Sectors take on free speech

In this day and age, every sector must strike a careful balance between protecting free speech and the First Amendment, while also safeguarding people from true harm. Free speech should promote accountability, innovation and democratic participation, but it can also be misused to spread violent and hateful speech or dangerous misinformation.

Each sector can and should handle the responsibility of balancing free speech and protecting the public in its own way.

Private Internet Companies

Private companies have the responsibility of balancing three aspects: protecting free expression, protecting users from harm and maintaining trust on platforms.

In Jack Balkin’s essay on “How to Regulate (and Not Regulate) Social Media,” he quickly emphasizes the importance of tracing the root of regulation. 

Regulation should be rooted in community good, though that often means something different to everyone. 

The case we explored in the modules was Facebook’s decision to restrict President Donald Trump’s account after the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6. 

Reviews from the Oversight Board found Facebook made the decision after Trump had seemingly sided with those who attacked the Capitol. He posted, “great patriots who have been badly unfairly treated for so long.” 

Facebook made the decision because Trump’s language perpetuated violence against members of Congress and Capitol police. 

While this case involved widespread harm and made global headlines, most cases aren’t as cut and dry. 

A recent example of regulation that turned into a censorship case is the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show after the death of conservative podcaster Charlie Kirk. 

Kimmel’s show was temporarily canceled after ABC decided to listen to Federal Communications Commission complaints that the talk show host’s comments were inappropriate. 

Ultimately, ABC brought Kimmel’s show back. This was an example of censorship because it was suspended because of outside pressures from people who didn’t like what Kimmel said — it had nothing to do with violent or directly harmful language. 

When companies decide to regulate language, it must be for greater public interest and long-term, potential damages — not criticism for what was said, much like Balkin’s essay explains.

Government and Policymaking

Governments and policy makers have a responsibility to the public, but again, to deal with long-term harm and not temporary disagreement over the language. 

A recent case of the government attempting to regulate speech is Sen. Mark Kelly v. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Hegseth and the Pentagon censured Kelly and attempted to demote the Navy Captain over a video in which he instructed members of the military to refuse illegal orders. 

Kelly was using his free speech in the video, however the Trump administration viewed it as an attempt to attack the administration. Ultimately, a judge sided with Kelly in an injunction and said he was using his First Amendment right. 

The government cannot control speech they simply don’t like, but they can protect the greater good. 

Arizona is one of many states to require ID verification if people want to access pornographic websites. 

This example of online regulation is the state government’s way to protect someone underage from seeing content that isn’t suitable for those under 18.

Civil Society and Third-Party Researchers

Members of a civil society and third-party researchers are responsible for promoting democracy and studying and exposing genuine harms. 

Third-party researchers can become a tool for companies to track down misinformation and stop it in its tracks. 

While there are many ways to combat the spread of misinformation, the American Psychological Association emphasized the need to “fund basic and translational research into the psychology of health misinformation, including effective ways to counter it.” 

Third-party researchers should promote information and study the impact of misinformation and censorship. Meanwhile, civil society should work to promote media literacy.

Media and the News Industry

The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism shows that the decline of public trust underscores the need for fairness and transparency.

A 2022 study from Reuters showed that digital platforms make viewers more skeptical of the content they are consuming. While this is a disadvantage, it also has some positive characteristics. 

People should be wary of information they find online, but this is a chance for media and news organizations to show more transparency. 

The New York Times often has their reporters verbally explain their reporting process. This kind of transparency with readers can provide a deeper understanding of reporting and aid in the trust viewers have with reporters. 

The media should push boundaries and cover hard topics. If the media doesn’t work on stories that might upset some, they fall into censorship and will lose credibility. 

Russia has controlled the media and now, they face criticism from the UN over regulating free speech. America needs to promote a healthy media ecosystem to maintain democracy and widespread freedoms.