Opinion: When free speech becomes a weapon
Article content
Article content
This freedom took on an almost sacred dimension in the United States with the adoption of the First Amendment in 1791. It reads: '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.'
Article content
Article content
This sentence helped make the young Republic one of the freest countries in the world. Even today, across political lines, it remains a point of national pride for Americans.
Article content
Article content
However, the media landscape has changed profoundly since 1791. Some social media platform owners now exploit freedom of speech for both ideological and financial reasons, claiming to defend it against supposed censorship imposed by progressive forces.
Article content
In the 19th century, British philosopher John Stuart Mill saw the free marketplace of ideas — in other words, the absence of restrictions on speech — as the very condition for truth in a democracy. In On Liberty, he argued that truth emerges through the clash of opinions, as falsehoods are gradually pushed aside.
Article content
This vision of free speech eventually became dominant in the United States. The far right seized on it, using the First Amendment to defend some of its most abhorrent ideas in the name of this fundamental right. One of the most well-known examples took place in Skokie, a suburb of Chicago, where the city tried to ban a Nazi march. In 1977, citing the First Amendment, the Illinois Supreme Court — and then the U.S. Supreme Court, by refusing to intervene — ruled in favour of the neo-Nazi group, although the rally ultimately never happened.
Article content
Article content
There is reason to ask whether social media, capable of both protecting and undermining free speech, has changed the equation. In 2012, a massacre took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones of Infowars claimed the massacre was staged to justify greater gun control.
Article content
Sued for defamation by the parents of children killed in the shooting, Jones defended himself by invoking freedom of speech and the First Amendment, wielding them as a shield against any attempt at regulation or sanction — or rather, as a weapon in the service of lies and violence. In 2022, he was ordered to pay nearly $1.5 billion in damages to the Sandy Hook families for defamation.
Article content
Yet, even after that ruling, he continued to portray himself as a victim of censorship, illustrating the dangers of an absolutist interpretation of free speech.
Article content
In recent years, freedom of speech and social media have been put to the test by two major crises. The first was the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and the accompanying flood of disinformation. The second was the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, triggered by false claims that the presidential election had been 'stolen.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
36 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
‘They're real people': Mob focus of JFK assassination flick filmed in Winnipeg
WINNIPEG - Nicholas Celozzi has spent much of his life revisiting the events leading up to the assassination of former U.S. president John F. Kennedy. Hushed stories filled his childhood home. Conversations with his uncle Joseph (Pepe) Giancana, brother to Chicago Mob boss Sam Giancana, later helped shed light on his family's possible involvement in one of the most debated moments in American history.
Edmonton Journal
36 minutes ago
- Edmonton Journal
Gunter: Trudeau cost Canada a chance to get into global LNG game — Trump and U.S. are reaping the benefit
Article content Last Sunday, at President Donald Trump's golf resort in Scotland (a.k.a. King Donald's summer palace), Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Union pledged European countries would buy US$750 billion (over $1 trillion Canadian) of U.S. energy – largely LNG – over the next three years in return for Trump promising to impose only 15% tariffs on the union's member states. Article content Article content Boy, those American and European trade negotiators must be dunces. Don't they know that three years ago, then-German Chancellor Olaf Scholz made a special trip to Canada to ask our government to sell tens of billions in LNG to his country? Our economic genius of a prime minister, Justin Trudeau rejected Scholz's request because 'there is no business case' for selling LNG to Europe. Article content Article content Article content This past Thursday, the South Koreans made a similar deal with the U.S. — $100 billion (about $138 billion Canadian) in energy over four years, primarily LNG. Article content What's wrong with these countries? Can they not see that the greatest economic mind of the 21st Century, Justin Pierre James Trudeau, had decreed it was foolhardy to sign such agreements? Article content Article content The U.S. deals with the EU and Korea just for LNG are worth about $800 billion Canadian over the next four years. The rest of the sales are for oil and nuclear fuels. Article content Article content A good part of that market might have been Canada's had we not been ruled by a 'green' dreamweaver and eco-cultist who prevented this country from jumping into the world LNG market early in the game. Article content Now the Americans have sucked up a lot of the oxygen in the room, and it will be hard for Canada to get a foothold, even if current Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney gets off his duff and agrees to more pipelines and LNG ports. Article content Trudeau's thinking (which remains Carney's thinking until the current Liberal government does more than just talk a good game) cost Canada at least $400 billion in investment during the Trudeau decade, drove down our per capita income, dropped us out of the 25 richest countries in the world, distorted our housing market and drove up prices and unemployment.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
‘They roll right over': Many Democrats call their party weak and ineffective, AP-NORC poll finds
WASHINGTON (AP) — Many Democrats see their political party as 'weak' or 'ineffective,' according to a poll that finds considerable pessimism within Democratic ranks. Republicans are more complimentary of their party, although a small but significant share describe the GOP as 'greedy' or say it is generally 'bad.' The poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research in July reveals warning signs for both major U.S. parties as the political focus shifts to elections in New Jersey and Virginia this fall and the midterm contests next year. Respondents were asked to share the first word or phrase that came to mind when they thought of the Republican and Democratic parties. Answers were then sorted into broad categories, including negative and positive attributes. Overall, U.S. adults held a dim view of both parties, with about 4 in 10 using negative attributes, including words such as 'dishonest' or 'stupid.' But nearly nine months after Republican Donald Trump won a second presidential term, Democrats appear to be harboring more resentment about the state of their party than do Republicans. Democrats were likelier to describe their own party negatively than Republicans. Republicans were about twice as likely to describe their own party positively. 'They're spineless,' Cathia Krehbiel, a 48-year-old Democrat from Indianola, Iowa, said of her party. She believes the party's response to the Trump administration has been 'scattershot.' 'I just feel like there's so much recently that's just going abhorrently wrong,' Krehbiel said. 'And they speak up a little bit and they roll right over.' Democrats speak out against their own party Overall, roughly one-third of Democrats described their party negatively in the open-ended question. About 15% described it using words like 'weak,' or 'apathetic,' while an additional 10% believe it is broadly 'ineffective' or 'disorganized.' Only about 2 in 10 Democrats described their party positively, with roughly 1 in 10 saying it is 'empathetic,' or 'inclusive.' An additional 1 in 10 used more general positive descriptors. It is unclear what impact the Democrats' angst may have on upcoming elections or the political debate in Washington, but no political organization wants to be plagued by internal divisions. Still, the Democrats' frustration appears to reflect their concern that party leaders are not doing enough to stop Trump's GOP, which controls Washington. There is little sign that such voters would abandon their party in favor of Trump's allies in upcoming elections, and the vast majority of Democrats described the GOP negatively. But disaffected Democrats might decide not to vote at all. That could undermine their party's push to reclaim at least one chamber of Congress in 2026. Jim Williams, a 78-year-old retiree from Harper Woods, Michigan said he typically supports Democrats, but he is 'disappointed' with the party and its murky message. He feels much worse about the Republican Party, which he said 'has lost it' under Trump's leadership. 'All he does is bully and call names. They've got no morals, no ethics. And the more they back him, the less I like them,' the self-described independent, said of Trump. What do Republicans say about their party? Republicans are about twice as likely as Democrats to describe their party positively, with many also using straightforward ideological descriptors like 'conservative.' About 4 in 10 Republicans used positive attributes to characterize the GOP, making general mentions of words such as 'patriotic' or 'hardworking,' or offering associations with the word 'freedom.' Samuel Washington, 65, of Chicago, said he typically votes Republican. Washington praised Trump's leadership, even while acknowledging that the president's policies on trade and spending might be creating short-term economic hardship. 'There's a lot of pain, but the pain is the result of 12 years of misuse and misguided leadership from the Democratic Party,' he said. 'I'm feeling really good about Republicans and the direction that they're going.' But views were not uniformly good. About 2 in 10 Republicans said something negative about the party, including phrases such as 'greedy,' 'for the rich' or 'corrupt.' Republican Dick Grayson, an 83-year-old veteran from Trade, Tennessee, said he is 'disappointed' by his party's fealty to Trump. Among other things, he pointed to the price tag of Trump's tax-and-spend package, which will add nearly $3.3 trillion to the nation's debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 'I've always been a Republican, but I'm disillusioned about both parties,' Grayson said. How Americans view the parties overall Among all Americans, the poll finds that the Republican Party is viewed slightly more negatively than the Democratic Party. The different is not large: 43% used negative words to describe the Republicans, compared with 39% for the Democrats. Much of the negativity is driven by the opposing party — and independents' distaste for both. Independents are much likelier to describe both parties with negative attributes rather than positive descriptors, though a significant share did not offer an opinion at all. Curtis Musser, a 60-year-old unaffiliated voter from Beverly Hills, Florida, said both parties have shifted too far toward the extreme for his liking. He said he is ready for a serious third party to emerge before the next presidential election, pointing to Elon Musk's new 'America Party,' which has been slow to launch. 'Maybe he would get us headed in the right direction,' the retired schoolteacher said. ___ Peoples reported from New York. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,437 adults was conducted July 10-14, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.
