Speech Theories: Eight Values of Free Expression

Post # 3

Nathaniel Bryant
March 31, 2021

Speech Theories: 

Eight Values of Free Expression

____________________________________________________________________

Speech Theories: Eight Values of Free Expression

 

Free Expression is a factor of our society that has been a staple of our country but has become contested and challenged frequently over the years. For determining a true meaning in free expression comes 8 theories that were presented for this evaluation. These include:

1.      Marketplace of Ideas (aka Discovery of Truth)

2.      Participation in Self-Government

3.      Stable Change (aka Safety Valve)

4.      Individual Self-Fulfillment (aka Self-Actualization

5.      Check on Governmental Power (aka Watchdog Role)

6.      Promote Tolerance

7.      Promote Innovation

8.      Protect Dissent

Among these eight theories, the two that stand out are “Marketplace of Ideas” and “Promote Tolerance”. Particularly, the importance of these two theories on their own is important but so is their importance in relation to each other. The theory of a “Marketplace of Ideas”, is mostly consisted of the idea that in the battle for information that fact and fallacy should be allowed to clash for the outcome that the truth would be found in the end. And through this clash and debate, the truth becomes more refined and strengthened as a result of the challenge. The other theory mentioned in importance is “Promote Tolerance”. This theory is centered around the idea that speech that we may find offensive or hateful should be protected for the purpose of learning to learn how to tolerate people and opinions that challenge our own. This in turn benefits not only people in their own individual lives but also in societies to make them more tolerant. From what we can learn from confronting our own proclivities with speech differs so much help illustrate ideal behavior by seeing the process of the clash.

How these two theories collide with each other is what makes them so important. Though the idea of the “Marketplace of Ideas” theory comes with a small flaw, it hurts this idea and the credibility of it. While in theory, this idea is great, it suffers greatly when you consider how the clash between fact and fallacy cannot be heavily tainted when the process is interfered with. Most times it is easier to taint and “poison the well” before you drink from it. Instead of letting the stories collide and clash, censorship has become the new piece in the game. Censorship taints and rips apart the “grapple” for truth.

The most important theory, personally, would be “Marketplace of Ideas”. This idea of truth and falsehood going against each other has been a battle I have dealt with firsthand. Before I had a chance to get into politics or understand social stereotypes, I was alienated for not fitting into the narrative of what I was supposed to be. From this, I looked for things to cling to for identity and that would make me “fit” into what I was “supposed” to be. After that entire process of struggling, I eventually grew tired of it and decided to do research of my own. I changed not just in what I knew, but how I thought. When I was criticized for my identity, I simply started asking people questions and began to fight back against the lies that I was forced to believe. Being able to have the facts to finally bring something to the table was an experience that helped shape who I am and has influenced other aspects of my life. Still today I see this theory in action with the people I interact with to exchange ideas, not for the sake of being right, but helping people understand the truth and in turn, receiving it from others.

An example in news today pertains to a conservative political commentator, Steven Crowder, and his recent strike on YouTube, as well as his ban from the partner program, taking his ability to partner with companies for ads, rendering his channel permanently demonetized. The main issue here was how this censorship wet entirely against the “Marketplace of Ideas” and “Promote Tolerance” theory. YouTube has cracked down on conservatives and Steven Crowder in particular on numerous occasions and in this case was an illegitimate attack on him and these theories. Crowder’s video was suspended for challenging “the legitimacy of the vote in Nevada” (Hollister, Sean. “YouTube Has Removed Steven Crowder from Its Partner Program Indefinitely.” The Verge, The Verge, 30 Mar. 2021). This statement is entirely false. In order to be banned for “challenging the legitimacy of the election”, you must mention Donald Trump and a specific matter in the election at once. Crowder had people investigate voter addresses in Nevada. Crowder neither talked about the election or Trump as he said he could not, based on his lack of evidence. In most channels, you would just receive a strike, edit or take the video down, and not be allowed to upload or stream for a week. Instead, they took him off the partner program, which is odd and extreme.

Source: Article from Media Matters

Without this program, YouTubers cannot run ads or receive revenue for your channel. This was done, not a punishment for “violating” YouTube’s guidelines, but to deter Crowder from posting entirely. Rather than letting the “truth” come out, it has become easier to taint the source before It comes out. According to Media Matters, “Crowder has already stated his intention to evade the suspension (Campbell, Written by Jason. “After Being Suspended from YouTube, Steven Crowder Announces His Plan to Evade It via His Other YouTube Channel.” Media Matters for America, 30 Mar. 2021). In a video posted later in the day, Crowder announced his plan to live stream episodes on his Crowder Bits channel.” Besides insulting him throughout the whole piece, they paint the idea that Crowder violated the terms of service by making open claims that contradicted YouTube’s terms but also portrayed him as somebody who does not care about the consequences of his actions, that he did not commit. Something this cite ignores is that you are allowed to post on a separate channel as long as the content is different. While Crowder’s main channel is a live-streamed, full production with guests, Crowder’s second channel is a personal channel focusing on smaller clips and pre-recorded videos. The video, that was posted on his second channel after he got banned said or mentioned no such thing in regard to his continuation. It was a video explaining what happened and why he was banned. YouTube took down this video so the only way to watch it is on Instagram.

Source: Article from The Verge 

The most interesting thing was the call and response pattern from news sites like The Verge and Media Matters* in relation to YouTube’s handling of crowder’s account. They ban him, and articles come immediately after as the first sources to provide any information on the issue. Crowder sends a video out to explain what happened and the video and an article come out about him “ignoring” his ban and continuing to work. Then his video his banned. In short, YouTube and these news sites put out false articles defaming and vilifying Crowder while banning the original source of information that could be used to provide evidence for Crowder’s case. This issue is an example of these people circumventing the “Marketplace of Ideas” theory but framing the situation to push a particular narrative on one side with leaving space for the other side. The clash between truth and falsehood is virtually ripped from this exchange entirely. The “Promote Tolerance” theory is also gone in the sense that this whole issue stemmed from people not being able to tolerate other voices. Instead of being called “right-wing”, “Nazi”, or “white supremacist”, they only accuse him of being “conservative” (Hollister, Sean. “YouTube Has Removed Steven Crowder from Its Partner Program Indefinitely.” The Verge, The Verge, 30 Mar. 2021), as if that is all the criteria is needed for censorship. YouTube used to be a platform for open posting and free expression but overtime has become full of censorship and demonetization, with Crowder being another content creator made an example out of.

_____________________________________________________________________

Work Cited

Campbell, Written by Jason. “After Being Suspended from YouTube, Steven Crowder Announces His Plan to Evade It via His Other YouTube Channel.” Media Matters for America, 30 Mar. 2021, www.mediamatters.org/steven-crowder/after-being-suspended-youtube-steven-crowder-announces-his-plan-evade-it-his-other.

Hollister, Sean. “YouTube Has Removed Steven Crowder from Its Partner Program Indefinitely.” The Verge, The Verge, 30 Mar. 2021, www.theverge.com/2021/3/30/22359191/steven-crowder-youtube-partner-program-suspension-demonetize-ads-strike-ban-misinformation.