Speech Theories: Which are the Most Vital?

Speech Theory #1

Marketplace of Ideas (aka Discovery of Truth) —
see John Milton, Areopagitica

This value was first suggested by Milton, who first said that when truth and falsehood are allowed to freely grapple, truth will win out. And the grappling makes the truth even stronger. His argument against requiring a license to print/publish.

    By having a marketplace of ideas, there is little room for false ideas to live. In an age of technology, many worry that the truth is buried under a mountain of falsehood, pushing a narrative without consequence. But then again, we see time and time again a group of individuals (usually not paired with any corporations or motives) come to fact check and research the truth to expose those who blatantly lie. If there was a license to publish information, it would be considerably harder for the truth to live. Technology has made this null, as we are able to post whenever, and virtually whatever at an instant speed. We even see politicians, social leaders (influencers, entertainers, etc.) post online with updates on their work, life or general things that you should take note of. These do take precedent, but if the issue is large enough, the truth will eventually come out. With this system, we are able to work in an environment where the truth is not necessarily standard, but inevitable.

Speech Theory #2

Stable Change (aka Safety Valve) —
see Benedict Spinoza, Tractatus-Theologico Politicus

It has been suggested that a society in which angry and alienated citizens are allowed to speak their mind, or "vent," will be more stable, as people will be less likely to resort to violence.  It has also been pointed out that allowing the alienated and discontented to speak freely enables the government to better monitor potentially dangerous groups who would otherwise act more clandestinely. Ultimately, it is in the government's own self-interest to allow such venting.

   Venting in a society is critical for it to succeed. When countries censor the speech of their citizens completely, the people will have little to no say in what happens politically. This will surely and eventually lead to corruption of the state, and from there, a dictator or similar ruler could rise. When this happens, there are one of two outcomes: it either becomes an authoritarian state or the citizens will become violent; one resolves to the death of liberty, and the other, chaos. When a government allows freedom of speech, the people are more open to sharing their ideas. During this, the government will also be better for it. They can notice who uses their speech in a violent or inciting-violent type of manner. This can help against national and possibly international terrorism and attack that may stem from it. Additionally, with criticisms, the government can improve itself to better fit the needs, morals, and liberties of the people in which it governs. This can be done through public forums, letters to the Supreme Court, and even online.

Speech Theory #8

Protect Dissent —
see Steve Shiffrin, Dissent, Injustice and the Meanings of America

Our system is not supposed to be one of mob rule. The First Amendment protects minority views, no matter how unpopular. You have a strongly protected right to disagree with the government — and everyone else. In fact, it is your patriotic duty to criticize the government.

  Supporting the minority opinion is key to having fair and balanced free speech in America. During the early beginnings of America, for example, it was the average norm of politicians and people of power that white male landowners were the head of society, and everyone else would be below them. As society progressed into a more moral thinking nation, the minority opinion of everyone being equal no matter race, gender, or content of their character was able to evolve into the societal and political norm. There were definitely laws put into place that tried to stop this from becoming reality, but through the power of speech and protesting (violent and non-violent), the opinion was able to change. If the government is able to suppress the minority opinion, then the government is the arbiter of not only law but morals. This will undoubtedly lead to a corrupt nation where no change is allowed due to ideas being shut down constantly

The United States Supreme Court

    While learning about the Supreme Court, I didn’t realize was the amount of cases that are brought every year, and that only around one hundred of them are even taken into real consideration. It is fascinating to think of the thousands of people that have their letters ignored because there are too many to shift through. Amongst them, there must be many that the judges see and get a chuckle out of, just because of how ridiculous the claims are. On the other hand, there must therefore be cases that the judges want to help but know that the law cannot or does not work in a way to help their case.

    I also did not know that it took months per case, and that there needs to be revision after revision to find a proper solution. Surprisingly, the Supreme Court has only had 115 justices throughout its history. This, in an afterthought, is more obvious because they serve for ‘life’ and the United States is relatively not that old as a country.

    

    The most important takeaway is the absolute power that the Supreme Court really holds. They are one of the three branches of governmental power in the United States, and can even go through the president whenever they feel it justifies. Because of this, sadly, the court can be influenced by presidents placing biased judges to lean toward their political side. After watching the video, my opinion of the Supreme Court has not really changed, but has only improved in the way that I respect their importance.

Five Sources of News and Information

Instagram

I use Instagram as my main source of entertainment-based news. I follow various media accounts for franchises I am interested in including Marvel. I also follow IMDB to learn about a larger range of updates of film and television projects. I also get some updates related to politics and events going on in the United States when they are big enough for friends to post about it. Once I see this, I usually try to search it up myself to find more information on the topic.

CNBC / MSNBC

I use CNBC and MSNBC as my source of left-wing media. I know that this media is biased, but it is generally good for more neutral topics in politics and news. Additionally, whenever I return home this is usually playing on the television. At home, the nightly news is usually what is watched and was a majority of my news before college.

Fox News

I use Fox News as my source of right-wing media. This media source is also biased, just on the other side of the political spectrum. I use Fox as a way to get general media, and then to check it against CNBC to hopefully find a middle ground. If I cannot, then I result to simply looking it up and researching myself. This is not played as much on the television at home, but will still occasionally be playing.

Reddit

I use Reddit mainly for updates on the NBA. On the app, there is a way that you can join different communities based on particular interests. The one that I spend time on is for the NBA team the Atlanta Hawks, where I get updates on player trades, game updates, and Covid-19 player updates. Because I am not very knowledgeable on the NBA, watching people discuss plays during timeouts and halftime during games helps me better understand what is going on.

Instagram

Google

Google seems like an obvious choice, and that is because it is. I use google and my main search engine, so I do not often get news directly from google, but I get news through it. Every once in a while Google will have their title drawn in the style or inspired by a person who’s birthday is being celebrated or an anniversary of an event. I will often click on them and then further research just because it intrigues me.