Speech Theory #1
see John Milton, Areopagitica
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
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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment