Decoded by Danielle

Over the last century, there has been so much advancement in communications, media and the press. One of the most pivotal communications shifts has come in the form of the internet. I think that the amount of information readily available to the public is extraordinary, and a technological feat, so much so, that we may not see another in our lifetime. In our cases and readings from this week we see just how much impact and questions this advancement in tech has created. In the FCC v. Pacifica Foundation case, it was apparent that different types of media bring up different questions in regard to the First Amendment. In the United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. case, the court realized that restrictions on speech have to be streamlined and accurate in order to be protected. The digital era highlights these issues because the internet has become every communications platform all at once. 

There have been so many wonderful things that have come out of the digital era and the accessibility to the internet to the greater public. It’s made it easier for the public to participate in conversations, organize movements and speak their mind(s) without the fear of being censored (for the most part). The Communications Decency Act has played a significant role in this transformation. In The Test of Time: Section 230 Turns 20, the protections of the Communications Decency Act still allowed for platforms to host a wide variety of content while still making sure to keep an eye out for anything super harmful. Without section 230, speech and thoughts online would be heavily restricted and most of the online platforms that are key players in the public discourse arena would be obsolete. 

One of the recurring themes that I noticed from the readings this week is how freedom of expression on the internet is heavily linked to human rights. The three readings on international free expression law from this week each highlight different ways human rights are protected. The Universal Declaration of Human Rightsexists to protect the right to look for and get information. The next reading, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, highlights what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects, but on a more international level. The Internet as a Human Right contends access to the internet is a critical means to participate in society and I’d have to say that I wholeheartedly agree. If the ability to circulate ideas and if people have the basic right to speak and obtain information, then access to the internet should be viewed as a modern form of said rights. 

With the good, always comes the bad. In this case, the internet does bring risk for harm that we, as a society, can’t ignore. The Ford Foundation Interview discusses issues surrounding things that can silence people (harassment, shutdowns, oversight) before they even have the chance to express themselves. The Access Now article, New World Disorder: Digital Attacks on Freedom of Assembly highlights how the government utilizes digital tools and platforms to stop activism, organizing and protests.

These readings have really made me think about the future and highlight why, in this digital age, we need a ranking of rights. What I mean by this is that my position on this is that in order for information to flow freely and to keep our democracy moving, we need a balanced, equitable structure where freedom of speech and expression is at the forefront of the hierarchy. This way, everything else will seamlessly fall into place. The structure would look something like this: 

1. At the top- Freedom of Speech and Expression & equal access to all information
2. Privacy Rights
3. Access to all viewpoints/thoughts
4. Targeted harm protection

Like I mentioned in the first few sentences of this post, the internet changed so much and has been the most pivotal communications shift in modern history. It’s changed how we talk, who we talk to, who gets to participate and who can hear and see what we have to say. Any resolution has to aim to protect access and fairness. If we let those core values slip away, our democracy and the promise of the First Amendment start to crack.