How the Internet impacts Freedom of Expression.
The internet has expanded the human voice to include their access to information and the ability to transmit information across physical miles and digital platforms. Citizens enjoying a modern experience embark on a journey where the internet is relied upon further to organize, investigate, and advocate to be a part of society. We have moved our expression out of the shadows and into the blue light to the degree that entire swaths and demographics get their news, facts, and participation from platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube. These places, platforms known for their vast array of advocacy and opinion, the public squares center themselves as the main source of daily consumption by people. We vote with our dollar and signature, but our eyes, reliance, and centralization of digital personhood on “the internet” have also caused complications.
For governments, One’s expression can be housed almost entirely in the social media spaces mentioned above, so obviously, politicians attempt to capitalize on this direct line to their constituents. They can have a difficult time with the digital natives, whose opinions are stronger than the elected official’s stomachs. So these officials block the aggressive advocates, violating their minted Freedom of expression by denying their access to their president due to their personal viewpoints. Expression through digital art is highly scrutinized, but its weight, with the help of Section 230, heaves the Atlas-esque weight of First Amendment litigation. Satirists like Carlin can have their ability to speak censored on airwaves, and publishers can be found liable, but those on the internet are far and away “freer” than radio hosts.
How can you say or do just about anything (within reason) on the internet? Efforts to galvanize Freedom of speech and expression like that from the ICCPR exist. These organizations have an interest in global freedoms like expression. An organization should not be the only basis for how we sort out the importance of our rights in cyberspace.
I posit that citizens should have unlimited Freedom of expression up until intentional harm is caused to another person. Your rights exist alongside the next person, not under or over, so blocking is acceptable except in the case of “public figures.” I think the definition of “public figure” should be updated to mean someone of public importance, impacting social dynamics and industries on a policy or influence level. Public figures are politicians, actors, or influencers unless noted against such an exemption (e.g., minors).
Public figures’ voices reach far and wide, but only on the internet, so is their speech limited? If so, then access to the internet must be the highest priority to achieve Freedom of expression, making it necessary to ensure all are provided with the internet as a fundamental right in the digital age. Once a digital citizen enters Google and Beyond, they must have complete control over personal information taken from a website; the publishers must not be able to absorb any and all “cookies” and sell the data to advertisers or other interested parties without the active, informed consent of the individual. This means that the provider must put their notice/warning/consent form (contract) in plain and easy-to-understand language native to the individual, similar to patch notes from game developers.
Leave a Reply