As an end-of-year culminating project for MCO 427: Misinformation and Society, I have created a misinformation education social media post. I chose to create a mock-up for an Instagram carosel post because it is a commonly used template for online education, similar to @so.informed. The audience for this post is Instagram users who are interested in curbing misinformation. Below is a video showing how the graphic would interact on the intended medium, Instagram, as well as the graphics themselves.
Today’s media landscape creates unique challenges that must be addressed in society. There are many organizations that are working to establish trust and credibility standards that can be used to combat misinformation, such as the Trust Project.
The Trust Project has developed 8 “Trust Indicators” that can be used to determine whether a news organization is trustworthy and a news story is accurate. Below are two case studies of the Arizona Mirror and the Arizona Silver Belt that utilize these indicators on these two different local news sources. For each case study, I sampled three recent articles to answer the following questions, along with information gained from an overview of each site.
⚠️ References: You can find and access the sources
✅ Local: It has used local knowledge
✅ Diverse Voices: It brings in diverse perspectives
⛔️ Actionable Feedback: It allows readers to participate
✅ Methods: We can tell the process used to make it
✅ Best Practices: The journalist or news organization shows they care about these Trust Indicators by explaining their policies and standards
Overall, the Arizona Mirror scored well with a 6.5/8. There was evidence of most indicators present. “References” got half of a point instead of a full point because only about half of the sources were cited. In many instances, other news articles were cited instead of sources. This is bad practice because it can create a domino effect of misinformation if one organization misreports on something and then other organizations re-report the mistake by citing the original news organization. Additionally, there was no form or contact information present to provide evidence of #6. This things can be easily fixed and would create a well-rounded news organization. They also had a clear and robust Ethics Code, which shows their personal dedication to quality reporting.
⛔️ References: You can find and access the sources
✅ Local: It has used local knowledge
⚠️ Diverse Voices: It brings in diverse perspectives
✅ Actionable Feedback: It allows readers to participate
✅ Methods: We can tell the process used to make it
⚠️ Best Practices: The journalist or news organization shows they care about these Trust Indicators by explaining their policies and standards https://silverbelt.com/terms
The Arizona Silver Belt only scored 5/8 on Truth Indicators. Even more concerning was the specific indicators that were missing. Generally speaking, indicators 1, 2, 3, and 8 are the best determinates of trustworthy journalism. Of these 4, the Arizona Silver Belt only had 1.5. There was zero information provided on the journalists or their backgrounds. Additionally, zero sources were cited through hyperlinks in any of the audited articles, forcing the reader to take the author’s word for it, but the authors had not established credibility in any way. This reflects the journal’s overall lack of interest in high-quality journalism, which was made abundantly clear by the vague and hidden code of ethics. In tiny print, hidden on the “Terms and Conditions” page, was a section called “Content Standards“, the closest thing to a Code of Ethics. The content standards were alright but lacked specifics, which is why they were given half of a point for this indicator. Overall, I would not trust the Arizona Silver Belt until all 8 indicators are visibly present.
As misinformation is on the rise, using platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter to spread false information, social media companies have an obligation to respond. Different platforms have taken different responses to the crisis of misinformation. Meta companies, such as Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp, differ in response from other companies, such as TikTok.
According to Facebook, they are “taking significant steps to fight [misinformation] and its spread” by using a three-part strategy, which includes
Remove content that violates Community Standards
Reduce the distribution of stories marked as false
Inform people so they can decide what to read, trust, and share.
They define misinformation as “content that is false or misleading.” While disinformation is “false or misleading posts shared intentionally to deceive people.” Their Community Standards focus on removing content that contains credible threats or hate speech, content that targets private individuals to degrade or shame them, personal information meant to blackmail or harass someone, and repeated unwanted messages.
Many people have enough personal anecdotal evidence to prove that this method of regulating misinformation is not working. For example, in 2020, a conspiracy theory that claimed 5G wireless towers spread COVID-19 led to over 100 hundred incidents of people attempting to burn down or otherwise remove 5G towers. This false idea gained momentum on Facebook. Although Facebook eventually moved to remove these conspiracy groups on grounds that it “promotes or publicizes crime,” many people had already been exposed to the information and created code words to continue talking about it without flagging Facebook’s fact-checkers.
There are many other issues with Facebook’s policies on misinformation. Most notably, some people are wholly exempt from their policy. Thanks to a former Facebook employee, the Wall Street Journal obtained information that proved that the company has built a system that exempts certain “high-profile” users from its rules. The program known as “XCheck” shields millions of high-profile users, allowing them to post material that includes violence, harassment, and incitement that would typically lead to sanctions.
You may be thinking to yourself, “I knew Facebook was bad when Cambridge Analytica happened, but not all social media apps are like that.” But unfortunately, you would be wrong. Even non-Meta-owned apps such as TikTok have similar problems.
TikTok claims to “take action against misinformation that causes significant harm to individuals, our community, or the larger public regardless of intent.” They also have three parts to their approach:
Remove content and accounts that violate our rules
Invest in media literacy and connect our community to authoritative information
Partner with experts
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? I spend a lot of time on TikTok and can personally attest that I have never seen any ad or notice about media literacy, fact-checking, or links to “authoritative information.” The only notice I have seen on videos is for dangerous actions that might cause injury.
Just last year, TikTok was used to create and spread QAnon conspiracy theories. Although TikTok tried to address this by banning hashtags associated with QAnon, such as #trusttheplan, users found ways around this by adding emojis to the hashtag.
The problem with misinformation on TikTok is that many young people use it as a replacement for Google, treating the app like a search tool with reliable answers. A NewsGuard investigation found that for a sampling of searches on prominent news topics, almost 20% of the videos presented as search results contained misinformation.
How can we fix it?
There are many possible solutions that have been presented to combat misinformation on social media. Many organizations encourage media literacy courses. This is the common response from social media platforms as well because it shifts the blame off of the platform and onto the individual users.
However, research from the University of Southern California shows that the platforms, more than individual users, have a larger role to play in stopping the spread of online misinformation. This study of more than 2,400 Facebook users found that the innate structure of rewarding users for habitually sharing information had a larger impact on misinformation being spread. In fact, just 15% of the most habitual news sharers in the research were responsible for spreading about 30% to 40% of the fake news. This means, to truly solve this problem, social media apps would have to restructure their platforms away from a rewards-based system. This is unlikely to happen because it is this very system that keeps users engaged with platforms.
Until we address misinformation at its root, it will continue to rear its ugly head wherever given the opportunity. We must take radical steps to educate ourselves and create systems that promote truth and honesty.
For the last 24 hours, I have been monitoring my media use. As an exercise in media literacy, this project has forced me to take account of all the media I intake in a 24-hour period and evaluate its credibility. In a media landscape that is becoming increasingly sensationalized and deregulated, nurturing media literacy skills is essential. Here is the breakdown of how I spent the last 1,440 minutes of my life:
8:00 – 9:00 am
I woke up and checked my notifications. I started with my email, which had some Canvas notifications and an Old Navy coupon, and then I checked my social media accounts, Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, and TikTok. Admittedly, I spend the most time on TikTok. This morning, I saw a video about how Hailey Beiber walked the Vanity Fair red carpet alone, without her husband, Justin Beiber. I was quick to believe this because their relationship consistently has similar drama. A quick Google search confirmed that it was true and discussed the current drama between Hailey and Selena over Justin Beiber.
Then I saw a video discussing the ages of the founding fathers. I remember being told a few years ago that they were young at the time, so the video was not surprising to me. I didn’t feel the need to fact-check the video since it was information I had previously sourced to be true.
I watch a lot of TikTok videos in a short amount of time, so I pulled out a few highlights for this exercise. One of the other videos I saw was on an interesting advertising campaign for SURREAL cereal. They put up ads all over different cities claiming that big-name celebrities liked their cereal. Except there was a twist… all the “big names” were actually regular people who had the same names as famous people. It was pretty clever, I have to admit.
9:00 – 10:00 am
I had a lovely media-free hour while I went to a yoga class. I’ve been trying to do more activities that help me disconnect from my phone and reconnect with myself and the world around me.
10:00 – 11:00 am
After class, I got smoothies with my mom and sister. We talked about lots of things, including stories in the news of women who have bad pregnancy outcomes. We discussed how it seems like pregnancy is riskier nowadays, or maybe it is just covered more on social media?
11:00 – 12:00 pm
I ran errands and checked things off my to-do list. While I’m driving, I like to listen to audiobooks. Right now I am rereading How to Be an Antiracist by Ibram X Kendi. It is one of my favorite books and was really insightful for me to better understand race relations in America. I first read this book during the Black Lives Matter movement in the summer of 2020. I am excited to read it again and hopefully absorb more knowledge. I also considered the fact that this is a banned book in Texas, where I live. It is sad to me to see misinformation and propaganda run out of control and affect our ability to be empathetic towards one another. I wish everyone would read this book and cultivate more curiosity about other people, instead of judgment.
12:00 – 1:00 pm
I got home from running errands and made some lunch. While eating my lunch, I scrolled on Instagram. I have a bad habit of using social media while eating. I saw a post from a local Austin account talking about the University of Texas’s new course on Taylor Swift. I remember hearing about the launch of this course last summer. It’s interesting to think that people are studying Taylor Swift the way that many of us studied Shakespeare.
Most of my Instagram feed is lifestyle content from friends, family, and influencers. I try not to inundate myself with too much news media because it is oftentimes depressing. For example, I also saw a post from the New York Times talking about how the earth will hit critical warming thresholds by the early 2030s. I am a double major in Communications and Sustainability, so I have a deep passion for people and the planet. It is always heartbreaking to hear these types of news stories. I so desperately want us to fix the problem of global warming, but I know that not everyone believes it is happening – another victim of misinformation. I continue to have hope. I think these articles intend to shock people into action, but truthfully I think they just debilitate people with anxiety and helplessness.
1:00 – 2:00 pm
Another media-free hour. I used this time to complete my Spanish homework for today. I used to have a bad habit of watching TikTok while doing homework, which made assignments that should take 45 minutes, take 2-3 hours. So I deliberately put my phone in the other room and did my homework. I don’t have any social media set up or logged in on my computer. I try to use my computer as a purely productive space.
2:00 – 4:00 pm
I did some organization projects around the house. Normally, I would listen to music, but today my sister/roommate was home so, she sat and talked with me while I cleaned.
4:00 pm
I took a break and got on Instagram. Surprising to many people, but I consume 98% of my news from Instagram or TikTok. Other than the occasional New York Times breaking news notification, news outlets’ Instagram posts are my main source of credible information. Today, I saw a post from Texas Tribune about the Uvalde shooting. These posts always make me sad due to the pain of the incident and the horrible gun laws in Texas.
5:00 – 6:00 pm
I read an ebook on the library app on my phone. I tell everyone about Libby because you can get free audiobooks and ebooks through your local library. Right now, I’m reading Eight Hundred Grapes by Laura Dave. I like to read multiple books at a time, so I can switch based on my mood. I always have at least one fiction and one non-fiction book I’m reading. Normally, I like to read my fiction books in hard copy, but I started this ebook while out of town without access to a bookstore.
6:00 – 8:00 pm
My sister and I watched some episodes of Laguna Beach, a reality TV show from the early 2000s. It’s been fun to watch a show about the era of our childhood and experience what it would have been like to be a teenager during those years.
8:00 – 10:00 pm
I did some laundry and things around the house. Then I ate some leftover Chinese food for dinner. Spent some more time on TikTok, mostly watching videos of peoples’ outfits, daily routines, or funny jokes. I also saw a video of Donald Glover, a.k.a Childish Gambino, talk about his new show Swarm, which he is the creator of. The whole show was shot on film, which I think is an interesting shift we are seeing in the media. As digital technology such as FaceTune and AI are increasing, there is an equal push towards more analog, “real,” methods of creating media, such as film photography and videography. This reminded me of how season 2 of Euphoria was also shot on film. I think people crave realness and have a nostalgia for the film aesthetic.
10:00 – 11:00 pm
I watched a couple episodes of Modern Family and went to bed!
Overall, it seemed like a pretty average media consumption day. I used to consume a lot more media, especially news media. However, this year I have tried to be very intentional to limit my media intake and focus on fun things as opposed to depressing things. I work in the Texas Legislature, so I know that I am doing what is within my power to change things, and dwelling on sad news is not always helpful. I am curious to learn more about combating misinformation and how that might be helpful in my career.
In today’s society, free expression is our greatest threat and asset. It is the tool that allows us to express our beliefs without the threat of abuse or jail time, as seen in places like Iran. Unfortunately, it is also the tool that is used to spread hate, violence, and misinformation. Collectively, all sectors of modern society are responsible for protecting and clarifying free expression and its application.
Social media sites have a responsibility to moderate content posted by their users. Most social media platforms have a Code of Conduct or Community Guidelines prohibiting things such as nudity, harassment, violent speech, and misinformation. The benefit of monitoring this speech is that it allows the community to establish guidelines for participation without government restrictions. The drawbacks of this method are that without government oversight, social media platforms can choose not to maintain any community guidelines, such as 4chan, 8chan, and 8khun. All iterations of the same website, 8chan, an anonymous forum website, is known for being completely unregulated. It has been used multiple times to plan and execute mass murders. For example, the three killers of the El Paso, Christchurch, and Congregation Chabad synagogue shootings all used 8chan to discuss their plans and post their manifestos prior to the attack. This highlights a significant issue with having social media companies regulate their own content.
Unregulated social media sites are one of the many reasons people advocate for government intervention in free speech. There is a societal value of having consistently applied rules about hateful, harmful, or untrue speech. In the same way that Bradenburg v. Ohio resulted in banning speech that incites clear and present danger, harmful online content could also be prohibited at the government level if the definition of “clear and present danger” was expanded to include the mental and emotional danger of hate speech and misinformation. The benefit of this regulation is that it would encompass all platforms and all societal domains. The challenge of this regulation would be ensuring that censorship does not creep into other aspects of society.
Civil society also has a role to play in regulating speech. Before the internet age, if someone wanted to express their views to a large audience, they had to do so through public speaking or a publication. Public speaking often self-regulates content because of the risk of social shunning or violating social norms. This often discouraged people with fringe ideas from speaking out. However, the internet has provided a habitat for these people to share their beliefs with broad audiences through aliases and anonymous platforms. If civil society treated online speech the way we treat in-person speech, it would discourage much of the problematic rhetoric. For example, if people unfollowed problematic characters, stood up to trolls, and stopped tolerating racist, misogynistic, and inaccurate claims, many issues would be resolved without government or private party intervention. The downfall of this method is that not everyone disagrees with the racist, misogynistic, and inaccurate claims that are shared.
Finally, the news sector also plays a role in ensuring that free speech is not taken advantage of. To do this, news organizations should establish clear and consistent Codes of Ethics that address things such as unverified claims, doctored images, and other manipulations used in the news. Recently, Fox News used a doctored photo of Judge Bruce Reinhart photoshopped in place of Jeffery Epstein with convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. This type of reckless news reporting is unethical and leads to misinformation. All news organizations should establish strict Codes of Ethics against such behavior to preserve our right to truthful and thoughtful expression.
To combat the rise in hate speech and misinformation, all sectors of society must get involved to protect our community and our right to thoughtful expression.
In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, The Supreme Court stated, “We have long recognized that each medium of expression presents special First Amendment problems.” In this same way, the inception of the internet has also changed freedom of expression and challenged the First Amendment in new ways. Prior to the internet, if an individual wanted material published, it had to be through a newspaper or other broadcasting system. Publishers served as “gatekeepers,” regulating the thoughts and ideas that were allowed to be released to the public on a mass scale. Due to the prevalence of the internet, these gatekeepers have all but disappeared. Although we still have publishers with online and print news organizations, everyone has the ability to publish their thoughts and ideas through social media, blogs, YouTube, and more, reaching millions of people.
This has led to a supersaturation of perspectives, creating positive and negative outcomes for society. Positively, it has allowed many different voices to be heard. The internet has allowed oppressed or minority groups to proliferate their experiences and lead movements of change, such as the #metoo movement and Black Lives Matter. The internet played a distinct role in both of these instances. However, the freedom for all people to express their ideas has also led to an increase in online hate speech and misinformation.
Additionally, it is essential to weigh the impact of one’s speech on others. David Kaye, the United Nations special rapporteur for freedom of expression, shared his concern that “the growing abuse—such as misogyny, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, et cetera—in digital spaces could push many people to opt out entirely.” The value of freedom of expression should be carefully balanced with the impact of one’s speech on others to protect people from abuse. Additionally, the government has a responsibility to institute laws protecting citizens’ privacy rights. We have a right to what exists in our minds, but in the modern age, much of what exists in our minds is stored on our devices and in the cloud. Companies and governments that buy, sell, hack, or use this data infringe on citizens’ right to privacy.
The digital age has unlocked a new way of living and communicating that will change society forever. The ability to access the opinions of others is precious and allows traditionally silenced voices to connect and share important messages. As the implications of this continue to evolve, it will become increasingly pressing to determine how to maintain freedom of expression and protect people from harm.
Although these protections are clear, there is still a concerning rise in punishment for protesting. Even more concerning is that this increase in penalty has not been evenly applied to all protesting groups. Law enforcement has had an increased response to Black Lives Matter protesters compared to more conservative groups. During the BLM protests in 2020, police were seen using tear gas and rubber bullets, hitting protestors with batons, and more. This sits in direct contrast to law enforcement’s lackluster response to the armed conservative protestors who stormed our nation’s capitol on January 6th, 2021.
This hypocritical response was passed down from the former Commander in Chief. President Trump tweeted that the Black Lives Matter protesters in Minneapolis were “thugs,” while the violent mob of insurrectionists that stormed our nation’s capitol with armed weapons were “very good people.” During his time in office, President Trump expressed “hostility toward certain protest movements, and support for others, depending on whether or not they align[ed] with his views.” This selective interpretation of the First Amendment makes the political motivations behind recent legislative efforts apparent. In 2015-2016, before Trump’s time in office, only six bills were introduced to state legislatures to restrict demonstrations. After he took office, that number jumped to 110 from 2017-2019.
Although policy is the correct avenue for regulating the freedom of expression, it does not supersede our Constitutional rights under the First Amendment. Federal jurisdiction supersedes state policy in almost all instances under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. This means states do not have a right to overturn or inhibit our First Amendment protections in any way.
Additionally, the intention of state lawmakers in these cases is concerning. Research shows that state legislators who advance these bills “are not doing so out of any genuine concern for protecting speech or public safety, as they sometimes claim.” Instead, it was found that these bills are often explicitly introduced to limit the rights of protestors they disagree with. This is not how the First Amendment should ever be applied. Constitutional rights apply to all Americans, regardless of where they stand politically. This application does not extend to protecting violent acts, and an argument can be made that it should not be applied to hate speech. While these details continue to be debated, it can be agreed that our current protections should, and do, apply to all American people.
The states’ intentions for legislating the freedom of expression should always be for the betterment of the community by means of regulating hate speech or inhibiting violence. States should not be using their legislative power to suppress views they disagree with, as we see with “critical infrastructure” laws that make trespassing near pipelines, a common environmental protest tactic, punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
Our government at both the federal and state level holds great power. This power must not be taken for granted. Out elected and appointed officials must put aside their personal or partisan agenda and focus on legislation that is protective and loving to all Americans, protecting our freedom of expression and encouraging civil discourse.
Whether we self-identify as a “news person” or not, news media plays a prevalent role in our lives. In fact, it is shaping our country in ways that will affect us for decades.
Whether through television or social media, news media is the central figure for information and agenda-setting. Although many of us haven’t put a news station on the TV in years, information released through news sites disseminates through society with or without a New York Times subscription.
The role of news is critical, and the consequences of abuse of this power are vast. With the rise in popularity of social media, news sites have relied more heavily on attention-grabbing headlines, or “click-bait,” to retain viewership. This value of viewership over all else has spiraled us into an age of misinformation. Objective journalism has been traded in for wild and outlandish claims to rally people around an invisible cause, get them mad at an invisible enemy, and above all else, keep watching the news.
How did we reach a point where the media can publish almost anything and call it “news” with little to no consequences?
It started with a fight to protect the First Amendment right to free expression. The First Amendment has often been used as a shield for reporters and news outlets. In the 1936 case, Grosjean v. American Press Co., the court established that government could not use taxes to stifle voices that disagreed with them. This decision is important and protects the freedom of speech from being silenced by those with money or power. Similarly, the 1964 case, New York Times v. Sullivan, established that news sources are protected from defamation or libel suits for incorrect information being published unless there was “knowledge of or reckless disregard for its falsity.”
Although both of these instances show the importance of First Amendment protections, that hasn’t always been the case. More recently, a slander lawsuit was brought against Fox due to false claims made on the Tucker Carlson Show. In this 2020 case, Fox’s lawyers argued that the “‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’ ” The judge ruled in favor of Fox and dismissed the case on the grounds of the First Amendment and the assertion that “given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes.” Unfortunately, the protection of journalists has gone too far. As a country, we must have a balance between protecting the First Amendment while still ensuring that news organizations have reasonable standards of truth.
Television and social media give media outlets increased reach and, therefore, power. This power must not be taken for granted. Media outlets have a duty to report objective, factual truth and not outlandish and wild opinions or conspiracies.
Although some “weaponized” defamation lawsuits against members of the media are concerning, not all of them are problematic. As stated in The Weaponized Lawsuit Against the Media, “one in which billionaire private actors clandestinely fund other people’s lawsuits in an attempt to censor press entities” is an example of a problematic lawsuit. However, defamation and libel lawsuits as a whole are not a problem. In any well-functioning democracy, there should always be space for people to question and contest things that are happening, whether through lawsuits or other means. Many defamation suits are important and can increase the media’s credibility, such as McDougal v. Fox News Network, had the judge ruled differently.
The news media has the crucial job of informing the public. The rise of misinformation in modern society is a legitimate problem, and we see it reflected in our elections and general knowledge. People like Tucker Carlson are shaping the political landscape, and his false statements are not benign. The media must be held to a high standard of honesty and truthfulness. This is where defamation suits are important.
Some of the “dangerous” defamation and libel suits have developed into SLAPP lawsuits, which are “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” This problematic pattern is used to intimidate and silence media criticism. As a response, anti-SLAPP laws have been implemented to “prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate people who are exercising their First Amendment rights.” These statutes are important and help protect news organizations and individuals from the financial threat of a groundless defamation case brought by a subject of an enterprise or investigative story.
I am proud to live in a country that values freedom of expression so highly. However, the lies presented by the media have caught fire, and our house is in flames. We must also protect the integrity of news and find a way to protect truth as much as we protect freedom.
I have a complicated relationship with freedom of expression. I’m not an idiot. I understand the value of free speech. However, I look around and see hate speech rampant in our society. I came to this class with the question,
“Is there a way to protect our people from hate speech and misinformation without sacrificing free speech?”
The First Amendment has been used to protect and perpetuate hateful acts for decades. In the 1977 case, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, the Supreme Court moved to uphold the First Amendment, even in the most extreme circumstances. A neo-Nazi group intended to hold a “power demonstration” in Skokie village, a community comprised of almost 50% Jewish people and hundreds of Holocaust survivors. Regardless of the clear hateful intent of this demonstration, the Supreme Court ruled that the neo-Nazi group had a right to demonstrate under the First Amendment.
But what were to happen if we started regulating speech? In a fairyland, I imagine that hate speech disappears, everyone feels safe to exist in the world as they are, and the information on the internet is all true.
But is that realistic of the world we live in?
The regulation of speech in the hands of officials who benefit from a system of sexism and racism would quickly turn into the silencing of women and people of color who dare to speak out about injustice.
Interestingly, free speech wasn’t always a vehicle of hate and oppression. For example, in ancient Greece, two concepts expressed freedom of expression, parrhesia and isegoria. Although they both can be directly translated as “freedom of speech,” they have vastly different meanings.
“Whereas isegoria was fundamentally about equality, then parrhesia was about liberty.”– TERESA M. BEJAN
Isegoria asserted the idea that all people have a right to speak, regardless of class or background, an idea that was not common during this time. Parrhesia expressed that one should have a right to say everything in their mind. Giving everyone the ability to say what they want, when they want to, regardless of who it offends. This is closer to the interpretation of free speech that we see today.
The value of free expression is both public and personal. We see the public value of free expression in peoples’ Instagram bios when they include #BLM, #antivax, 🏳️🌈, or #patriot. All of these mean something in society about who we are and how we relate to other people.
Free expression is a crucial tenant of our public and personal identity. In Can the Subaltern Speak by Gayatri Spivak, she explains the erasure of non-Western cultures at the hands of Western investigators due to the lack of expression given to other cultures during this process. Our ability to communicate who we are to other people is contingent on free speech and expression. Although our personal identity remains the same if it is correctly perceived by society, we cannot successfully exist in the world as we are without accurate public identity.
The concept of free speech and expression is worth protecting. Although the First Amendment has been used to defend hateful acts, it has also been used to protect marginalized people who speak out against oppression, such as women and people of color. Freedom of speech protects the female sex from further oppression by the patriarchy. While we uphold this freedom, we must find a way to shift society so that the fruits of free expression reflect the tenants of equality and freedom that it was founded on instead of hate and violence.
Bejan explains it best when she wrote, “Denying hateful or historically privileged voices a platform is necessary to make the equal right to free speech effective, so that the most marginalized and precarious members of society can finally speak up–and be heard.”
Kadison Cole 