Free Speech on the Internet :: Web Laws Politics Rights Essays

Free Speech on the Internet Freedom of speech has been a big issue on the Internet lately. But I'd like to suggest that, properly viewed, "policy markets" are a much bigger free speech issue than the recent ban on "indecent" internet posts. First, let's start with the puzzle "why free speech?". What is the fundamental difference between a legislature forbidding some people from making "indecent" speech at the request of others who fear being offended by such speech, and a legislature taxing some people to pay for other people's education or recreation? In each case interests are opposed, there are political winners and losers, and a majority may trample on some "rights" of a minority. Why should one case be forbidden and the other allowed? The strongest widely-accepted argument for having courts strike down laws which limit "free speech" is to protect communications intended to influence the political process. You see, even if a large majority preferred to ban indecent speech, or to fund education with taxes, they might never find out that they all preferred this outcome if they were prevented from publicly discussing the issue. Instead, a government might lock in its current advantage and preferences by forbidding any questioning of its current laws. Without free political speech, a minority might much more easily trample on a majority (a worse fate than a majority trampling a minority). Thus political speech deserves extra protection. Note, however, that this argument for political "speech" applies to any action whose main consequence is to communicate information to influence the political process (and whose other consequences are not overly burdensome to others). So not only should it apply to newspapers, TV, the internet, T-shirts, bumper-stickers, and window signs, but it should also apply to political demonstrations and other expensive political "signals". You see, the main information communicated by a political demonstration is not the words chanted or held high on posters, but that fact that these people care enough to spend their time demonstrating for this cause. (Thus it is important to demonstrate in clear public view, and to not look like you're having too much fun.) Expensive signals like demonstrations can communicate what mere words cannot - strength of feeling and opinion. (Sure you can say you really care, but everyone says that.) Unfortunately, many expensive political signals, such as campaign contributions and political advertizing, are widely limited by law. Perhaps such limits can be justified by arguing that these actions can also do much harm, in addition to communicating information to politicians and voters.