Our Liberty Depends on the Freedom of Speech

“Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins.” - Benjamin Franklin

Our means of communication are unquestionably different than what existed or could be imagined in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was added to the U.S. Constitution. However, this doesn’t mean the First Amendment and free speech are any less relevant, applicable, or vital.

In recent years, social media conglomerates have amassed a tremendous amount of power over the public discourse. For better or worse, they have radically changed how individuals consume information and communicate with one another.

For the first time, media elites in New York City or Washington DC are no longer the sole gatekeepers of information and regular people are better able to communicate with one another, share information, and mobilize to advocate for change.

Sure there are flaws, such as our natural tendency to segment into echo-chambers and the evolution of journalism from news to click-bait sensationalism, but the benefits have been huge. Instead of being passive consumers of information, ‘We the People’ have been empowered to produce our own content and express our ideas publicly to massive audiences that would have previously been not only unaccessible, but unimaginable to everyday citizens.

Unsurprisingly, the elites and gatekeepers do not like this massive democratization of the public square and have slowly begun to edge-rank, shadow-ban, censor, and even de-platform voices that go against the status quo.

In the late 1960’s, communications theorist Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase “the medium is the message”, hypothesizing that how we send and receive information is as -- if not more -- important than the information itself. In the age of the internet, this theory has proven to be truer than MuLuhan could have even imagined.

So what can we do?

Some suggest migrating to alternative platforms that are more supportive of freedom of speech. The theory here is that market forces will react by either making these new platforms the default location to communicate or by forcing existing companies to change their policies to compete.

The problem with this approach is the people likely to migrate to these platforms are almost exclusively influencers and activists. For the average person, expressing themselves politically is only one aspect of social media. Most people are more interested in using the platform for communicating and keeping up with their friends and family. Practically speaking, changing platforms only creates a new echo chamber of center-right voices, while removing alternative dialogue from the platforms most of the dialogue is taking place.

Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission sued to break up Facebook and force the company sell-off assets, including Instagram, stating: “Facebook has maintained its monopoly position by buying up companies that present competitive threats and by imposing restrictive policies that unjustifiably hinder actual or potential rivals.”

Though I’m hesitant to suggest it, there is a good argument to be made that large social media conglomerates should be regulated like common carriers to ensure they provide their service to the general public without discrimination for “public convenience and necessity.”

We wouldn’t allow for AT&T or Verizon to dictate what political positions you can discuss on the phone or in text messages, so why are we allowing big-tech to play by their own rules just because the means of communication is different?

Our ability to speak freely and to make our voices heard is too important to allow platforms that have an effective monopoly on our ability to communicate set the standard for what speech is acceptable and what voices should be silenced through de-platforming.

"If there be a time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." — Justice Louis Brandeis (Whitney v. California)

Allowing unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at massive corporations to become de-facto speech police and gatekeepers of information is extremely dangerous. Americans are smart enough to read and determine for themselves what information they believe and act accordingly.

So, should large social media companies be further regulated to ensure First Amendment protections for their users? It is tough to say, but it is definitely something that deserves discussion and it is a problem that needs to be solved if we want to continue to be able to speak freely as a society and challenge the status quo.