One of my many favorite
things about living in the United States is the amount of freedom of speech
enjoyed in this country compared to many (almost all?) others.
For me, the United States flag is (among other things) a symbol that reminds me of that freedom of speech. Below is a 2016 photo I took of a U.S. flag near courthouses in Lexington, Kentucky.
Is this freedom of speech in peril?
Freedom of speech is one
of the things supposedly guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution. What that freedom includes and doesn’t include is defined by various
court decisions over the years.[1] It changes as new court
cases are decided.
U.S. Freedom of Speech Has Always Been Limited
Freedom of speech in the U.S. has always had limitations. Certain officials and soldiers are sworn to secrecy about certain plans and activities of the military for example. Organizations often require employees to keep trade secrets.
Furthermore, even certain fiction novels have been banned at times. As an example, the novel Uncle Tom's Cabin was banned for a time in some areas due to its depiction of slavery.
Currently Debate Occurs Over Internet Media Censorship
Debate is ongoing over to
what extent Internet social media websites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube
can and should censor speech, such as hate speech, presumed fake news, and classified
information, as well as over how much restraint public officials ought to
exercise in their public comments.
Two 2020 Situations
One situation
occurred on February 13th, 2020. Kentucky Senator Rand
Paul on Twitter tweeted[2]
“A chilling and disturbing day in America when giant web companies such as
@YouTube decide to censor speech.” Senator Paul posted in response to YouTube
removing a clip of Paul speaking at the U.S. Senate. You can argue that YouTube
made the correct decision in that particular case, but once censorship of
speeches at Senate meetings begins, where does it end?
A second 2020 situation
involved West Virginia’s then governor, who also served as coach of the Greenbriar
East High School girls’ basketball team and was accused of racism after calling
some representatives of another team “a
bunch of thugs[3]”
due to behavior during a February 11th, 2020 high school basketball
game. The coach’s words were I think uncalled for, inappropriate, and perhaps
one-sided since he coaches the Greenbriar team. But was
his statement racist?[4] Based
on what I read, he seemed to be criticizing behavior, not race. The term racism
is overused nowadays as I see it. Too many seem to discourage freedom of
thought by criticizing comments of those who disagree with one as being racist.
Inconsistency
In recent years at least
a few careers have basically ended due to making one politically incorrect
statement about certain races, cultures, religious groups, sexual orientations,
or an individual. It will be great if this leads to less vulgar language,
lying, and hyperbole. It will be wonderful if it leads to persons not speaking
disparagingly about other races, cultures, religious groups, etc.
But if it gets to the
point where it discourages honest, open communication, I think it has gone too
far. Even worse, while horrible language is despised in some cases, it is
tolerated or even encouraged in others. Where is the consistency?
Often fake news and
Internet messages with false or misleading information go viral. Some of the
Twitter comments by President Trump, as well as statements by liberal and
conservative broadcast commentators like Rachel Maddow and Rush Limbaugh, seem
to go way overboard. Yet they go viral and are acclaimed by many followers
while condemned by many detractors.
When I grew up in the
1960s and 1970s pornography and vulgar language were not acceptable in public
or in public media like television, radio, or mainstream motion pictures for
the general public. Now such things are often tolerated in the name of freedom
of speech.
Where is balance? What is
the proper perspective?
Personally, I despise
hate speech and strongly dislike the willingness and ability for fake news to
be spread so quickly and broadly. I also dislike obscene and pornographic
videos, pictures, and words.
I know there is a gray
area between what is acceptable and what isn’t. It isn’t always clear-cut what
should be allowed.
But I find it
inappropriate that persons who have served effectively for years in a career
can be castigated and ruined for one comment, while others can seemingly speak
at will. I recognize those in positions of authority need to be held
accountable to a higher standard. But the standard needs to be fair and fairly
consistently applied.
While certain prominent
persons seem to be able to promote such things at will, others seem to be
ostracized and ruined for making what seems to be one relatively minor
misstatement.
News headlines frequently
result from online bullying of school children, hate speech against minority
groups, and other similar things. But what is the best way to eliminate such
speech, while tolerating and encouraging a variety of views and a reasonable
amount of freedom of speech?
What was acceptable in
past generations is now unacceptable, for better or worse. And I think it is
for better in some cases, for worse in others. Huckleberry Finn and To Kill
a Mockingbird are classic novels that I enjoyed reading during my
childhood. Even today I think they both have great merit that outweighs the
weaknesses of the stereotypes portrayed in both books. Others disagree. Similar things can be
stated for many other books, magazines, movies, television shows, etc.
The
Changing Nature of News Coverage
The plethora of websites,
abundant availability of computers with printers that could in theory allow
most of us to print our own newsletter or polemic, and the widespread use of
cellphones with capabilities that would have seemed almost unbelievable a
generation or two ago make more information available to more people than ever
before in history in a sense. In 2020 I wrote a piece for the now defunct website, Craft News Report, titled, “The
Changing Nature of News Coverage[5].”
The main sources of news
in the last two centuries, newspapers, are folding. They may be almost
completely gone in a generation. In January 2020, the local newspaper here in
Lexington, Kentucky, a city of over 300,000 people, ceased publishing a
Saturday print edition. The next month its parent company (McClatchy) filed for
bankruptcy.
The future of newspapers
in general is in doubt. I dislike the liberal bias of the Lexington paper, but
it has the largest staff of any news provider in the eastern half of Kentucky and
probably offers more news stories than any other in this half of the state.
What will replace the void if/when it and other local newspapers disappear?
Providing more revenue to
news providers could help. The Wall
Street Journal reported February 14, 2020[6]
that Google was considering paying some publishers for news. This could be a great
opportunity to provide needed revenue to producers of quality news. But it
raised the questions of who would be paid, how much, and how it would impact such
news producers if it took place. Would news producers censor their production
to produce what Google and/or other news purchasers want?
During the years 2020-2023, discussions have continued over the use (or abuse) of news by Internet websites, including Google. There have apparently been some agreements to pay publishers for news, consideration of laws to require it, etc. It remains to be seen what the long term results will be.
We have much more news
than ever before and more ways to share it. But more doesn’t always mean
better. And the shutdown of a few major computer servers, censorship by some
governments, and just changing the criteria for how search results are
displayed on Google could affect the availability of much of this information.
Few of us could afford to
research, print, and mass distribute a newsletter printed from our own
computer. And how many persons own their own server to distribute things online?
Furthermore, what if a
major electrical outage occurred due to weather or another factor?
There are lots of things
to consider. For me one key consideration is whether mainstream news websites,
public figures, and others will avoid covering certain stories or saying
certain important things out of fear of offending certain groups. Let’s seek a
proper balance.
ENDNOTES:
[1] “What Does Free
Speech Mean?”; USCourts.gov; webpage accessed February 16, 2020; https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does
[2] Rand Paul; Twitter
tweet; Twitter.com; 10:20 a.m., February 13, 2020; webpage accessed February
16, 2020; https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1227975800928063490
[3] Tyler Jackson;
“Justice: ‘They’re a bunch of thugs’ ”; The Register-Herald; February 12, 2020;
webpage accessed February 16, 2020; https://www.register-herald.com/sports/justice-they-re-a-bunch-of-thugs/article_9cd95d82-4d57-11ea-8596-f76726a5a528.html
[4] Jessica Farrish;
“NAACP calls for a meeting”; The Register-Herald; February 13, 2020; webpage
accessed February 16, 2020; https://www.register-herald.com/news/naacp-calls-for-a-meeting/article_75b69a18-7917-5035-bcb3-b141fce6696d.html
[5] James Edwin
Gibson; “The Changing Nature of News Coverage”; Craft News Report; August 11,
2019; webpage accessed February 16, 2020; https://craftnewsreport.com/blog/f/the-changing-nature-of-news-coverage The website has since closed down.
[6] Benjamin Mullin;
“Google in Talks to Pay Publishers for News”; Wall Street Journal; updated February
14, 2020, 3:46 p.m. EST; webpage accessed February 16, 2020; https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-in-talks-to-pay-publishers-for-content-in-premium-news-product-11581689169
NOTE:
This article submitted to Google Blogger on February 16, 2020 is virtually identical to one
submitted earlier the same day to Craft News Report, a website operated by the
author’s friend Paul Craft.
This article was last revised on February 22, 2023.
No comments:
Post a Comment