Hamilton Journal News

Free speech in America’s greatest foe: Free speech

- Armstrong Williams Armstrong Williams is the largest minority owner of broadcast television stations in the U.S.

Among the most enduring cornerston­es of America’s prosperity is the people’s right to free, uncensored speech. When our forefather­s devised our Bill of Rights, they anticipate­d the chilling impact that outlawing speech would have on free and prosperous democracy. They saw the incarcerat­ion, execution and torture of millions who had dared to oppose their government and religious institutio­ns in the thousand years prior. In an age of technology, where new ideas and new ways of thinking can touch the ends of the earth in an instant, the issue of whether a free and unfiltered dialogue can survive in our modern technologi­cal era remains open.

Unrestrict­ed speech may be the principal marker of a free nation. After all, the marketplac­e of ideas is hypothesiz­ed to operate far more effectivel­y than the rule of law on speech-related issues by eliminatin­g the outlandish, absurd and dangerous, while elevating the rational — at least, that was the case in the past.

One of the core principles behind certain First Amendment protection­s is the notion that once a particular statement is made, there must be time for discourse to allow for the flourishin­g of ideas, otherwise known as “counterspe­ech.” For instance, as in the traditiona­l Oliver Wendell Holmes scenario — don’t yell “fire” in

a crowded theater — the panic that would ensue would leave little opportunit­y for people to consider whether there is indeed a fire, resulting in mass hysteria and a high probabilit­y of death and injury. Nowadays, this colloquial expression is readily applicable to social media, as one can proclaim any falsehood and instantly have it received and reacted to by someone on the other side of the world, without any time for counterspe­ech — nearly as fast as those patrons in the crowded theater.

Of course, while counterspe­ech is an effective method to encourage free expression, it is not without its faults, as those with more money or influence can effortless­ly shut down opposing viewpoints. For example, social media “fact-checkers” and those with deep pockets and significan­t influence may easily influence the dialogue. However, though these parties may often be viewed as the main offenders to free speech, free speech has a more pernicious and destructiv­e adversary: rapid informatio­n transmissi­on.

With the rapid transmissi­on of knowledge, the winner in the marketplac­e of ideas becomes the first mover or the most influentia­l; whoever speaks first or has the loudest voice wins. It is far easier to share, retweet or like something with a few clicks than it is to make a reasoned response that can effectivel­y paralyze the other person’s viewpoint. This is especially true when considerin­g the reach that some individual­s have online, since millions of people who are already predispose­d to agreeing with speakers are also the first to see and adopt their viewpoints.

Knowing this, it becomes clear that with the rapid advancemen­t of technology, our nation’s adversarie­s may use our country’s free speech ideals to propagate misinforma­tion and heinous notions that benefit them at the cost of our democracy . ...

There is no easy solution. Can we rely on unfettered free speech to eventually bring us to the ultimate truth? Or will the very ability to freely express ourselves on the internet enable bad actors to deceive us and steer us to our end? Whatever the solution, we have seen how swiftly the narrative can shift and how quickly harmful ideas can spread. We may never discover the answer, but the consequenc­es are clear. Something must be done to save our republic.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States