To Speak or Not to Speak: A Deliberation about Freedom of Speech and National Security

The United States of America was built upon its idea of the First Amendment. This fundamental principle allowed for the freedom of religion, speech, press, and the right to assembly, but most important was the idea of the freedom of speech. This fundamental right has very much become a part of how America is defined. Recently there have been some problems arising pertaining to how this freedom of speech has been used, particularly in the media, that could be considered a threat to our national security.

There have been different ways that the media’s usage of their freedom of speech have caused issues with national security. One of these examples is Edward Snowden’s usage of his freedom of speech to leak classified documents to Glenn Greenwald of the Guardian, who then reported on the government’s secret surveillance program it was running on the citizens of the US. The leaking of this information caused much controversy, splitting the public on whether Snowden was a hero, or a traitor. Was this an acceptable usage of his right to freedom of speech? The leaking of this information allowed Americans to know about what was going on behind the scenes in the government, but it also in turn allowed other countries to obtain the same information, which is a result of this new “online age” that we live in. This is the same case with WikiLeaks, a journalistic organization that bases itself solely in the reporting of classified information. This kind of leaking poses the question of whether or not whistleblowers should be protected. On one end, whistleblowers are valuable to society because they allow the citizens to learn the truth about governmental actions, but on the other end they start to leak information that could be powerful if used against the government.

Another way that the media has controversially used their right to freedom of speech is through the very recent events surrounding the movie The Interview and the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. With both of these situations, the media exercised its freedom of speech to depict something in such a way that was so offensive that radical groups threatened national security. With The Interview, so many terroristic threats were made against movie theaters that Sony, the producer of the movie, had initially pulled it from theaters, until the overwhelming support for the movie had brought it to a web release. With Charlie Hebdo however, their exercise of freedom of

speech brought radical Islamic gunmen to their doorstep, ending 12 innocent lives.

Although it is important to recognize freedom of speech in people and organizations, these recent events have brought up questions of whether or not freedom of speech should be recognized when it comes to dealing with national security. This has become a controversy because of how powerful freedom of speech is, both in the sense that it is a tool for advancing society and for allowing new ideas to flow out and improve our lives, but also in the sense that once used too far, it is a possible threat to our own security as a nation. There needs to be a balance between our ability to speak freely and our ability to have strong national security.

So, how can we balance free speech and national security?

This kind of issue is not easily solved, and the Approaches provided have both advantages and trade offs that we must consider when discussing the topic.

Approach One deals with allowing the First Amendment to continue without government regulation, because our fundamental rights as citizens should not be compromised.

Approach Two presents the idea that perhaps media outlets should take on the responsibility of their own usage of freedom of speech, and allows them to self regulate, keeping in mind the possible consequences of their sharing of information.

Approach Three states that the government should take on more control with what information goes out of media outlets. It says that preventative measures should be taken, and if national security is on the line, then action should be taken to avoid terroristic attacks.

It’s important to not only look at the positives that each Approach offers, but also the possible trade offs that are unavoidable when it comes to the Approach.

Approach One: Allowing the the People and the Media to Fully Exercise Freedom

of Speech

The United States government was built on the very foundations of free speech, in which the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”. The concept of free speech is essential in maintaining a democracy, therefore

the government needs to allow for unlimited free speech and let society decide which things are considered offensive and/or dangerous.

As millennials, we live in a time of globalization and complex technology. More than ever, we are connected to each other whether it be through trade policies or through social media sites, like Facebook. But with increased connection to the world, more humans living today than ever, greater access to the internet, and the war on terror, little acts of free speech could have a huge threat to national security.

Approach One argues for unlimited, untouched free speech and free press that are promised to the American population under the First Amendment. Within the past century, the Federal government’s attempt to infringe upon the rights of free speech and press have been met with detrimental and even disastrous results. As a result, the government should not be allowed to restrict these rights even if there is a threat to national security. Our founding fathers built the United States on the principles of free speech and press, and had faith in the American society to maintain and protect its key values without needing the government’s help.

What We Could Do:

An important aspect of Approach One is going back to the First Amendment and understanding that it is unconstitutional for Congress to pass any laws that abridge an individual’s freedom of speech and press. As a result, certain policies would need to be dismantled or revised in order to ensure this constitutional right.

For instance, the Espionage and Patriot Acts would need to be dismantled since they threaten the First Amendment. As a result, whistleblowers would not be discouraged or threatened by the government, and have the inspire individuals to question and even change the government if they are not satisfied with current government policies. An important aspect of democracy is rule by general will. With increased transparency in the government, there will be increased democracy.

In regards to satire and offensive material, the government should not get involved because it should encourage a society of freethinkers. There is no need for the government to prevent certain offensive materials from being public, like some satirical images, because society has the ability to discourage certain actions and is self-regulating. Also, satire is another outlet of expression and many citizens enjoy satire, whether it be watching certain TV shows or newspaper comics.

As a result, Approach One would encourage free speech and bring back America to the foundations of unabridged free speech and press, on which our democracy was built.

Trade-Offs and Downsides:One important aspect to think about in allowing unabridged free

speech is the effects of free speech and press on a national level. For instance, transparency in the government and the non-condemnation policy towards whistleblowers would result in other governments learning the United States’ secrets and could even result in tension. Tension may lead to dismantling trade relations, which would be a blow to the American economy, and even dismantling of political relations, resulting in the loss of key allies.

Other threats may come internally if certain material offends a group. Leaks of government secrets could enrage groups who discover the government unfairly targets them, causing unrest and potentially escalating into riots. Satire can also be dangerous, especially when it is offensive to people of a certain religion. Portraying uncensored images of the prophet

Mohammed, for example, led to threats from radical muslims on Comedy Central who were to air the show.

Approach Two: A Self-Regulating Media

Living in today’s globalized world we are constantly desiring new and current information from all around the world. We are able to learn about world wide events with just the click of a button or a glance at a headline. The most prominent vector for this transfer of this information is the media. The media is an integral part of remaining globally aware citizens democracy enables us to be. It shapes our believes gives us important info enables us to be globally aware citizens. But with this information comes the great responsibility of determining what should be released. These decisions are especially important when it comes to releasing information that could potentially affect our nation’s national security.

Many believe the government should be in control of what the media releases. Government regulation would be in place to monitor if certain materials could generate national security threats. But one of our nation’s founding principles, the First Amendment, “prohibits the making of any law... abridging the freedom of speech,[and] infringing on the freedom of the press.” This means that the government does not legally how the power to prohibit or regulate what the media (press) says and therefore infringing on the media’s right to the freedom of press goes against a major element our country was founded upon. This is why the media should instead be self regulated.

There are many different approaches when it comes to dealing with free speech regulation and national security, but this approach focusses on the necessity for media self regulation. Self regulation enables “the industry or profession rather than the government is doing the regulation.” In this case, the media would determine what information should not be broadcasted due to concerns over national security. One prevalent example of this self regulation would be the controversial debate over Sony’s release of the movie The Interview. The movie depicted the assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un by Americans. In retaliation North Korean hackers attacked Sony’s computers and released private data online. Soon theaters received terror threats spur these threats of violence lead Sony to cancel the release of the movie. In this case, the private cooperation, Sony, took effective self regulatory measures when national security was threatened. Once threats were made Sony cancelled the release of the film since it posed a risk to national security. Sony made this

decision regarding their product, not the government. Independent corporations should be able to make these important decisions since their products or information is that being effected. Media self regulation is vital in maintaining the rights of individuals while upholding national security.

What We Could Do:Media self-regulation can be incredibly efficient and reliable way to

ensure that while our national security is the number one priority, our freedom of speech does not become compromised in anyway. Media self-regulation is the cooperation of all media outlets and professionals to abide by a set of guidelines under their own free-will. The benefits of this method are numerous.

If this approach is to be taken up, editorial freedom will continue without setback. Editorial freedom is a huge part to the right to freedom of speech. If the government were to control the output of media, mistrust between the government and the people would grow. Any news, no matter how factual, would be put under scrutiny, or challenged on the simple fact that the government only has to tell us what they want us to hear. The right of journalists, news broadcasters, and script writers, to address what they chose, is an integral part of the first amendment.

The promotion of media quality would certainly take an upturn, if this was the to become the norm in our media structure. No station, or newspaper would put their own credibility on the line with unchecked facts or biased opinions. They would be held to a higher standard and would in turn rise to meet the challenge.

And while media integrity overall may improve, more importantly, so does the public’s trust. With the media regulating it’s own content, the countries misgivings involving the media can slowly be cast aside. If we were to encourage and formulate self-regulation of the media, the editorial freedom is preserved, media quality improves, and public faith can be restored.

Trade Offs and Downsides: Of course there are still many things to consider when making an

informed choice. With self regulating media there is no guarantee that we have full protection from all threats. The government would have no hand in

what will and will not be reported to the public, and therefore no hand in what can and cannot trigger a controversy or an issue of national security. This may cause many citizens to feel unsafe, or unprotected by their government. It also leaves the public less of an ability to point the blame if something does go wrong.

There is also the media’s integrity which can be called into speculation. While the corporations may have better experience in determining what to regulate they might not use this in order to benefit of the knowledge of the public, but instead to mass the most amount of profit. With no pressure from the government many companies will take advantage of the lack of regulations.

The final concern would be compliance. The system requires each and every media outlet to agree and conform to the system, if one refuses to do so then the entire system may unravel, because this kind of agreement is done simply by forming an agreement between different companies.

Approach Three: Allowing the Government to Take Preventative Measures

The Freedom of Speech has reigned as one of the most fundamental rights to a citizen of the United States. It is number one on the Bill of Rights, and has been incredibly important with advancing society forward, with people presenting new ideas to the public. It has also historically been a hindrance before.

There have been many negative uses of the freedom of speech, which include hate speech and the popular example of shouting “Fire!” in a movie theater. These acts, although technically allowed under the most basic understanding of the freedom of speech, are negative uses of the First Amendment that had repercussions throughout society. Perhaps the 12 lives lost to the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo show some negativity behind the media’s usage of freedom of speech.

With the terrorist attacks that the world has seen in the past few years, it’s hard not to want to be able to prevent the attacks. However, to be able to be certain that the United States is secure from every possible point, it would also be necessary to try to prevent possible attacks indirectly caused by the media.

Approach Three, although somewhat radical, would very effectively eliminate one area that could cause terrorist attacks, and it is still important to consider the possibilities of a safe United States.

What We Could Do:The US government could take the reigns of the media and not allow

anything potentially harmful to the United States to pass through. This would include whistleblowers and forms of media like The Interview where, if there is a possible threat to our society, it is shut down.

This kind of control in society, although stepping heavily on the First Amendment, would allow there to be more security. If whistleblowers cannot leak any information out to the public, other countries would have no way of learning about secret processes of the government.

In addition, events like the threats surrounding The Interview and the terrorist attack surrounding Charlie Hebdo would cease to exist if the government immediately prevented the media from releasing something if it presented a possible danger. This would have undoubtedly saved Sony from being hacked, and the 12 innocent lives that were caught with the attack on Charlie Hebdo.

Trade-Offs and Downsides:Issues with the government maintaining the Espionage Act include

the potential of creating tension among citizens of the United States who may agree that whistleblowers should not be punished for relaying to them what they see as “vital” information about the workings of the United States government. According to a Newsweek poll, 55% of Americans believe that Snowden was in the right for exposing PRISM, and 80% of these believe that he exposed “constitutional violations” (http://www.newsweek.com/most-americans-think-snowden-did-right-thing-poll-says-253163). With more than half of Americans siding with the individual instead of the government, deliberately leaving the Espionage Act as is, especially in light of events such as these that expose what Americans see as governmental wrongdoings, may be seen by Americans as a stubborn government wanting to violate their constitutional rights to free speech. This attitude may create distrust in the government, which could cause even deeper rifts further down the line.

Furthermore, if the government should choose to make no change to the current state of the Espionage Act, the American people may feel that their “Freedom of Information” guaranteed by the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 1967 is being violated (http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/Demopaper/dmpaper10.html). Whistleblowers should not be punished for revealing the workings of the government, a citizen may argue, because the FOIA commands that official information be made available to the public, and all the whistleblower is doing is delivering this information. However, there are exemptions to the FOIA, which include “national security secrets relating to national defense or foreign policy” and “materials relating solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency,” among others (http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/Demopaper/dmpaper10.html). Thus, keeping the Espionage Act untouched would inspire a conversation into better classification of the exceptions to the FOIA, which would just be shoving the issue off to a different set of laws and regulations.

Despite the complications of leaving the Espionage Act untouched, there are benefits associated with this action. Most obviously, keeping the Act intact would better prevent the leaking of national secrets that could make the nation an easy target to unfriendly countries. A $10,000 fine and a 20 year prison sentence is a large incentive for many people privy to the government’s most sensitive information to keep it hidden from other countries or from outlets that could be received by other countries (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-congress-passes-espionage-act). Although the law is harsh, it is generally effective in protecting the nation from having to deal with viable outside threats, since there have been only 11 times when the government has used the Act to prosecute government workers who shared private information.