Recently several social media platforms decided to either curtail or limit former President Trump’s access to their media, resulting in discussions centering on freedom of speech, a long-cherished civil right in our country. I’ve read and listened to some of these discussions, trying to avoid the most vitriolic. No matter which side one takes on this, these events make one stop and ponder several issues; freedom of speech, personal responsibility, corporate responsibility, and adherence to truth. Many decry the actions of these platforms as anti-freedom of speech. But what does the first amendment guarantee?
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 does protect us from government overreach. Taken in its simple rendering, the former president has suffered no violation of his first amendment protections. Of course, nothing is so simple; however, we ought to think about this. The first amendment protects me from government limitations. It does not guarantee me a platform. Social media companies are not required to provide me access. In fact, when setting up an account, I must agree to their stipulations, a part of the process most of us skip through without a thought. When was the last time any of us took the time to read through the legalese before checking the “I Agree” box or radial button? The point is social media platforms are businesses and exist in order to make a profit for their owners, investors, advertisers, or other interested parties. If my postings fall outside the parameters they set up or have a corrosive effect on their business model, they have every right, or responsibility to their investors, to cancel my access. I still enjoy the freedom to speak, just not in their venue. My handling of the truth must certainly play a role in their decision.
Do I have the right to lie with impunity in the public square? In the 1919 Supreme Court case, Schenck v. United States, Justice Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Interestingly, this was a problem in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Thoughtless individuals would do cry fire when there was none and then enjoy the ensuing chaos. In both the United States and Great Britain, hundreds died in such instances.1 Perhaps, we might take a similar view of those that continually spread demonstrable falsehood in public forums. When I continually sow discord among my fellow citizens, I exert a corrosive effect on the functioning of society. This is analogous to falsely crying fire in the theater of our nation. We saw the effects of this January the sixth, a day in which five of our fellow citizens lost their lives. If I continually bear false witness in such a way as to encourage such disruptive behavior, do I not bear some portion of the blame? With every right comes responsibility.
I am responsible for my actions when driving my truck. Should I operate my vehicle recklessly and injure or kill someone, I must pay the penalty. As a teacher, I’m responsible for the things that I say in my classroom. If I engage in irresponsible speech, then I’m liable to lose my job. As an officer in the Army, I was responsible for the words that I uttered and my actions or inactions. Should I engage in careless speech or activities or fail to say or do the appropriate thing then my status as an officer was forfeit. I enjoy many privileges and protections based on my responsible use of those privileges. Perhaps, those of us given to continual prevarication act too thoughtlessly and should account for our behaviors. After all, when we engage in the sharing of falsehood, especially when that falsehood contributes to unrest in society, should we not lose the privilege of a platform from which we broadcast our untruth.
I have seen friends brag about posting things that were flagged as untrue. What has led us to consider being marked as one who fabricates a badge of honor? To simply say, “time will prove me out,” is not a valid defense. While we may revel in our status as an “edgy” person, in truth we are among those who call black, white, day, night, and up, down. We do not aid in the betterment of society through such shenanigans. Instead, we contribute to moral decay. While I certainly support the right to free speech, I also support society’s, and social media platforms, right to hold those who lie accountable. Continued functioning of a society requires a shared understanding of reality…truth.
At the core of this issue is truth. We must embrace truth, even when it does not conform to our desired result. I have voted for more than one candidate that lost the election. When faced with that disappointment, I must possess enough intestinal fortitude and moral courage to admit defeat and engage in the introspection required. No matter our feelings, society needs those who look at truth unflinchingly. When we see the dark hand of conspiracy behind every setback or loss, we cannot make rational decisions. Society only functions well when its members willingly speak and share truth. When we claim our desired outcome was stolen by a hidden cabal, we cannot move forward and solve the very real problems we face. The hidden cabal may soothe our bruised egos, but they do precious little to develop executable solutions to the challenges of the day. The longer we loiter in the darkness of conspiracy, the longer it will take for us to find true solutions and move forward as a nation.
1. "Shouting 'Fire' in a Theater": The Life and Times of Constitutional Law's Most Enduring Analogy Carlton F.W. Larson, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 24 (2015-2016) Issue 1
No comments:
Post a Comment