Blog #4 - Speech Theories

        Throughout this semester in Media Law and Literacy Professor Dean Smith has focused on teaching us the many different benefits of Freedom of Speech, and the eight primary theories that these benefits can be grouped into.  These theories address the various benefits of free speech and the potential difference that a society based on free speech should expect, to include; 1) a marketplace of ideas; 2) participation in self-government; 3) the idea of stable change; 4) the idea of individual self-fulfillment; 5) check on governmental power; 6) promotion of tolerance; 7) promotion of innovation; and 8) protection of dissent. Studying these theories has enlightened me in many ways, and through the process, I have found that some theories resonate with me more than others. The second principle, “participation in self-government,” seems to be quite relevant in the political climate in our country. It seems that over the past couple of years, there has been a growing awareness of the autonomy that our government has assumed as the population slowly realizes that the average person seems to have less and less to say regarding the role of our federal government and how it functions. While the premise on which the United States government is based has been, “We the people,” since its inception, the lack of this reality has become more and more apparent to the general population.  Another principle that stuck out to me is that of “stable change.” This principle is based on the idea that when people are allowed to express their thoughts and frustrations, violence and aggression are less likely to occur, leading to a more stable society.  Today’s political environment has drawn particular attention to this theory, as maintaining a balance is crucial. When individuals are given the choice to openly speak their mind they feel heard and valued and therefore they will be much less likely to have an outburst of physical rage. However, no moderation can be as damaging and dangerous as censorship as exemplified by the 2019 massacre carried out at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. “The Christchurch gunman had spent years on social media trying to advance the cause of white power. But these posts, he eventually decided, were not enough; now it was “time to make a real-life effort post.” He murdered 51 people” (Marantz, 2019). As he stated in the New York Times article, Free Speech is Killing Us, “We need to protect the rights of speakers,” John A. Powell, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, told me, “but what about protecting everyone else?” Unfortunately, it appears that there is a lack of clarity as to what should and should not be “moderated” in the media, and as such, the theory that I believe needs to be seen in action the most today is the eighth, “Protect Dissent.” This theory advocates that people be allowed to advocate for their opinion regardless of what the masses may believe. In this day and age, it seems that a much stronger focus is placed on the common opinion rather than protecting and empowering those that do not share in that opinion, often to the point of shutting down any opinion that is not popular with the current government.