Blog Post #3

 Eight Values of Free Expression

While reflecting on the Eight Values of Free Expression discussed in class, there were two that stuck with me throughout the remainder of the day. Each value of free expression resonated with me in different ways, but it was the stable change, or safety valve, that resonated with me the most. The value that impacted me the second-most was individual self-fulfillment. 

When the concept of stable change was initially being explained to me, I could not comprehend why anyone thought it would work. I thought instead having disruptions in the form of rants from people would only cause further disruption. It was not until I began discussing the eight values with my fellow classmate that clarity came to me.

During our discussion we talked about how it did make sense that having this value was in the government's self-interest due to being able to have knowledge, preventative action preparation, and more contentment in society. Due to stable change, the government has the knowledge of what the public's perception is of what is going on. For example, if there was no avenue for feedback and therefore a president thought they were doing great, they would change nothing and would not realize their mistakes until they were voted out of office. The government is also able to have preventative actions in place for events that could happen since they are able to hear about what is going on. On the contrary, if people were forced to whisper about their disagreements, it would be much more difficult for the government to know when possible events are taking place and could then, in turn, be taken off-guard. Lastly, there is more contentment in society as a whole because we as people are not forced to bottle up our emotions. Rather than waiting for our frustrations to get the better of us, we are able to rant about what we disagree on, and then move on since it can be out of your system.

The Free Speech Center explained this theory in an article as “a philosophical justification of the utility of protest” (Omachonu, 2009). This article later goes on to explain how freely discussing issues is what saves a stable government. This directly relates to what is going on today with peaceful protests and marches. There was a recent Women’s March in Washington D.C. that relates to stable change and protecting a stable government. Instead of these people jumping straight to violence if their rants were being suppressed, they instead are able to peacefully march, feel their voices being heard, and continue on with their day in hopes that change will come.

This value connects to the other value of individual self-fulfillment because if you are not able to think and believe what you want, you will not be able to loudly stand for your beliefs. In an article by Hudson (2022), he explains the deep rooted connection that freedom of speech is with freedom of thought. This is a factor of free speech that I had never considered and now I believe that there is no freedom of speech without freedom of thought. 

As I began thinking about how these values relate to what is happening today in the technology realm, social media censorship is the first thing that came to my mind. The American Bar Association shared in this article by Hudson how much of an influence private companies have the ability to infringe on freedom of speech in this day and age. For example, Twitter, or X, censoring peoples speech walks a tricky line. On one hand, it is a private company whose terms and conditions consumers agree to before using. This is also not a source that people are forced to use. On the other hand, in agreement with Hudson’s article, some of these private companies have become so ingrained in society that censoring speech is impacting a person's rights. My question is then: where do we draw the line?