Free Speech – Freedom At What Cost?

Many people believe that freedom, at the cost of others’ freedom, isn’t freedom but privilege. Which brings about the question, how should free speech from private media outlets operate?

Censorship in media is not an easy topic to talk about. In Canada, there is both freedoms of press and speech laid out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as legislation around hate speech and symbols. This overlap can create a gray area. In this piece of writing, two sides will be addressed: the idea of free speech at all costs and the moderation of media.

Free speech has been an important part of reporting and producing media content. If one party, or government, controlled what media was being consumed that would cause many negative ramifications. Without the ability to cross-reference and critical compare sources, people can be left with misinformation or filled with harmful ideas. Additionally, this 2016 Index article makes the point of saying that “freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It reinforces all other human rights, allowing society to develop and progress”, indicating that the ‘right’ of free speech lays a foundation for growth and strengthens preestablished rights. The idea of freedom of speech above all else can be justified by saying that every voice deserves to be heard, even ones that others may not agree with. Private companies may have the moral obligation to allow controversial content to be produced and not enforce their biases via mediation, because without opposition how can there be democracy?

On the other hand, private companies may be held to a moral standard to protect others from hate speech and dangerous misinformation. Should people be allowed to spread hateful ideology and incite violence, prejudice and discrimination against each other and especially minority groups? This Harvard Review article doesn’t think so, they think “self-regulation may be the key to avoiding a potential tragedy…” and “that companies have often risked creating a “tragedy of the commons” when they put their short-term, individual self-interests ahead of the good of the consuming public”. This quote dives into the power these private platforms hold, and also how they tend to be self-serving and place profit over humanity. It also uses the term self-regulation, which is key here. If individual companies are not going to filter and self-regulate harmful and bigoted content it can lead to harm, which many people saw with COVID-19 misinformation that circulated the internet. So, this brings forth the question, how can people function in an online space that will allow hate speech, dangerous misinformation and damaging content without regulation?

They can’t. Functioning in this space is dangerous. While the internet is a vast place that provides so much good, it also holds a plethora of harm. As an individual, people have the responsibility to consume media critically, but as we’ve seen time and time again that doesn’t always happen. Additionally, fake news and misinformation is getting harder to spot and can harm not only a single individual but multiple people in the individual’s circle to who that information is then shared or who the individual influences. On top of this, hate speech on platforms does the same thing with the chain of influence. As written in an Issues – Leaf Canada article; hate speech “[has] a profound negative effect on the individual’s sense of self-worth, dignity, and safety that form the foundation of their freedom to participate fully in democratic society”, once again coming back to the idea of freedom at the expense of others rights and freedoms. If people can not interact on the internet with their Charter rights intact, all to protect freedom of speech, then is that not inadvertently implying that those not affected by hate speech are of lesser value?

There is so much uncertainty, unknown variables and confusion around freedom of speech. It is definitely not a black and white topic. The one thing that people can control is their own actions. Being proactively critical in media consumption and holding others accountable is a step in the right direction. One could suppose it comes down to what exactly is the right direction? Ethically, morally and objectively what is best? Should society be more adamant about media moderation or allow for completely free speech? Which is less imperfect?