Freedom of Speech

We as Americans have always valued our freedom and liberties as a society, but yet we find it difficult to interpret  the meaning of freedom in a clear and comprehensible way.  Nowadays, Americans are more willing than ever to give up their freedoms for a false sense of security and peace of mind.  Voters and politicians alike are inclined to curtail freedom in order to reduce crime and to maintain order.  It is like the old saying, “You have to give a little to get a little.”  These freedoms were put in place by our founding fathers to protect us against tyranny and oppression, but ironically that is exactly what is occurring today.

Since the establishment of the Constitution, there have been many cases where Threats have arisen, putting these essential principles at stake. Sometimes these threats have been deliberate, while other times they have been unforeseen consequences. Either way, the government has a responsibility to mitigate or at least  deter these threats in order to preserve the foundation of the Constitution and secure the “Blessings of Liberty.”

One such principle that is continuously threatened  is the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. It states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.” This clause guarantees  American citizens the freedom to speak without censorship by the government for any reason. In recent years though, the political correctness movement has grown and has poses a threat to free speech and freedom of expression.

Defining this law is very subjective and will be an eternal debate. It is very simple, yet so very complex and complicated.  Most people usually define freedom of expression in terms of what is the most direct interest to them.  Influences such as culture, race, religion, gender, socioeconomic background and many other factors play a role in one’s interpretation.  Freedom means choice, and choice entails deciding how to fulfill one’s sense of obligation and responsibility.  This definition fits the political realm in which we usually think about freedom.  Freedom is nonexistent if we cannot express ourselves, for this is perhaps the most fundamental of our freedom.

Most recently, controversy pertaining to freedom of expression has been the National Anthem protests by NFL players. It started over a year ago when NFL quarterback Colin Kaeperkick remained seated during the National Anthem and later on resorted to kneeling.  By the time anyone noticed, Kaepernick had already been sitting for two weeks.  The backlash and outrage was tremendous once it reached the masses and media. Many Americans disapproved due to the belief that kneeling during the National Anthem was disrespectful to our military and our nation.  For Kaepernick, he stated that he was not disrespecting the military or nation but protesting against social injustices in the country, specifically racial discrimination and police brutality against African-Americans.

A year later, the movement that Colin Kaepernick initiated has spread exponentially. Many NFL players and athletes from other sports  have continued to show their support for Kaepernick and the movement by kneeling during the National Anthem.  It has cause so much publicity and controversy that the President himself has been active in ridiculing NFL players and other individuals who are partaking in this protest.

Another controversial event that has been blown out of proportion by the media is the Charlottesville white nationalist protests.  White nationalists had long planned a demonstration over the city’s decision to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee. But the rally quickly exploded into racial taunting, shoving and outright brawling, prompting the governor to declare a state of emergency and the National Guard to join the police in clearing the area.  One woman was killed and many more injured when a car, allegedly driven by a rally participant, sped into a crowd of anti-racism protesters.  The event quickly took on enormous political importance as Democrats and Republicans alike denounced the violence and the white supremacist views at the far-right rally. President Trump has also denounced the racist groups, but he suggests that anti-racism counter-demonstrators share some of the blame.

To begin with, these controversies would not have been given such a huge spotlight had it not been the media blowing things out of proportion.  The media manipulates and exploits news and stories to garner a bigger audience.  After all, it is a business and like the old saying goes, “if it doesn’t make dollars, it doesn’t make sense.”  In order to maintain relevance, media sources must generate interest, and people are interested in the extraordinary. Whether intentional or not, particular points of view are over-emphasized to generate interest and is a result of the biases inherent in everyone covering the details.  The media suggest we must pick one side or the other.  It’s either standing with patriotism or standing with free speech. It prevents us from reaching a consensus.  They prevent us from even discussing the real issues.  Instead of addressing issues one by one, we pick a hot button and then interpret it through the lens of the media. To an extent, the media themselves have perverted and taken advantage of the very meaning of freedom of the press.