Technology and Society: Free Speech and the Internet, Iterum | Opinion

I wanted to shorten the title and show off my scholarship so I searched on the phrase, “Once Again” to find the Latin equivalent which turned out to be “Iterum” (which only resulted in making the column longer...).

Ever since the Internet morphed into the ubiquitous “World Wide Web”, it has become legally viewed in society the same way we view books and newspapers.

Of course, the Internet is not the only way we humans communicate. We also use live speech, radio and telephone as well as letters (e.g. USPS) billboards, sky-writers (remember them?) and many other modes (e.g. smiling). Any of these modes are not regulated by the government. For example, this newspaper can pretty much print, subject to editorial judgment, what it wants. Newspapers generally follow the (slightly altered) credo of the New York Times, “Most all of the interesting news fit to print.”

On the other hand: “Even though the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, the government does regulate some media. Print media are largely unregulated, and newspapers and magazines can print nearly anything as long as they don’t slander anyone. The Internet has also gone largely unregulated, despite congressional efforts to restrict some controversial content. Broadcast media, however, are subject to the most government regulation. Radio and television broadcasters must obtain a license from the government because, according to American law, the public owns the airwaves. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issues these licenses and is in charge of regulating the airwaves. The FCC also acts as a police agency of the airwaves, and it can fine broadcasters for violating public decency standards on the air. In extreme cases, the FCC can even revoke a broadcaster’s license, keeping him off the air permanently. “ (www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/american-government/the-media/section3/)

THE BURDENS OF BROADCASTING

The Internet, however, has extended the meaning of “broadcast media” which is a one-way path from the broadcaster to you. It differs from TV, newspapers and books in that the Internet is two-way. Not only can anyone broadcast their views, it allows the receiver to respond if they choose. Of course, newspapers and magazines can have a Letters to the Editor section but the response time between sending and the publishing of the letter is certainly not instantaneous — it may take several days before it can appear in print. Also the responses printed are subject to the judgment of the editor. If I write a letter that obviously contains a falsehood such as “everyone loves Trump” or “everyone hates Trump,” it could be rejected and not printed. It gets tricky when the message is subject to the constraints of what was considered the most important issue to the founding fathers of our Constitution and is known as the First Amendment, which deems that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Problems arise when asked for a precise definition of “Free Speech”, and these problems are not trivial.

For example, Wikipedia writes: “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is a popular analogy for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant’s speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).”

FREEDOM AND CONSEQUENCES

So, in brief, it’s not the shouting that’s the problem, it’s the consequences of the shouting. If panic ensues and people get trampled as a result, bigmouth is in big trouble with the law. However, if all that results is a bunch of angry patrons, the worst that can happen is that the shouter is banned from future attendance at the theater. This freedom of speech vs censorship issue is not limited to the US — according to Lighthouse site in the UK (https://www.lighthousecommunity.global) The article entitled “When The Freedom Of Speech Becomes An Excuse For Abuse!” explores the darker side of the Internet and opines, “freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. What we say, why we say it and how is our individual and collective responsibility.” This illustration is another (somewhat whimsical way) to express the issue: Even the issue of how to express a viewpoint on the issue of free speech vs censorship is a tricky one. To save our crumbling society and return to some sort of order, is it time for the federal government to step in by extending the reach of the FCC to include the Internet or would that just exacerbate an already nasty situation? Now, there’s a tricky problem.

No one has ever changed another’s mind on an issue by shouting or otherwise demeaning the intent of the other. If it does it is usually because the shoutee is not really persuaded but just wants out of an unpleasant conversation. Perhaps the bottom line is being aware that we’re all in this together and if we’re going to make it, treating each other with kindness and respect will go a long way. It used to be called “common courtesy.”

Unfettered freedom of speech, when distributed by the ever-present and ubiquitous Internet, is certainly a part of the reason for the current contentious political divide between conservatives and liberals. The irony of the situation becomes even clearer when both sides claim that the other side is “destroying democracy”. Given the ferocity of the debate, both sides may be right.

— Dr. Stewart A. Denenberg is an emeritus professor of computer science at Plattsburgh State, retiring recently after 30 years there. Before that, he worked as a technical writer, programmer and consultant to the U.S. Navy and private Industry. Send comments and suggestions to his blog at www.tec-soc.blogspot.com, where there is additional text and links. He can also be reached at denenbsa@gmail.com.

Comments are closed.