There ARE limits to free speech

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.  Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States

Much has been made about Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon working to curtail messaging that they feel may incite violence or spread falsehoods. Political commentators (professional and amature) are calling this a violation of the First Amendment - Freedom of Speech.

As a librarian, I have always been a staunch supporter of free speech and intellectual freedom. In the column “The Neglected Side of Intellectual Freedom”, Library Media Connection, March/April 2013, I argued that even students have a right to free expression and need practice in doing so to fully participate in society:

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.   Intellectual freedom includes having the right to create and disseminate information and opinions as well as having the right to access the intellectual products of others. 

Given the difficulty and exclusivity of publishing in print (primarily books, newspapers, and magazines) prior to online publishing, the expressive side of the intellectual freedom coin has been largely ignored by school librarians and teachers. But given the increased importance of social networking, the availability of Web 2.0 tools, the realization that knowledge creation is a valuable skill, and the growing recognition of creativity as a primary means of securing a place in the contemporary workforce, all educators (especially librarians) should be advocating for students' rights to be read, heard, and viewed.

I fervently stand by the statements I made in this column. And while the column expressed the need for students to be able to express their opinions online, it certainly pertains to adults as well.

But being the Pollyanna I sometimes am, I did not specifically point out that I expect the responsible use of online communications as well. Cyberbullying, harassment, profanity, and other inappropriate uses of technology have always been covered by school policies related to technology use - and the penalty for technology misuse was often the loss of priviledges.

I would like to believe most people would agree that speech that causes harm - physical or mental to others - should be exempt from protection from the First Amendment. Statements that are libelous, statements that incite physical violence, statements that may lead to direct danger to others are inappropriate and should be illegal. Statements that demean others on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation, while not against the law, do not have to be supported by private communications companies or services. (I have the right, I believe, to delete comments or not accept guest posts on the Blue Skunk I feel are hateful or illegal and my host, Squarespace, should be able to deny me service should my statements violate its terms of use.)

The rub, of course, lies in one’s interpretation of just how harmful, untruthful, or dangerous a communication might be as to whether it falls under the protection of the First Amendment. In fact, I would guess that while many people could agree in general on free speech rights, when it comes to specific statements, interpretations will diverge. Is not capitalizing Black when referring to a person of African-American descent racist? Did Trump’s tweets encourage violence at the Capitol on January 6th? Should I be able to block a highway during a protest march? And of course, as a writer, I have no control over others' interpretations of my message. Language will always be ambiguous to some degree.

This is a conundrum which may be better addressed by more thoughtful pundits and more informed legal scholars. But each person should think about what constitutes protected speech and what guidelines they themselves should follow in communicating responsibly - despite how passionately they may feel about the issue.

Image source Shay Horse/NurPhoto via Getty Images