Freedom of speech, often considered as the core principle of western democracy- the fundamental right dictated to the people of the United States under the first amendment of the constitution, “Congress shall make no low. abridging the freedom of speech” (Rosati PP, 2018). Freedom of speech is arguably the most debated and widely spoken of in the legal system. Often questioned, “how far does the first amendment protections apply and how could the law justifiably infringe someone’s liberty to speech” (Rosati PP, 2018) to validate-promote the happiness of the community as a whole. Although the law does not directly state what speech is protected vs unprotected since its ratification in 1791, multiple cases on various issues concerning speech has been presented to the grand jury-
The Supreme Country of the United States and therefore, some guidelines and standards have been established differentiating protected vs unprotected speech. “Main categories of “unprotected” speech are obscenity, fraudulent misrepresentation, defamation, and advocacy of imminent lawless behaviors (Rosati PP. 2018) – have been argued on various occasion in the legal realm of the country. On the contrary, political speech, offensive speech, commercial speech, although still experience some scrutiny- practice a much greater sense of protection under the Constitution. Free speech, however, is not speech that a person or an organization disagrees with because it opposes their views. In recent years, especially in 2016, America saw the worst attack on its most sacred practice-electoral system. Although always attacked, 2016 presidential election saw a greater and wider spread of fake news on social media and internet. So, this raises the question “How should we handle these challenges, given our interest in preserving both freedoms of speech and our democratic system of government?” (Rosati Paper #2, 2018).
To start this off, the author and political philosopher, John Stewart Mill offers his understanding of free speech and how the Constitution permits such freedom. A utilitarian believes that the best action is the one that maximizes utility. Mill by definition, is a utilitarian as he believes in the expansion of the free speech on the grounds that it is necessary to get at the truth, which is important to maximizing happiness. Furthermore, Mill argues that the government should not silence opinions- as the silenced opinion may be true, it may be wrong but still contains some element of truth, he also argues that without contestation, we will accept the truth as mere prejudice and lastly, he argues that by constraining someone’s ability to express, without contestation, the truth will lose its effects on character. (Rosati PP, 2018).
John Mill in his explanation of expansion of the free speech highlights on a core principle, happiness. Mill’s argument that a society is particularly better when the utility is maximized exerts more internal influence than when restricted. This theory- to me, is particularly important as its emphasis on social happiness and not individuality. For example, Redish’s view of free speech is based on the phenomenon that free speech ultimately serves only one true value, induvial self-realization- Self-autonomy and individual development. The issue with Redish failed to address is why and how the freedom of expression only serves one value. Alexander Meiklejohn argues that a government shall not abridge one’s freedom of discussion as if the individual citizens fail the society ultimately fails. Although raises serious objection to restricting speech, Meiklejohn’s justification raises a serious question about the extent of such protection such as arts and offensive speech. Therefore, Mills understanding, and explanation is very thorough and promotes competition as a mere factor to get the truth- this is significantly important especially in cases of political and commercial campaigns. (Rosati pp, 2018).
As indicated above, none of the theorists would have anticipated the influence of foreign government- attack on our political system in a form of fake news campaign to benefit or harm one candidate over another, especially using social media outlets. Mill argues that the expansion of speech is supported if that exerts the most utility, it could be argued that by NOT restricting fake news we compromise such utility and make our society more vulnerable to external factors that would ultimately cause great unhappiness to the society- which Mill would favor. As John Mill also argued that we shouldn’t silence opinions as “without contestation, we will accept the truth as mere prejudices”, this is particularly important as Mill would argue that fake news and conspiracy theories are not the type of completion the society needs to maximize its happiness. However, the main objection to this phenomenon would be that some could argue that in fact, any competition is necessary, fake or otherwise to enhance the effect of its self (truth) on the character. This would be particularly important in the realm of political settings as candidates who are attempting to acquire a political office would be forced to conduct fact checking on their opponents, thus when conclusions are drawn, societies are able to make better decisions based on facts and rationality and not just personal opinions.
Fake competition is also important in the commercial setting as some would suggest that some element of false advertisement in a form of exaggeration of the end result is often necessary to promote the development of the business-which ultimately benefits the economy. On the contrary, fake completion is in fact not needed to archive either of those points. In the political realm, although it might make political opponents more cautious about their strategies who is to argue that they might not develop the same model and use fake information to maximize the most benefits for their political rhetoric. This could be devasting for the society as if both sides disregarded truth and focused on just the completion elements, voters would be misled and uninformed of their candidates’ motives- which would ultimately be destructive for our political system and would greatly compromise our democracy.
This technique is often used by dictatorial powers to undermine truth to seize political powers. Fake news, in those political environments, is also used to manipulate people’s interest and often results in surrendering of many of the basic fundamental rights.
Another main objection to Mills view would be, “are we always better off with true beliefs?”. This point is rather controversial as both sides have used this to invalidate their opposition. The opposition would argue that Mill is, in fact, wrong about this. Many on the opposition would argue that it is not only ‘okay’ but beneficial to lie or use false narrative especially when you have the best interest for someone at heart. This is particularly important for cases, for example, a terminally ill patient who has a few months to live, would you rather tell the patient that are about to die or let them enjoy the last few months of their life with a mere pressure of death that would make it painful and unrestingly to live with. This could also be applied to lesser serious instances too for example “your coworkers withholding the fact that the company is doing layoffs right before your birthday celebration” these incidents justify withholding the truth as a source of more utility to when the truth is shared up front. Mill, however, provides no real justification when dealing with such scenario. (Rosati pp, 2018).
One solution in dealing with fake news would be by enforcing a higher level of security- the same level imposed on false advertising and other forms of commercial speech. This would allow users, predominantly those who use social media for their primary source of news to get access to the truth. The Social Media company, especially Facebook, Twitter, and Googled played a significant role in the widespread of these Fake News. These outlets failed to spread the debunks to the false news presented, which would have discredited such news from its core.
Furthermore, they failed to verify the sources or the avenues from which the news has begun- this is particularly important to limit and restrict foreign influence in our electoral process, this issue could be addressed by providing adequate information about the source from which the supporting data is presented from, country of origin, author’s information and their credentials-if any. Another way to solve the widespread of fake news without compromising one’s freedom of expression is by supporting digital media literacy, this would be accomplished by better filtration methods of sorting news facts from frictions. This approach will be the most effective as the population would be educated in identifying when a story is bluntly misrepresented and false, for examples “President Obama banning children and schools from reciting Pledge of Allegiance” if the society is educated on our political system they would be able to identify that for example in the above-given scenario a president does not have the authority to do such act.
The main objective is not to limit speech to promote truth but by utilizing truth to debunk fake news. The aim of these organizations should not be to just mere filter the fake news but help users identify whether a story, the news article is real or fake or lies somewhere in between, all doing so without inferring anyone’s liberty to express without based on nativity to this country. One serious objection to my purposed solution of better filtration would be the cost associated with it. News, especially fake news spread at a much greater risk, this is because it is controversial and often unusual. A user is more likely to click a controversial headline for example “Trump to use nuclear force on Iran” compared to “President Trump expressed how, if necessary, The United States will exert its force to defend itself and its allies”. Cost is a huge barrier for any advancements without compromising the ability to express oneself. It is much easier to ban than regulate. Requiring these outlets to perform a higher level of scrutiny while performing their main job of global connectivity would require enormous amounts of manpower and alliances- cooperation from agencies from all over the world. This would not only be perceived as a cost factor but the delay it would create and cause. Like any rational human, Americans would prefer being presented and broadcasted the truth.
Another main objection to my proposed solution would be integrating digital literacy in our culture. Researching different sources before drawing conclusions based on facts is time consuming and studies show time is a major factor for many lifestyle changes. Identification and differentiation of real news from fake would require an advanced level of independent thinking and problem-solving which could be problematic for the population.
In conclusion, it is important for The United States to preserve our freedom of expression. This is the right that differs us from the dictatorial ruling, this is also the right that makes America (other civilized countries) different from uncivilized countries. Being able to speak our mind is significant not just for personal satisfaction, growth, and development but to have a more integrated discussion on a societal level. Speech is a fundamental element that makes every individual unique, restricting that would infringe on such uniqueness- which will ultimately devastate and cripple the society.
