The internet has COMPLETELY reshaped what freedom of expression looks like, and it continues to develop and grow into something we have never seen before. Before everything moved online, courts were already dealing with different rules for previous types of media. A good example is the case FCC v. Pacifica, where the Supreme Court allowed the government to restrict certain broadcast content because radio reached people in their homes without warning, and the topics of conversations sometimes weren’t wanted by families. But once the internet came along and everything went mobile, everything changed. Suddenly, we were dealing with a global platform that anyone could use and no one really controlled, so the lines of freedom of expression were blurred, and there was a need for new rules and new control. The idea that each medium presents different First Amendment challenges became even more true when digital platforms became the main and almost only way we communicate and share our opinions with the world.
One of the biggest turning points in protecting online expression came with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Those “twenty-six words” basically created the modern internet by allowing platforms to host user content without being legally responsible for everything their users say as we have seen some crazy things posted on the internet. Without this, platforms like Instagram or TikTok probably would not exist in the way we know them because they would be too afraid of lawsuits with the craziness that people have the nerve to post. But at the same time, Section 230 made people rethink where the line is between free expression and harmful content, especially when misinformation and harassment spread so easily online and have become such a major issue we face on the daily.
International ideas about expression add another layer to this conversation. Documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognize that free expression IS a universal right, but also allows more room for limitations compared to that of the First Amendment. These documents acknowledge that protecting people from possible harm can sometimes outweigh total freedom people want sometimes. This becomes really important when we start thinking about this new digital age because online speech can reach HUGE audiences almost instantly and can affect people’s real lives in ways that those lawmakers decades ago quite literally would have never imagined.
With all of these different changes, it feels necessary to think about whether certain values should be ranked in today’s digital environment. I do not think it has to be a really rigid list, but I do think some principles should guide how we handle digital speech and controlling it. First, freedom of expression still very mch matters because it allows people to participate in society, challenge power, and share their experiences without feeling like they are fully under the control of someone else. That being said, expression cannot exist without considering privacy, especially when so much of our data is collected without us ever even noticing. Privacy needs to be high on the list because it protects people from surveillance, manipulation, and that feeling that they have no control over their online identity and personal information.
Another value that belongs near the top is the impact of speech on others. Online harassment, targeted misinformation, and coordinated attacks can silence people just as effectively as laws or censorship could. If hateful speech on a platform drives users away or harms certain groups, then the environment is not truly free and becomes very toxic. Access also really matters because the internet cannot serve as a space for our expression if large groups of people cannot even get online, which is why alot of scholars argue the internet should be considered a human right and I honestly could not agree more. It has become such a huge aspect of our lives and how we go throughout our regular days, so why would it not become intertwined with our rights.
The internet has opened up so many different opportunities for expression that people in the past could only dream of, but it also forced us to rethink how certain rights interact and which ones deserve more protection in a bunch of certain situations. In the end, a balance between expression, privacy, impact, and access is the most realistic way to protect both individuals and the digital public sphere we all depend on while allowing us to grow with the rapidly growing media.
Leave a Reply