There's been a lot of talk recently about free speech, but a lot of people have a very superficial understanding of what "free speech" actually means.I taught several semesters of Communication Law, and here is what the Constitution and the courts say "free speech" means.
The First Amendment does NOT grant people the right to speak freely at all times and in all places.
Rather, the First Amendment prohibits THE GOVERNMENT from limiting speech. It does not address speech outside the question of government censorship.
That means that your speech may not be limited by the government, but you can still get in trouble for your speech. You might be fired if your boss feels you are harming the reputation of the business you work for. Your friends may get mad at you. If you engage in libel or slander, you can be sued.
The government DOES have the right to limit speech in certain narrow categories, such as speech that incites violence or other unlawful behavior. The courts have ruled that such speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
The Constitution does NOT grant the right to be heard at all times and in all places, particularly if such speech interferes with the operation of a business, organization, or governmental agency. That is why cities are allowed to require parade permits, even for peaceful protest rallies. That is why some cities set aside places, like city parks, where people can stand on soapboxes and say whatever they want.
The Constitution does not grant you the right to be heard. You have to be the one to find the figurative soapbox that will allow you to reach your audience, be it the city park, self-publication, radio call-in shows, or social media. If somebody else controls that venue, you need permission to use it for your "free speech."
Right now, the elephant in the room is social media, which has more and more been limiting false and inflammatory content, up to and including banning Donald Trump for alleged falsehoods and claimed incitement of violence. Their terms of service allow than to make these judgment calls, so you can't both post to their sites and claim the right to unlimited free speech.
I have said for years that I am not comfortable with social media, like Facebook, deciding what is "true." But neither am I comfortable with the government being the arbitrator of truth. Both of them are prone to abuse.
The Supreme Court doctrine on free speech is that the "marketplace of ideas" will determine truth, in the long run. That is, the ideas will compete and the best will become broadly accepted.
This is a good idea when the playing field is level, but American society no longer has a news source that is widely considered to present the unvarnished truth, with no hint of interpretation, spin, or political influence.
The big problem we have had recently is BOTs and political operatives deliberately amplifying claims that are QED false and thus gaming the system. Particularly people who are not astute about how the system works, and are thus more gullible, are mislead and believe claims that do not stand up to unbiased fact-checking. Often the advocates do this by using journalistic formats that appear to be news but contain unattributed value judgments and slanted interpretations.
I don't have a good solution to this problem of deliberate falsification to achieve political goals, or for advocacy masquerading as journalism, other than continual fact-checking and branding advocacy as advocacy, not impartial fact.
Rather, the First Amendment prohibits THE GOVERNMENT from limiting speech. It does not address speech outside the question of government censorship.
That means that your speech may not be limited by the government, but you can still get in trouble for your speech. You might be fired if your boss feels you are harming the reputation of the business you work for. Your friends may get mad at you. If you engage in libel or slander, you can be sued.
The government DOES have the right to limit speech in certain narrow categories, such as speech that incites violence or other unlawful behavior. The courts have ruled that such speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
The Constitution does NOT grant the right to be heard at all times and in all places, particularly if such speech interferes with the operation of a business, organization, or governmental agency. That is why cities are allowed to require parade permits, even for peaceful protest rallies. That is why some cities set aside places, like city parks, where people can stand on soapboxes and say whatever they want.
The Constitution does not grant you the right to be heard. You have to be the one to find the figurative soapbox that will allow you to reach your audience, be it the city park, self-publication, radio call-in shows, or social media. If somebody else controls that venue, you need permission to use it for your "free speech."
Right now, the elephant in the room is social media, which has more and more been limiting false and inflammatory content, up to and including banning Donald Trump for alleged falsehoods and claimed incitement of violence. Their terms of service allow than to make these judgment calls, so you can't both post to their sites and claim the right to unlimited free speech.
I have said for years that I am not comfortable with social media, like Facebook, deciding what is "true." But neither am I comfortable with the government being the arbitrator of truth. Both of them are prone to abuse.
The Supreme Court doctrine on free speech is that the "marketplace of ideas" will determine truth, in the long run. That is, the ideas will compete and the best will become broadly accepted.
This is a good idea when the playing field is level, but American society no longer has a news source that is widely considered to present the unvarnished truth, with no hint of interpretation, spin, or political influence.
The big problem we have had recently is BOTs and political operatives deliberately amplifying claims that are QED false and thus gaming the system. Particularly people who are not astute about how the system works, and are thus more gullible, are mislead and believe claims that do not stand up to unbiased fact-checking. Often the advocates do this by using journalistic formats that appear to be news but contain unattributed value judgments and slanted interpretations.
I don't have a good solution to this problem of deliberate falsification to achieve political goals, or for advocacy masquerading as journalism, other than continual fact-checking and branding advocacy as advocacy, not impartial fact.
