Decoded by Danielle

Whew. We have come a long way from week 1! As we near the end of our journey in this class, many things in regard to freedom of speech/expression have become abundantly clear. Freedom of expression is very complex and influenced by a myriad of factors and circumstances, including the government, our society, the private sector, and the media, all of which either positively contribute or negatively impact freedom of expression. Below I will discuss how each play a part. 

Policymakers and the government have the ability to do either. In Daphne Keller’s article, If Lawmakers Don’t Like Platforms’ Speech Rules, policymakers have very limited ways of not creating new problems or unintentionally undermine current speech protections. Lines get blurred and things get tricky because some of the government & policymakers moves seem like they’re supporting accountability, when some are doing the opposite and limiting and suppressing free speech. An example that comes to mind is the Arizona Bill to criminalize filming the police; this bill would put strong limits on public oversight. On a more global scale, the Article 19 assessment of Russia’s proposed UN cybercrime convention highlights how the government and policymakers use the language to justify more government surveillance and control. Our society also plays a critical role in aiming to ensure accountability. Organizations like The Knight Institute and Article 19 help to identify things that can sometimes get overlooked by the government and other institutions.  They have limited resources, however. In order for society to keep documenting risk & harm, they need resources and support so they can keep advocating for change and reform. 

The private sector and their platforms influence the way we communicate. Again, there are benefits and disadvantages to this one of the benefits is these platforms and companies allow for millions of people to communicate quickly and effectively and instantly organize. In our reading by Jack Balkin, How to Regulate and not Regulate Social Media, he highlights the importance that these private companies and their platforms created for global participation in discussions that traditional media was never able to do. Like I mentioned above, there are disadvantages as well. The private sector and their platforms all have the capability to amplify harmful speech/expression. The Facebook Oversight Board Casehighlights just how difficult it is to moderate content online… it’s nearly impossible. The Policy Advisory on Sharing of Private Residential Information highlights wanting improvement and attempting to improve their approach, but shows how uneven enforcement is. As I have mentioned in previous blog posts and class discussions, the design of these platforms is ultimately what need to be restructured. In order for these platforms to safeguard free speech/expression, the private sector needs transparency when it comes to their rules and user protections. The media, news and journalists have and continue to be critical for a thriving, healthy democracy. With the emergence of new media, including social media platforms, journalist today face many risks. The January 6 analysis by Gene Policincki, highlights the press’ safety when it comes to political hostility and misinformation. Attempts must be made by the news industry to make certain that journalists are safe, and continue to invest in strong journalism and responsible reporting and they also need to acknowledge that public trust is diminishing because of budgets being cut which weakens resources and the ability to correct mistakes and misinformation. 

Free expression is impacted by each of these sectors, and each of these sectors have its strengths and weaknesses. Not one sector can safeguard it alone. In order for our democracy to thrive, it’s essential that each of these sectors knows its strengths and weaknesses and agree to a broader scope to keep the public’s confidence, while maintaining a safe and equitable platform.