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.
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.
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.
