Aaron Crawford

Dr. Auchter

Scholars and Journalists at Risk

20 September 2017

Impossible Balance

It is now 2017 and free speech is steadily in decline. The world has reached a tipping

point when it comes to free speech and ideas. A balance of freedom of speech is essential for

creating the most productive environment for a civilization to communicate, work, live, and

better itself. Countries as well as the international community need to do more to closely

examine the state of free speech and unite to create comprehensive free speech reform.

Unfortunately, creating a balance of freedom of speech is currently out of reach for many

countries and especially the international community. Many of the free states of the world are

slowly eroding the freedom of speech that its citizens have, while many states are oppressing

freedom with illiberal democracies. There is additional complication when making any universal

free speech laws. Councils and leaders need to agree on them which is considerably difficult

given the tough questions raised by this topic. Because of these hindrances, decisive action is

slow and laborious. However, as free speech becomes more of an issue and gains awareness

there is hope that rising generations will take up the cause and create change that is so necessary.

With freedom of speech declining it is necessary to bolster that freedom and balance it

to have a society that can communicate effectively. When society has access to good information

as well as restrictions on harmful speech people are free to speak in a productive manor that is

informed and not oppressive. To start on the path to a balance of freedoms countries must

collectively come together and start the process of answering tough questions. For illiberal
countries, this looks like increased access to information, mainly in the form of increased internet

access and less government censoring of truthful information. For other countries, this involves

tackling the questions of new media and tensions in the media. This should result in providing

the right restrictions that provide a safe environment for all and promote knowledge and truth

instead of ignorance and hatred.

Unfortunately, none of this is working right now. So far there has been no move for

comprehensive legislature being rolled out internationally or domestically any time soon. When

questions start arising such as who can decide what is hate speech, how do we determine what is

offensive, how do we treat speech against religions and religious texts? To answer these

questions an individual relies on not only on their personal experience but also their own

personal moral code. In the modern day and age personal experience as well as morals are some

of the most diverse aspects of a person. Across countries personal experience, race, gender,

ideology, security problems, religions ethnic and patriotic background would be so incredibly

diverse that I doubt that any cohesive panel or council could create answers to the tough

questions on how to regulate speech. In different countries, the factors preventing free speech

reform vary drastically.

In free countries, the task is to create a successful set of restrictions without encroaching

to much on an individuals personal freedom. To make regulations and have some restrictions

on the media as well new forms of social media is near impossible. Currently the tensions

between president Trump and the mainstream media causes a lot of drama leaving the population

caught in the middle between their leader and their supposedly unbiased media outlets. The

public seems rather powerless to do anything in this situation as tensions rise only higher and

higher. The money and power involved with the media also leads to questions of bias and
truthfulness especially those media outlets that seem to be affiliated or allies with a political

party. Once again, the problem lands on the citizens who are subject to narrow viewpoints and

biased media. This system is not likely to change much without significant pressure given the

amount of money and political power held in the media and affiliated groups.

More complication in free countries comes when considering social media platforms and

their effect on free speech. In counties with relatively free access to social media and internet

platforms there is an increasing stage on which to showcase free speech for more people than

ever to listen. Because of the sheer volume of internet platforms along with its rapidly changing

nature, it is almost impossible to create any comprehensive regulations. Particularly, in the US,

the nation of the boldest and most vocal citizens it seems unfathomable to restrict any personal

freedom. As Americans, we tend to see any restrictions as attacks upon our freedom that should

remain unfettered and completely wide open regardless of any arguments otherwise. To change

the free speech that Americans have would involve a much harder task of changing how

Americans think about themselves as the freest people at all costs. This idea of near absolute

freedom of speech travels all the way up to the judicial courts that often rule time and again that

what most would consider inappropriate of hate speech is in fact protected under the first

amendment. Reform is necessary since, as it currently stands, individuals are free to speak of

hatred violence and other intentionally harmful things while being protected under the first

amendment. Because of near complete free speech is that in the US that a citizen is not convicted

for murder after encouraging them to commit suicide, or that a peaceful protest is considered

acceptable while chanting homophobic slurs. Despite of these real consequences reform may be

a long wait since public opinion and the courts back most kinds of speech as protected.
 Reforms are also needed in the tricky countries that are categorized as illiberal

democracies. These are countries that operate with parts of a democracy such as democratic

elections and public positions. Unlike full democracies several parts of their state are

government run. In many states, this looks like government controlled internet or media access,

strict ideologies, theologies, classism or racism. It seems rather unlikely to rapidly change the

ideology of an entire nation or sometimes deep divides that separate two ethnic groups that

inhabit the same country. In some instances, the majority power is in the hands of a given ethnic

group, sect, or religious organization. Often the power in a state slowly grabs more power

fortifying his position but, this only leads to less freedom for the citizens of a country. While it is

true that in many illiberal democracies there is little violence over this and the lives of the

citizens are rather plain the consequences are still a critical issue. In some states, leaders horde

power remaining in their positions exercising that power in ways that are undemocratic often

never giving the public a fair chance to elect a new leader to create reforms. In some states, the

internet is restricted to manipulate public opinion. As a result, the public is less informed and less

effective in their communication then they could be. These situations do not change quickly

especially considering it is against the interest of power to relinquish it.

The only slow change that seems possible is the eventual coming to power of younger

generations. As the world grows to a breaking point the millennial generation seems to be facing

problems and disaster on all fronts. This generation also seems most willing to work and change

things. They are the ones that could continue to reach out to the oppressed states and turn them

around. The millennial generation seems politically active and ready to take on issues at home

regarding the presidential issues. They are also the most active social media users and most

qualified to work on the issues presented by free speech in new media. Lastly, they are typically
the progressive and open-minded generation that might be able to come together to agree on

policies guarding against oppressive theologies, ideologies, or hatred.

In conclusion as the problem of free speech grows it is now more important than ever to

begin working to create a balance of free speech across the world. Despite this necessity, it is

not immediately possible to accomplish this goal for several reasons. In the case of free states,

there remains resistance to any sort of restrictions as well as difficulty tackling the media

industry with all its money power, and influence. In illiberal states, it is hard for leaders to

relinquish any of their power or influence in favor of having a more well informed and free

speaking population that could threaten their position. Additionally, across the globe with so

many different situations and private opinions it is doubtful that any unanimous comprehensive

agreement could be made. There is hope however, in the next generations that may be able to

come together to tackle this problem.