Striking a Balance between Censorship and Free Speech

WRRH 106
29 April 2022
Striking a Balance between Censorship and Free Speech
Thomas Jefferson once wrote that “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” Today, freedom of expression has become a legal and axiological framework for all democratic societies. It is a universal right that helps individuals freely express themselves, and that plays a critical role in the development and creativity of individuals. Therefore, free speech is a mechanism by which people exchange information, ideas, and opinions in the public sphere, which helps develop ideologies. Kowalska provides historical background that discusses propaganda during World War II as an example of how uncontrolled free speech can lead to human tragedy and terror (Kowalska 35). Considering these situations, some governments have made efforts to regulate free speech, especially on social media. According to The First Amendment of the United States constitution, this official bill is against government censorship of free speech, which leaves the question of how to balance censorship and free speech. This essay will analyze how the government implements surveillance and censorship programs driven by social platforms and the rise of crime and terrorism and argues that the government needs to strike a balance between these two sides.
The American government cannot practice censorship of free speech without violating the First Amendment. It becomes even more challenging for the government to do so across social networking sites, which have become a critical part of how modern society lives and interacts. The developers of these sites do so under the libertarian notion that censorship across platforms is illegal. Promoting free speech on social media means that the government cannot regulate what people say or monitor conversations. An interesting phenomenon is that Americans believe that large technology companies should be regulated because doing so means influencing what users can and cannot do on the platform. However, regulating them means censoring them, which would imply that Americans lose their freedom of expression on the social media platforms. Thus, Yaraghi, who writes for Brookings Education, argues that regulating free speech on social media is futile, considering that users do not want to be controlled, and developers will create platforms that make it impossible for the government to regulate free speech. A government that attempts censorship risks a backlash from society (Yaraghi).
One of the main reasons the government would want to censor free speech is to avoid similar incidents as those witnessed during World War II. During that time, free speech was misused to spread negative propaganda, which only served to fuel the conflict. The devastation caused by the war should make everyone realize that free speech can be used as a dangerous weapon with critical consequences on the well-being of a nation. According to Kowalska, a professor at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, terrorism in the 21st century has become hybrid, amorphous, and asymmetrical (Kowalska 35). Additionally, terrorist propaganda tends to cause violence, hatred, and terror. Any citizen would expect the government to figh...