After reviewing all eight speech theories provided, the one that I feel resonated with me the most is Individual Self-Fulfillment (aka Self-Actualization) created by C. Edwin Baker (pictured to the left). Baker was a leading First Amendment scholar who focused primarily on human liberty and freedom of speech. His influential novel entitled ironically enough, "Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech", argued that "the primary justification for freedom of expression rests on protecting human liberty- the liberty theory- rather than the traditional market place of ideas." This idea has a great sense of value to me because I feel that free speech is something we are very lucky to have as United States Citizens.
Free speech enables individuals to express themselves and thereby create their own identity. It is also a key reason as to why our democratic process runs the way that is does. If we want to live in a society that is free and equal to everyone, protecting this right is essential. Freedom of speech is so significant for numerous reasons. According to this article entitled "Why is Free Speech Important?", freedom of speech is essential to freedom of thought; is is essential for a democratic government to thrive. The alternative to a self-governing democracy- government censorship and control of ideas- has always led to disaster. The article states: "Freedom of speech is essential to freedom of thought because a person cannot develop an independent point of view about the world unless he or she is exposed to different ideas about what is important and what beliefs are most meaningful, and is permitted to converse with others about their experiences or beliefs."
An example that immediately comes to mind when thinking about the freedom of expression in society today is through the outlet of social media. While having the ability and freedom to speech and self expression, it is important to note that limitations on what you can can cannot post/publish, are enforced. For example, hate speech is something we see quite frequently in the media- that is, until it is removed from the platform. But the question is, does the media having limitations on what you can and cannot post go against the First Amendment and should that be deemed unconstitutional? Personally, I think yes. In regards directly to the Constitution, the First Amendment protects hate speech from government censorship unless that speech incites or is likely to incite immolate lawless action. So why is it that platforms such as Twitter have the ability to ban accounts and delete posts if users are just simply posting about things in which they believe in. Please note that in no way am I supporting the use of hate speech. However, if we as United States citizens are given the right to self expression, Constitutionally speaking we should be permitted to express ourselves and share our personal beliefs and/or opinions in the way that we choose.
Comments
Post a Comment