To Speak or Not to Speak: A Deliberation about Freedom of Speech and National Security

Transcription

1 To Speak or Not to Speak: A Deliberation about Freedom of Speech and National Security Post-Deliberation Report Overview: The Issue at Hand The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Controversy over the actions of Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks has led to a debate over whistleblowers and if they deserve protection. Controversy over the film The Interview and the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has led to a debate over the media s access and use - or abuse - of the First Amendment. These four recent events have served as catalysts to bring to the fore how freedom of speech can be a threat to national security. Hence, the issue at hand is: should freedom of speech be recognized when dealing with national security; if so, how can one strike a balance between free speech and national security? No government regulation of the First Amendment ( Approach One )? The self-regulation of media outlets ( Approach Two )? Government regulation of the First Amendment ( Approach Three )?

2 Approach One: Allowing the People and the Media to Fully Exercise Freedom of Speech After the discussion of Approach One, there was general consensus that freedom of speech is a necessity, but it would require some restraint. Even though there is evidence that the media and the citizens of a nation can temper their own speech, people tend to still remain hesitant about the idea of unbridled free speech. Every individual that participated in the deliberation also d that because of the internet, there needs to be some limit or restriction on speech. As one of participants stated, the internet now can be used to share info with the whole world making [freedom of speech] more dangerous. Another common ground was that the right to free speech is more ideal than practical. Despite a lengthy discussion concerning ments with the approach, all of the participants d to with the concept that unrestricted free speech is not realistic in a society like that of the United States. Questionnaire Results: In regards to Approach One... Not sure (A.) Congress respects the First Amendment in which, it shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech. (B.) The government should make the Founding Fathers proud by not interfering in free speech and free press. (C.) Whistleblowers should not be reprimanded for inspiring a society of freethinkers. 0% 90.9% 9.1% 0% 0% 0% 63.6% 27.3% 0% 9.1% 18.2% 36.4% 18.2% 9.1% 18.2%

3 Approach Two: A Self-Regulating Media There are two beliefs that formed when discussing the possibility of a self-regulating media. The first is that the media itself cannot be trusted to self-regulate because the media is fundamentally a business and will pursue what is profitable. An argument against this stated that the media is composed of citizens who are naturally interested in national security, which was reflected in Sony s decision to pull The Interview from theaters. Although the entire deliberation group did not reach an ment on how much power the media should be trusted with, there was a consensus that the media should hold more power than the government when it came to the content that was relayed to the public, since the media had more incentive to be honest than the government had. The government would have played a passive role, only engaging in serious matters in the media. In the end, the group seemed to that while media self-regulating would be ideal in theory, it may be more difficult to execute in practice. Questionnaire Results: In regards to Approach Two... Not sure (A.) If media was self regulated, it would have a positive effect on the factuality and reliability of media. (B.) Regulating editorial media infringes upon our freedom of speech. (C.) If a certain type of media threatens national security, the government should be allowed to get involved. 18.2% 54.6% 18.2% 0% 9.1% 18.2% 18.2% 27.3% 0% 36.4% 45.5% 45.5% 9.1% 0% 0%

4 Approach Three: Allowing the Government to Take Preventative Measures After discussing Approach Three, there was a consensus that with a more heavily government-regulated media there would be better national security, but the willingness to adopt this type of regulation varied. At first, it seemed that all deliberation members were in ment that human lives were the most important factor in determining what should be done about free speech. Further discussion led to the point that the choice Sony made to pull the movie from theaters was likely done in the hope that the lives of innocent people may be saved by complying with the hackers requests. Another point of discussion regarded revolution within a nation. Many protests are begun by people who speak against a certain law, system, or way of life. By restricting freedom of speech to protect national security, the deliberation group worried that the nation s people could lose opportunities to create moments to change injustices within our nation or the world. This is where what seemed to originally be common ground become more unclear; is it more valuable to save a life, or to save a moment for change? Despite long conversation about the topic, the group was unable to come to terms with ranking the importance of human lives and revolutions against social wrongdoings. Questionnaire Results: In regards to Approach Three... Not sure (A.) The Espionage Act violates our freedom of speech. (B.) A $10,000 fine and a twenty year prison sentence is a fair punishment for a whistleblower. (C.) Government involvement would prevent potential terrorist attacks from occurring due to issues such as The Interview or Charlie Hebdo. 9.1% 27.3% 27.3% 18.2% 18.2% 18.2% 9.1% 9.1% 36.4% 27.3% 27.3% 27.3% 0% 9.1% 36.4%

5 Conclusion: Points of Consensus, Tension, and Policy Recommendations By the end of the deliberation, there appeared to be as many points of consensus as there were points of controversy. Participants d that free speech should be valued and that terrorism is a concern on the minds of many American citizens. Free speech is subsequently related to national security and is necessary for a functioning democracy. However, there was tension among deliberation participants of how whistleblowers are viewed and if the media and the government should be trusted. One of the most significant points of tension is that participants could not on a way to combine all three approaches to the issue of free speech and national security. Although a conclusion could not be reached by the entire group, there was ment that all three approaches are part of a larger picture. How the participants viewed this picture changed by the means of the forum -- one s perception of releasing government information was altered by discussing the corruption, standards, motives, and self-regulation of government and media. Participants admitted that after the discussion they realized how insecure private knowledge is. One interesting point that was brought up was the idea of psychological wars and interests. The role of government and media in respect to free speech and national security is the principal unresolved issue of the deliberation. As a result of the tensions present at the end of the deliberation, it is difficult to draw a direct course of action. Clearer lines need to be drawn to determine how policies should be formed around certain issues; for instance, what is deemed an issue that threatens national security? What is considered dangerous for whistleblowers to leak out? Is satirical work reasonable and should it be protected? However, it is evident with the questionnaire results that most participants seem to be torn between Approach One -- full access to freedom of speech -- and Approach Two -- a self-regulating media; therefore, a policy recommendation based on these results leans toward these two approaches. Most people would like Congress to respect the people and the media s right to freedom of speech and only get involved when there are cases like The Interview in which the media s right to freedom of speech is threatening national security. In cases where national security is not being threatened, media should self-regulate and the government should not be allowed to interfere with the citizens right to freedom of

6 speech. Even though the government did get involved with The Interview, most people still were on the fence about whether or not government involvement would actually prevent terrorist attacks. Media is another area where more research might be conducted, while most people were in ment that media should be self regulated, they still weren t sure whether if the government getting involved in media necessarily infringed upon our right to freedom of speech. In regards to whistleblowers, most of the deliberation participants asserted the position that these individuals should not be given a harsh punishment for simply inspiring a society of freethinkers. Most participants believed that $10,000 and twenty years in prison would be much too severe. More research should be conducted in regards to the fine line between too weak or too harsh of a punishment to whistleblowers. Approach Three -- permitting government interference -- was the least favored and the most conflicted approach. There was a wide variety of answers for whether or not The Espionage Act violates freedom of speech but the majority of people were in ment. This would be another area for more research to be conducted to determine another policy recommendation that regards The Espionage Act. If a policy recommendation was to be offered based on To Speak or Not to Speak: A Deliberation about Freedom of Speech and National Security it would state that the United States should have self-regulated media and that the government should only be allowed to intervene in the people s right to freedom of speech in circumstances involving threats to national security.

7 Questionnaire Results: Definitely Maybe Maybe Not Definitely Not Not Sure Are you thinking differently about the issue of freedom of speech and its relationship to national security now that you have participated in the forum? In your forum, did you talk about aspects of the issue Edward Snowden, WikiLeaks, The Interview, Charlie Hebdo, etc. you had not considered before? 54.5% 45.5% 0% 0% 0% 90.9% 9.1% 0% 0% 0% 17 or younger or older How old are you? 0% 90.9% 9.1% 0% 0% P.S.U. Student Non P.S.U. Student P.S.U. Professor Non P.S.U. Professor Non P.S.U. Employed Unemployed What title best describes you? 90.9% 0% 9.1% 0% 0% 0% Democrat Republican Libertarian Unaffiliated Unsure What is your political affiliation? 45.5% 9.1% 18.2% 18.2% 9.1%