The Responsibility of Freedom

Due to the unprecedented national events of the last month, this blog has gone notably silent. Before I get to the meat of what I really want to say, let me explain the reason for my absence.

First, it has been difficult to find the right words in a time when American citizens are so bitterly divided without sounding like another of the seemingly endless partisan hacks that populate the internet. My intention is to strike balance to help achieve unity, but there can be no unity, I feel, when disinformation so thoroughly permeates our culture. It was difficult to bury the anger and outrage enough to write a convincing piece about all of it.

The second reason has been a mental block about sitting down and doing the research and structured thought necessary to construct these articles, especially amid the pandemic and two separate fourteen-day quarantines. As you can guess, a writer can easily become scatterbrained when confined to the house with two children.

That changed this week. On Wednesday I listened to an inspirational plea for unity by our newly-inaugurated president, followed soon after by a beautifully-recited poem titled “The Hill We Climb” by Amanda Gorman. “There is always light,” she said, “If only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it.”

In light of recent events and the aftermath associated with them, I believe it may be time to revisit that most sacred part of our Constitution’s First Amendment, the freedom of speech.

I believe that the freedoms listed in the First Amendment were first for a reason. Without the promise of democracy—our forefathers’ desire to build a government for the people, by the people, and of the people—we wouldn’t have that living document or any of its amendments today.

The peaceful transfer of power has always been precisely laid out in that same document. Being disappointed with the results of a national election is one thing, but engaging in violence to overturn it and thwart that transfer of power is another.

America reacted in outrage and disgust as hundreds poured into our United States Capitol building, smashing windows, ransacking offices, stealing government property, and threatening the lives of some of the people elected to represent us. I think we can agree that such behavior is unacceptable in a free society. After all, freedom comes with responsibility and consequences.

Evidence points to extensive planning efforts for this violence having taken place on social media pages.

Communication has changed dramatically over the years, moving from private dinner-table conversations, to public arenas that are owned by private entities.  This change seems to have altered our national understanding of what freedom of speech entails. It changes the conversation because more are listening, including those who may be prone to act on suggestions of violence—no matter how subtle. Because private entities own the platforms for this speech, does the First Amendment even apply?

Corporations have rules and the same freedoms afforded all of us, and if that company decides it doesn’t want to host hateful and violent views, it has the freedom to remove them. Just as Amazon and Ebay do not allow sellers to scam prospective customers, they can decide whether or not to allow speech that violates its rules.

Where the argument gets a little sticky is in the substance. The social media platform cannot be held responsible for the views of its customers, but it does have the right and the responsibility to moderate the content being shared so that it does not violate the law. Let’s be clear that speech that promotes violence and threatens the safety of others is not protected under the First Amendment.

Still, one wonders where we should draw the line. Should social media be held liable for any laws broken on its property? The line is more blurred that we might at first understand. If the world exits in shades of gray, I say, always err on the lighter hues.

Franklin D. Roosevelt said that “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”

The national debate must now shift to what level of corporate censorship, if any, is acceptable and if corporations can be regulated to prevent the violence and bloodshed we all witnessed on January 6. Since a corporation is not Congress, I feel they should have the right to moderate content. That is how capitalism works.

If we adopt a true understanding of what is at stake rather than the party-lines extremism that is all too common in political discussion, we can take reasonable steps to avoid further violence to ensure something like January 6 never happens again.

Writing as Silence Dogood, Benjamin Franklin once warned that “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”

But what to do when that speech threatens to overthrow the democracy our nation holds dear? Ironically, if our freedom—including the First Amendment—is to stand, we have the responsibly to suppress the violent ideas that threatened it.

Freedom of speech is not one-sided. It applies to all. We are free to say whatever is on our minds, but others are free to dismiss, ridicule, and ignore our views. Likewise, no corporation is legally required to host them if those views violate the ‘terms of service’ one agrees to when signing up to do business with that company.

As American historian and author Aberjhani succinctly states, “We are living in an era in which billions of people are grappling to promote communication, tolerance, and understanding over the more destructive forces of war, terrorism, and political chaos that have characterized the beginning of the 21st Century.”

The only way forward is unity and unity must be achieved through balanced thought and action.

Millions of Americans are not satisfied with the results of our elections, but the people have spoken, the votes have been counted, and our nation now takes a different path. If we are to progress to a more prosperous place, we must put away the destructive division and choose reasoned discussion over malice. Let us resolve to seek out our better angels in this new year. Let us all be brave enough to be the light. Only then can we prevail.