Freedom of Speech on the Internet — Part 2: Broken Promises

Note: This is Part 2 in a series of posts about freedom of speech on the Internet. You should read Part 1 first.

The republican revolutionaries promised us a society where everybody can participate as an equal in political debates, and where everyone has a voice and an audience. The liberals promised personal growth, the right of all citizens to develop their arguments, skills and individuality. The radicals promised freedom of speech as a way to expose prejudice and corruption. These are great ideals. Wonderful promises. Too bad they weren’t kept.

– Eric Ringmar, A Blogger’s Manifesto

In every country where democracy has taken hold, people have the right to express themselves freely. This is a core freedom, a fundamental right. Free speech is often heralded as the single most important right that sets Western liberal democracies apart from the rest of the governed world – and rightly so.

Robert F. Kennedy once said in his famous Day of Affirmation Address that the first and most critical element of individual liberty is “the freedom of speech; the right to express and communicate ideas, to set oneself apart from the dumb beasts of field and forest . . .”. Freedom of speech is the very essence of democracy, without which accountability and transparency are not possible. John Stuart Mill, a famous liberal thinker, wrote in his essay On Liberty in Utilitarianism that “ . . . there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it might be considered”.

Free speech was thought by many early liberal thinkers to be so important that even unfavorable or offensive speech should be protected, lest the slippery slope of censorship cause all speech to become less free. As Voltaire put it, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Freedom of speech is a basic, essential characteristic of western society – its importance to the functions of democracy should not be underestimated.

Our Founding Fathers

Unfortunately, free speech has been stifled and repressed throughout much of American history. The founders’ idealistic vision of an America where every individual has the right to speak freely came true in principle, but ultimately failed in practice. For much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the elite class – owners of the large news outlets, printing presses, and TV networks – acted as the de facto arbiters of public opinion.

These media conglomerates severely curtailed public discourse by controlling what we saw, heard, and read. The common man has no access to the machinery of mass media, and thus, has no means to share his views with a wide audience. In effect, the common man was voiceless and powerless throughout much of American history, slave to the dictates of corporate media conglomerates that shape the public agenda for their benefit.

Satirical poster mocking the manner in which mass media often parrots the official government line – failing their journalistic duty.

“So what?” some observers might ask. “What is wrong with corporations controlling the media? The various news outlets offer a diverse set of viewpoints and the public has the free choice to consume whichever news source they want, right?” Unfortunately, there is growing body of academic work confirming that corporate media is not offering a diverse set of viewpoints, despite how it may look on the surface. 

Noam Chomsky, American linguist and U.S. media and foreign policy critic wrote, “The media serves the interests of state and corporate power, which are closely interlinked, framing their reporting and analysis in a manner supportive of established privilege and limiting debate and discussion accordingly.” Other academics and industry experts agree that freedom of speech has suffered throughout the corporate media era.

Sam Donaldson, ABC news correspondent, once argued that “The press . . . traditionally sides with authority and the establishment.” This sentiment was echoed by David Barsamian, journalist and founder of Alternative Radio, a Colorado-based talk program heard on 125 radio stations around the world. Barsamian believes that “One of the intentions of corporate-controlled media is to instill in people a sense of disempowerment, of immobilization and paralysis. Its outcome is to turn you into good consumers. It is to keep people isolated, to feel that there is no possibility for social change.”

Most news outlets serve the interests of the rich and powerful, whose main goal, all too often, is the preservation of the status quo. Indeed, the corporations that report narrow perspectives in the mainstream news are the very same corporations that stand to benefit from maintaining the status quo.

Update: You should read:
Part 3 – Network (Classic 1976 Film)
Part 4 – Concentration of Media Ownership
Part 5 – George Orwell Rolls in His Grave
Part 6 – The Internet Revolution and Citizen Media
Part 7 – Remix Culture (…again)
Part 8 – Threats to Freedom of Speech on the Net
Part 9 – Yes We Can Regulate Culture with Copyright Law
Part 10 – Lawrence Lessig = Awesome
Part 11 – Final Thoughts

You should share this with your friends: