Striking a Balance between Censorship and Free Speech

WRRH 106
29 April 2022
Striking a Balance between Censorship and Free Speech
Thomas Jefferson once wrote that “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” Today, freedom of expression has become a legal and axiological framework for all democratic societies. It is a universal right that helps individuals freely express themselves, and that plays a critical role in the development and creativity of individuals. Therefore, free speech is a mechanism by which people exchange information, ideas, and opinions in the public sphere, which helps develop ideologies. Kowalska provides historical background that discusses propaganda during World War II as an example of how uncontrolled free speech can lead to human tragedy and terror (Kowalska 35). Considering these situations, some governments have made efforts to regulate free speech, especially on social media. According to The First Amendment of the United States constitution, this official bill is against government censorship of free speech, which leaves the question of how to balance censorship and free speech. This essay will analyze how the government implements surveillance and censorship programs driven by social platforms and the rise of crime and terrorism and argues that the government needs to strike a balance between these two sides.
The American government cannot practice censorship of free speech without violating the First Amendment. It becomes even more challenging for the government to do so across social networking sites, which have become a critical part of how modern society lives and interacts. The developers of these sites do so under the libertarian notion that censorship across platforms is illegal. Promoting free speech on social media means that the government cannot regulate what people say or monitor conversations. An interesting phenomenon is that Americans believe that large technology companies should be regulated because doing so means influencing what users can and cannot do on the platform. However, regulating them means censoring them, which would imply that Americans lose their freedom of expression on the social media platforms. Thus, Yaraghi, who writes for Brookings Education, argues that regulating free speech on social media is futile, considering that users do not want to be controlled, and developers will create platforms that make it impossible for the government to regulate free speech. A government that attempts censorship risks a backlash from society (Yaraghi).
One of the main reasons the government would want to censor free speech is to avoid similar incidents as those witnessed during World War II. During that time, free speech was misused to spread negative propaganda, which only served to fuel the conflict. The devastation caused by the war should make everyone realize that free speech can be used as a dangerous weapon with critical consequences on the well-being of a nation. According to Kowalska, a professor at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, terrorism in the 21st century has become hybrid, amorphous, and asymmetrical (Kowalska 35). Additionally, terrorist propaganda tends to cause violence, hatred, and terror. Any citizen would expect the government to fight any terrorist groups that threaten the country's security. In this situation, the government's efforts can be frustrated when the terrorists are allowed to spread their hateful ideologies and plan attacks remotely without confrontation. Therefore, censorship would become one of the most critical tools that help the government to be proactive in the fight against terrorism. Even though terrorism and crime make a good reason for censorship, the First Amendment becomes a key barrier.
Hate speech can be conceptualized as a form of terrorism since it breeds violence against targeted groups of people. A good example is an anti-Semitism, which is becoming a significant problem for the American Jews. The article by Beauchamp on Vox news media highlights how hate speech and anti-Semitic motives were behind a recent attack on a Texas synagogue. While Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents deny anti-Semitism, interviews with the attackers reveal a different picture. In other words, he believed the Jews control everything and taking them hostage would force the government to meet his demands of releasing an imprisoned jihadist, Aafia Siddiqui (Beauchamp). The attacker thought President Biden would do anything for the Jews, which illustrates how anti-Semitism and related hate speech have influenced people's ideas. In today's world, hate speech has been the primary motive for attacks on places of worship, including churches, mosques, and synagogues around the globe. These incidents still happen across the United States, evidence that free speech can be dangerous. Then, how much freedom of speech should the government allow?
However, it is essential to acknowledge that some observers believe that more freedom is more effective in controlling hate speech than censorship. According to Griffith et al., the United Nations (UN) has recently signaled that it would "fully mobilize" to tackle "hate speech" as a result of the rising number of violent attacks on houses of worship. However, going after hate speech could see the UN threaten the unalienable rights of free speech and religious freedoms and even hurt security and peace efforts, w...