This post is inspired by 
Where To Begin
In any discussion about freedoms, including free speech, it's too often one sided.
I should be able to say what I want, when I want, how I want and where I want!
And it's often followed up by, Without censorship and without reprisal. When that last bit is added, what many also mean is, Without repercussions.
Isn't that the way things should be? No filters, no inhibitions, freedom from backlash, judgment or spite? After all, free speech is constitutionally guaranteed, right?
Not Really, No
The body of the U.S. Constitution actually doesn't protect speech in any meaningful way. It was one of the reasons that opponents, called Anti-Federalists, did not want to see a national constitution in the first place. They were concerned primarily that national law would be interpreted as trumping state or local laws (and how right they've been proven to be), which was essentially what the founding of the United States was fighting against—a centralized form of government calling the shots.
That said, in order to get more states on board to ratify the Constitution, ten amendments were eventually added to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, which in large measure spelled out what the newly formed federal government could not do, without being terribly specific about it.
Right up front, in the First Amendment, was:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 1
Yep. That's pretty much it. That whole amendment could easily fit in a tweet. Especially the part that talks about freedom of speech:
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...
So, what does that mean? Well, in and of itself, exactly what it says.
Congress (when the First Amendment was adopted specifically referred to the legislative bodies of the United States Government—the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives) shall make no laws [that restrict] (in this context, that's what abridging means) freedom of speech.
Again, not much to go on, other than the federal government can't enact laws that restrict free speech.
Case Law
It is actually through subsequent case law that freedom of speech has become to be what it is known as today.
And for the most part, freedom of speech still means Congress shall make no law restricting it. However, Congress has been extended to state and local governments, too, which means their separate Constitutions and bylaws protect freedom of speech. It has also been interpreted to encompass other branches of government, too. So, the President, governor, or mayor can't impose orders restricting free speech, nor can courts on any level.
Even with those extensions, though, these constitutional and legal protections are not universal, and it's essential to note that in any conversation regarding these types of legal protections, especially when we all get upset about our freedom of speech rights.
The U.S. Constitution, those of states and other municipalities, and the case law established up to the U.S. Supreme Court, only prevent government from enacting laws restricting free speech.
They do not prevent or protect against any other entities, organizations or individuals from infringing on free speech. Examples include:
...private employers, property owners, householders, churches, universities, and the like.
In the modern era of Internet and Social Media, freedom of speech is not protected by law there, either.
That's how Facebook and other social media sites can legally remove accounts on their sites without concern about stepping on constitutional rights.
Should It Be Like That?
You and I would most likely say no, it shouldn't. In my case, I would have to add a caveat. Because I believe in the right of ownership, I feel those who own these platforms should be able to say how they will be used. Of course, that should not insulate them from the backlash of public opinion, and those who are in disagreement over their rules of use, are under no obligation to continue using their services.
In this case, just like in every other aspect of a free society, individuals should decide whether or not to use a product or service based upon the dictates of their own conscience.
Opportunity
In reality, though, such restricting of free speech affords new platforms, ones that wish to provide a home for all schools of thought, a chance to bring in those who are denied a voice elsewhere.
A Social Contract
Outside of governmental restrictions, then, freedom of speech is more of a social contract, which isn't subject to legal standing. Which means, it's up to you and me to decide what it means.
If it were solely up to me, I would allow for:
- All viewpoints, no matter how they were interpreted. Yesterday's mainstream thought is today's hate speech. Today's tolerance is tomorrow's blasphemy. If we only accept what we believe and nothing else, then we run the risk of being on the other end of that at some point.
To me, that means:
I might not like what you have to say, but I would rather know it than not, especially if it affects me somehow. I can then address it if I deem it necessary, or ignore it, but I will know where you stand.
It also means:
It's okay to be exposed to different thoughts and opinions because it will either result in me becoming stronger in my own, because I know what others think and why, or it will give me an opportunity to reassess what I believe. Either way, I'm better informed and I can think, speak and act accordingly.
It's Not Just About Me
Freedom of speech is not solely about what I get to say, how, where and when, but it's also about, and maybe more importantly so, what others get to say. True freedom of speech isn't fettered in any way. If we are to have proper discourse, you must be free to express yourself as equally as I am. It's just as much about protecting someone else's right to an opinion as it is demanding mine, even if I am vehemently against the other's opinion, and vice versa.
That's generally where the social contract of free speech breaks down. Just what will I tolerate from you, and you likewise from me, and how much? If I impose limits, then I shouldn't expect anything less from you.
Again With The Caveats
I say that, knowing that there are some things that some might want to say or express that are not protected by the laws of the land. Therefore, if these things are allowed expression somewhere, the owners or individuals responsible for that said somewhere could be ordered to comply with law by removing the content, or face the real threat of being fined, jailed or shut down, along with any punishments the alleged perpetrator might incur.
In other words, government has restricted speech, Constitution notwithstanding, in these cases:
Incitement.
Libel, Fraud, and perjury.
Obscenity (meaning hardcore pornography).
Child pornography.
Threats.
Fighting words.
Speech owned by others.
Commercial advertising.
I was going to include the interpretations of each of those and when exactly they may be considered illegal (because these are not necessarily absolute), but instead, I'll just provide the link to where I found the information and let you decide if you need to know more.
What About The Blockchain?
Good question. If anywhere, freedom of speech has the potential to thrive on a decentralized social platform/blockchain like HIVE, including those things that might be considered illegal. Since a blockchain is meant to be decentralized, running on different servers in all sorts of locations, there is not one single governmental body or governing jurisdiction. What might be illegal in one might not be illegal in another.
And since by definition, no one (or everyone) owns the blockchain, who can be held accountable for it?
In this case, I think it's better to say that no one owns the blockchain rather than everyone does, because as impossible as it may sound, there's still legal standing if everyone owns it. We may own our own accounts, and be accountable for them, but we shouldn't be held accountable for what others do or say, whether we are aware of it or not.
Front ends to a blockchain might have problems still, simply because they are usually running under the ownership of a single entity or business, rather than distributing on several servers like the blockchain software is. If such is the case, they might be exposed to legal action just like any other Internet site.
A Few More Words On Free Speech
Should I Be Able To Say What I Want, How, Where, and When?
I say yes, you should.
Does that mean you should do it?
Well, no. Each situation will be different, and depending on what one is trying to accomplish, saying things in certain ways, at certain times, in certain places, might end up with the exact opposite results of those desired. Sure you expressed yourself exactly the way you felt you should, and kudos for that, but you may well end up hurting your own cause.
But Shouldn't I Be Free From Reprisal, Judgment And Repercussions?
Nope.
This is another spot where free speech can break down. You say something, express it in a certain way, do it in front of a certain audience, you have to own it, which includes the consequences. There is bound to be someone who doesn't like what was said, and they are free to express that disapproval with just as much fervor and emotion as you are.
Now, if it comes to violence against you, your family, etc., there are obviously some legal courses to pursue, but you run the danger of being held liable or responsible for your words, too, if they're found to be incitement, fighting words or threats.
Accountability, ownership and responsibility are all part of freedom of speech, too. Many are justified by what they say, and others are condemned by it.
Freedom of speech is just as much a privilege and a responsibility as it is a natural right. It must be used accordingly. It should never be taken lightly, even in the expression of it. As soon as we start taking for granted what we say and how we say it, freedom of speech has the potential to lead to restrictions we're not going to want, on levels where we don't want it.
Free Speech Protection Is Not Eternal
It should be, but man has a way of imposing his will on others. What might be protected now, might not be protected tomorrow. We're already seeing that, and it's only going to get worse if we don't take stands, and not just for our own speech, but for that of others. As much as any law might protect us from governmental tyranny, we must protect each other's rights. We are not given the right to restrict another's opinions, only to express our own.
In that, we may have just as much a responsibility to do so as we have to protect the right of free speech for all. It is through that expression that counterbalances to all phases of society can be peacefully maintained if not abused or taken lightly.
Words, after all, have meaning and purpose, and they can be used for good, or they have the power to destroy.
We should do all we can to preserve our rights by exercising our responsibility to protect them. If we don't, we may find we no longer have protections, even if the rights remain.
Image source—Pixabay