to be free when it favors liberals and progressives.