For reference inquiries, submit our online reference request form
Access the law library at home! Find out how HERE. |
As Americans we have been given the right to say many things without legal consequence. However, as journalist Chris Lamb made the following comment about the circumstances involved in the statements made by Dilbert creator Scott Adams, he “failed to grasp that being a social critic means your freedom of expression only goes as far as your audience is willing to accept it. Adams could say whatever he wanted to his YouTube audience because his listeners may have agreed with what he said.” [1]
In the California Constitution Article 1, Section 2(a), it guarantees “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.”[2] It’s important to understand that even though the law states there will be no restraints in our speech, we have the responsibility to be mindful of what we say, because as Sir Hercules G. R. Robinson stated, “But great power carries with it great responsibility, and great responsibility entails a large amount of anxiety.”
We are in a period of time where everything can be easily shared on various social media platforms therefore, we can’t expect the information we share with our core audience to stay secure. The Discord chat leaks of classified military documents are proof of that. Even so, when we use public platforms to express ourselves, we should do so with caution in mind. Years could pass and previous views that were expressed on social media can resurface and cause financial and reputational damage. The decision made by the Plain Dealer newspaper in Cleveland, OH regarding their position on supporting Adams shows how institutions and companies may respond to controversial statements made on social media: “This is a decision based on the principles of this news organization and the community we serve,” wrote Chris Quinn, editor of The Plain Dealer.’ “We are not a home for those who espouse racism. We certainly do not want to provide them with financial support.”[3] It’s true that Adams did not make the statements on a platform owned by the Plain Dealer, but many times supporters and subscribers of companies want firm stances made on controversial issues that come up.
As we browse through the internet on various social media platforms, blogs, and newspaper comment sections, many of us find ourselves taking up arms as keyboard warriors against any comments we view as racist, harmful, and even alarming. Many of us have principles we follow, however, as the ACLU states, “If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one’s liberty will be secure.” [4]
In the Constitution the First Amendment is the main law that protects our speech.[5] However, there are states that have adopted constitutions that have more speech protections than what’s covered by the Constitution. For example, the California Constitution guarantees freedom of speech for people and the press. Many countries and organizations around the world have established policies and protections of the rights of individuals to express themselves. Organizations like the UN, Amnesty International, the Council of Europe, and the Council on Foreign Relations have responded to the increase in hate speech on the internet and violence against marginalized communities by setting boundaries of unacceptable speech. For example, the Council on Foreign Relations includes “speech that incites hatred or denies or minimizes genocide and crimes against humanity.”[6]
Just remember, free speech is not “free” from consequences, backlash, loss of reputation and finances.
References
[2] California Constitution Article 1
[3] Media publishers drop Dilbert comic strip after creator’s Black ‘hate group’ remark
[4] FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION – ACLU POSITION PAPER
[5] Amdt1.7.5.8 Application of Defamation Cases to Group Libel, Hate Speech
[6] Hate Speech on Social Media: Global Comparisons
Written by: Rhonda Cloud, Library Assistant