Eight Values of Free Expression

Speech Theories

In class and online, we have read about speech theories surrounding the first amendment, reasons why we should have open and free discourse. Some of the theories seem counterintuitive at first, but they make sense. I'll do a brief overview of some of the less relevant terms, and go more in depth with others.

Participation in Self Government

• The belief that politicians must have an open and equal platform for them to be able to broadcast their ideas from for the integrity of the democratic process comes from Alexander Meiklejohn. This belief makes common sense. Twitter's decision to ban former president Donald Trump seems to be in violation of this, but it occurred after Trump had clearly lost the election.

 Individual Self Fulfillment

• C. Edwin Baker came up with the idea that free speech allows individuals to express and find their own identity through self-expression. This tracks with the 1st amendment, that freedom of speech is a human right, a dignity for people to be engrained with from birth. This is definitely one of the most positive aspects of freedom of speech.

Check on Governmental Power

• I'm not sure how I feel about this one, check in with me in a couple of years. To put in short, if the press discovers abuses of power in office, then people will collectively vote them out of office. 

Promote Tolerance

• Tolerance of other people's beliefs and ideas is a founding principle of American democracy, innately expected of Americans. Without the ability to have a fair discussion, without hateful beliefs clouding judgement, democracy falters. I'll talk more on this later. 

Promote Innovation

• The ability to freely discuss new ideas and developments without fear of persecution allows collaborative innovation to flourish in free society, as ideas build off of one another. 

Protect Dissent

• A core belief enshrined in the 1st amendment. Everyone, even those who we disagree with, should be protected in their speech.

The Marketplace of Ideas

The term was first used in a Supreme Court case in 1919, Abrams v. United States by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Holmes. Holmes used the term to describe the belief when ideas compete in an open forum, the truth comes out on top. This is supported in academic circles, where the peer review process submits academic works to an open forum of criticism to determine its integrity. The internet is a bad example of this practice, as online forums have a tendency to become separated based on political beliefs, so ideas are not subject to an open forum. Not only that, but in an open forum, people must be dedicated to real debate, where online most debate is done in bad faith, either trolling or ad hominem attacks rather than nuanced discussion. It becomes difficult to engage in good faith debate when one side is unwilling to change their view from the outset of the discussion. People need to be less afraid of their ideas being wrong, or more nuanced than they want to believe. Relativism sucks.

Stable Change

Stable Change is the belief that those in society with extreme or disturbing views should be allowed to express these views. The reasoning is nuanced. Firstly, the belief is, if we allow these people to "vent", they should become less angry and less likely to pursue more serious and harmful action. Secondly, it's a good idea to let the crazy people identify themselves as crazy, so you can know. Of course, this doesn't mean that people can't be punished for harmful speech, as defined in class. It's just that everyone, even the crazy people, have a right to say what they want to. And maybe that isn't such a bad thing.

The Supreme Court

Introduction

The Supreme Court is the highest and most prestigious court in the United States. It has been such a successful model for how high courts should be formatted, that it has seen widespread use and implementation in other nations courts. The law has always been complicated, and it is the task of the Supreme Court to decide whether actions taken by government officials are supported in the nations guiding legal document, the Constitution. The Supreme Court has been behind some of the nation's most progressive movements at times, and a backer of some of its darkest. How did the Supreme Court become what it is today, and what new information came out from the reading?

Humble Beginnings

The Supreme Court was established in 1789, and their office was located at first in a dimly lit basement of the unfinished Capitol building. At first, there were only 6 justices, Congress would then spend the better part of a century debating the proper amount, finally settling on 9 in 1869, which has remained the same since. The first case heard was West v. Barnes,  a case between a farmer and the state. West, the farmer, tried to represent himself, failed to properly submit some paperwork and the case was decided against him. Despite the lack of flashiness, West v. Barnes plays an important role in establishing precedent for Judicial Review, the process where the Courts can review the actions of government officials. 

Judging the Hell out of You

Judicial Review is a crucial part of the Supreme Court, and its founding can be traced to a single case in 1805, Marbury v. Madison. In the case, the Supreme Court struck down a federal judicial law because it conflicted with the Constitution. It established the Supreme Court's role as an overseer against Government overstepping. The Supreme Court is responsible for civil rights, the separation of church and state, voting rights, and so many other wins for the rights of Americans. All of these have one thing in common: they couldn't've happened without Judicial Review. 

Reading Takeaways 

There were a couple things of note in the reading that I was unaware of before. Namely, I learned a lot more about the position of Chief Justice, and the role it has played throughout history. John Marshall was the Chief Justice responsible for judicial review, and often, changes in Chief Justice often meant changes in some of the beliefs or opinions of the Court. The Court was responsible at times for aiding slavers and racists, and at other times they were on the side of the people. I also learned that the Chief Justice presides over Presidential trials of impeachment. This fact is even more interesting where you consider William Howard Taft, who served as both President and Chief Justice at different periods in time. Although he never got to oversee an impeachment trial as Chief Justice, one could imagine the interesting position Taft would be in, overseeing a Presidential impeachment while also being a former president. 

My Top 5 Sources of News

 In our first assignment, we are asked to share our main sources of news information, but for most of us, it all comes from one place: the Internet. The internet is the medium in which we interact with most information on a daily basis, as a direct result of the internet's utility. Using the internet for communication, information gathering, and a medium to spread information are all completely fine, those actions are the direct purpose of the creation of the internet. It should be noted, however, that most, if not all of our sources of information come from digital mediums in the modern day.

My first news source, however, is one which was originally print - The Washington Post. Living in Southern Maryland, the District always has an overbearing affect on the local news outside of the Capitol. However, newspapers centered in the district will also cover other relevant local news, so I can get high-power reporting on issues local to my friends and family at home. I can also get relatively center-left political discussion, which I can balance out rhetoric by reading the same topics covered by conservative news outlets. I pay for the monthly subscription myself, and mostly read it through their website.

My main news source can be found in reddit.com. Information is sorted on the website fairly simply - based on the upvotes and downvotes of millions of users, relevant global and national news can be curated by the people, to determine which news is most important to the most people. At least in theory, that would be the case. In practice, news is sorted well by relevance, but political commentary and some news may be overinflated or suppressed based on the moderation of the community the post was made in. However, for the most part, I will learn about deaths of celebrities, major world events, and other national news on reddit before I hear about it anywhere else. The fact that anyone can post and any post can make the front page means new information and content is always being found or created, making it an ideal source for information.

Another news source I read is the New Yorker. They write long investigative pieces on various stories around the world, and what I consider to be one of the last bastions of good journalism in modern media. Their journalists are top tier, reporting on stories with over a decade of background information. Long-form reporting on larger scale topics and ideas, broadening my sense of the world and how it came to be the way it is, among other things. If I ever want to learn something new about the world, or try to get a handle on what I do know about it currently, the New Yorker is a good spot to hear solid reporting on the issues I care about. I also pay for a digital-only subscription to the New Yorker out of my own pocket. 

When it comes to campus news, I go to instagram. I can follow numerous official accounts of my favorite celebrities, companies, social and school organizations. I can get updates on how my friend's lives are going, but also receive important information about events and policies being going on on campus. For information and news regarding campus life, I turn to Instagram to fill that role

Finally, my last source of news comes from youtube. I subscribe to multiple accounts that both cover and react to various developments in the modern world, and many who attempt to explain causes and effects of these events, among other channels. When I am curious about how something works, I go to youtube to figure it out. When I want to figure out how the world is working, there is someone out there on youtube providing up to date, thoughtful commentary. It takes time to find and build a large group of quality content creators in your feed, but there is endless untapped potential for learning when it comes to what you can find on the platform.

While all of my sources I consume through a digital medium, these sources are not any less veritable. All of them are susceptible to posting fake news, so the most important thing to remember when consuming modern media, and especially digital media, is to verify sources before you let them change your opinion.