Online, freedom of expression changes depending on where you go. Proper policies have yet to be put in place on the internet in regards to universal freedoms of expression.

In 2012 a woman hit another car carrying four teenage passengers and promptly posted to Facebook, “My dumb (expletive) got a dui and I hit a car…lol” according to NBC News. She was jailed for two days after failing to comply with the judge’s orders to deactivate her account. Not recognizing the seriousness, this woman blatantly disregarded decency and drastically diminished the harm of her online words.

“The internet as a human right,” by Catherine Howell and Darrell M. West through Brookings Institution mentions women and girls are especially “heavily impacted by the digital divide.” This article addresses when Article 19 was passed in 2016, making the internet an official human right under Section 32.

Although now information is more easily accessible to both consume and produce, this access can be swiftly taken by a nation’s government. This was happening in 2016 and it still exists as a problem in 2023 – as can be seen here. This article predicted the continuation of this issue, as it was written, “In a world where internet shutdowns are increasing year to year.”

Creating a ranking of values for the internet is nearly impossible as it is a global conglomeration. Different countries lead by differing values with separate codes of conduct.

For example, in Germany, an online statement led to an arrest – as detailed in this article. “‘There has to be a line you cannot cross,’” said a state prosecutor. He advocates for consequences of online words. Under the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Article 1 translated for English speakers, it reads, “(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.” Germany’s values uphold the ideals of their country. However, what is fitting for one country may bar someone’s First Amendment rights in the next.

And in May of 2021, it was made a crime to use hate-motivated insults in Germany. This article mentions the country finds it their responsibility to protect its citizens, “from hostility and exclusion.”

The United Kingdom has similar regulations. “A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another,” under The Communications Act of 2003 in the United Kingdom. These great cultural differences make policing free speech on the internet difficult.

An article regarding a ACLU defamation suit detailed an arrest after comments written on a news article. A comment was made calling an officer corrupt, but this wasn’t allowed under New Hampshire’s law. More specifically, “…criminal defamation law, which makes it a misdemeanor to intentionally and falsely,” the web page goes on to explain.

While the man tried to appeal the charge, it was denied. Through the state’s public radio more details were provided: there was no evidence to back the hateful statements and the man also had an extensive criminal history. This may be taken into consideration.

The legal director at New Hampsire’s American Civil Liberties Union stated, according to Seacoastonline, “We’re disappointed that the First Circuit failed to recognize the vagueness that permeates this statute and authorizes sweeping discretion for law enforcement to arrest and prosecute their critics,” which mirrors the previous article’s distain for the situation.

As shown, it is difficult to specifically rank values such as freedom of expression, right to privacy, or even the impact of one’s speech on others.

Privacy rights are essential, and almost nonexistent in the current media landscape. As privacy concerns are not new, take spam mail and email from unknown sources for example, each day is a greater cause for concern to maintain privacy. Personal data and information needs to be protected. I believe this can be a universal digital standard.

This selected artifact is a whimsical storybook painting from the early 1900’s created by Warwick Goble.

While it is unclear exactly when this particular piece was created, it can be surmised as he created the majority of his illustrations around the aforementioned time. This is evident if a fan, but you can also see this on his Wikipedia page. Information of this mysterious artist is hard to come by as his works far outnumber the amount of personal information there is about this elusive man.

The easy to follow infographic ‘How to Do a Visual Analysis’ sheet created by Curtis Newbold outlines pathos as asking, “Does the artifact employ devices (colors, images, words) that cause an emotional reaction to it?” In response to this, I find the above image to cause much emotion. I also see ‘Rule of Thirds’ being displayed in this work, as well as ‘Red Effect’ where the viewer’s eye is drawn in certain areas with this color.

‘Hind’ means female deer, but it also means ‘posterior’ and ‘back’ and I see this as meaning to showcase the woman present as an Artemis figure, the backbone of the forest. This theme of protection is evident with the feminine character shielding the deer from harm. The creator’s attitude amplifies the power of femininity – which is present throughout his other works, with women being exalted.

While this artifact was originally intended to be in the houses of exclusive people, it can now be found on creative common image websites. I am lucky enough to be able to use his works on my blog posts in modern day.

According to Dorothy Barenscott’s article “Focus on Research | The Elements of Art: Form, Content, and Content,” content more simply means “message.” I think the message here is to tell a story, showing another perspective than the usual. The man is rightly represented as a fool, seemingly hunting for sport, and this man’s fun and folly in the woods has been stopped short with a moment of insight. The story, beauty, and meaning make the viewer care about the message.

The rise in state-level legislation narrowing various elements of freedom of expression around the United States is a very concerning trend.

A great visual representation of this occurrence is this Google Doc, which categorizes 115 bills introduced between 2015 until 2019. After going through the status of each of the bills, I found these results:

Died: 69

Passed: 23

Pending: 17

Vetoed: 6

Ironically in hindsight, many of the bills were presented regarding the criminalization of face coverings prior to the COVID pandemic:

January 2017, HB 1304: “Subjects individuals who commit certain crimes to harsher punishments if wearing a mask.” This bill ended up passing.

February 2017, HB488: regarded masks criminal when used to evade a crime, but died.

August 2017, BR175: was a bill that died but folded into HB 53, which would penalize, “…wearing masks or protective gear…” while in public.

January 2018, HB 2007: bill passed making it a felony wearing a mask to avoid identification during crimes. Passed in direct response to a Trump rally from August.

2019, SB 78: regarding face coverings died, which would create more strict penalties, “…while wearing a mask or facial covering”

These bills either focus on protestors or actual criminals. Protestors and people actively committing crimes appear to be some of the only targets.

In fact, the term “protest” can be found 128 times in the document. Considering that again 115 bills are mentioned on this list, this is staggering. Based on a Word Frequency Counter, the 6th most common word was infrastructure, 7th died, 14th highway, 15th protests, 19 protesters. However, this conclusion isn’t based solely on word frequency analysis. In terms of targeting protestors specifically, this can be seen in more additional cases.

PEN America is an organization dedicated to keeping free speech free. They have acutely been painstakingly keeping track of bills for a while now.

Their very informative article reflects this shocking discovery of legislation being passed as aforementioned. This article states that since 2015, out of 116 proposed bills, “…23 have become law across 15 states. Nearly a third of all states have implemented new regulations on protest-related activity in the past five years.” This group found that, since 2017, the rate of bills passing is 20% – which is significant considering these recent numbers. They also document a recent boom of bills, with 110 being introduced between 2017 and 2019 alone and typically single out protestors.

This has been traced back to the November 2016 American election, where more bills have been planned and sometimes enacted. According to PEN America, they use a strong comparison showing that if you add the years 2015 and 2016 together, only six bills were suggested surrounding protestor rights.

Similar to book bans, these suggested bills clearly have a ‘chilling effect’ in terms of free speech. With threat of strict regulations to possibly be passed, people can be deterred from exercising their rights and it may even discourage protest activity.

The PEN America article “Arresting Dissent: Legislative Restrictions on the Right to Protest” concluded in finding a correlation between, “…the increase in these legislative proposals and the rise of broad-based protest movements in the relevant states,” and reported at times it is made, “explicitly clear that their bills have been proposed with specific protestors in mind.” This is concerning.

Suppression on the right to assemble and speech freely is clearly a violation of First Amendment rights, ever so carefully disguised as a well-intentioned bills. This trend toward restricting protest activity presents a significant shift in how states approach First Amendment protections.

As far as a policy being an appropriate avenue to regulate freedom of speech, this doesn’t seem to work when done. Gooding v. Wilson shows a policy from Georgia that was shot down. This policy had outlawed the use of, “opprobrious words or abusive language tending to cause a breach of the peace,” but this was found to be unconstitutional. Overall, it can be shown that policing language has its challenges.

In 2020, several news organizations faced defamation lawsuits regarding their election coverage and the tension between freedom of the press and accountability came into sharp focus.

The First Amendment provides that, “Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting its free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” according to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, it protects assembly as well as the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Primarily, America prides itself in allowing its citizens to speak freely and extends this protection to news outlets.

However, this protection does not grant reporters an impenetrable shield behind which anything can be said without consequence. Complete and absolute immunity from accountability would be irresponsible and dangerous. Journalists and the organizations they represent hold themselves to certain standards. Writers also have reputations at stake to uphold. Although reputation is not an important value to everyone, editors and peer reviewers aid in screening out mistakes.

It is essential for information to be accessible to the public and responsibly dispersed. Although it is technically alright by law to produce inaccurate information, the social penalties of doing so or the threat of career loss typically prevent this from occurring intentionally.

Considering the First Amendment speaks against censorship of the press, reporters unequivocally have the right to the freedom of expression. Media organizations have standards of writing, as well as codes of conduct. The New York Times, for example, has a Standards and Ethics page which begins with, “The trust of our readers is essential.” Their public ethics handbook outlines specific practices in order to fact-check, verify sources, and discloses conflicts of interest. This requires that reporters have integrity by verifying their information through multiple sources and also ensures distinguishing between advocacy and news reporting. They demonstrate this sentiment through their actions as a company. With an Ethical Journalism Booklet provided for the public to view, it is taken very seriously.

Professionals in the media have stringent standards. The Society of Professional Journalists states the first of four principles for ethical journalism to be, “Seek Truth and Report It,” which goes on to provide a detailed and strict way of writing that reporters must follow. The journalism community’s commitment to truth is evident in these rigorous codes, which hold media professionals accountable for their work.

It’s important to remember what might be thought of as a fact today can be seen as a mistake tomorrow. From nutritional guidelines that shift between recommending and warning against certain foods, there is new information being produced and processed daily. The First Amendment should protect reporters and news organizations to inform the public.

Through the 1990s until current day, issues pertaining to the media v. free speech have graced the courts. Notable cases include:

Grosjean v. American Press Co. in 1936 established that any interference from the government preventing free expression is not allowed according to the First Amendment as it explicitly provides the press with protection. Specifically, this case covers an instance where media was being taxed for its content in Louisiana, which had violated First Amendment rights.

The New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964 finalized a malice standard which, “…is the legal standard established by the Supreme Court for libel cases to determine when public officials or public figures may recover damages in lawsuits against the news media.” This means they must provide evidence that false statements were made while clearly knowing they were incorrect. I believe in the instance of malice there should be no shield for the media, by principle and based on these court proceedings.

The weaponized defamation lawsuit against members of the media is concerning. Even with litigation funding, where court costs are financially backed by private parties, courts take time which in turn takes even more money. This creates a chilling effect on investigative reporting, as the threat of being sued majorly interferes with the natural flow of information. Even if supported for legal fees, news organizations might instead choose silence rather than reporting important stories.

In cases where a news organization is sued for defamation, it has to be proven that the statement is false. If true, that is not defamation. Reputational harm and malice need to be preexisting for it to constitute as a defamation case as well.

Anti-SLAPP, or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, laws are statutes that have been put in place to lessen the amount of lawsuits used to intimidate another party into not speaking out. These types of tricky lawsuits made to silence others result in court fees and can take considerable time and energy. Anti-SLAPP statutes are in place to protect individuals’ wallets, time, and energy.

Free expression is valuable and important, both on a personal and public level.

On an up close and personal level, free expression allows individuals to live freely as who they are. As everyone is unique, this will look and sound different for everyone. Free expression can be as simple as rocking a buzzcut because that’s how you feel best or calling sports as a whole “trash” when they are brought up in discussion – it can be as complex as society and our inner lives.

People tend to express themselves from their word choice to their sense of fashion sense. Free expression allows anyone to dress any way and address what is on their mind at any given moment. Nevertheless, free expression comes with the responsibility to accept consequences for one’s actions and words.

Expression has its limits. It is perfectly acceptable to wear wings for a Halloween party. However, it is not as advisable to wear wings to a business event while claiming oneself to be a fairy, under the guise of freedom of expression. On a more serious note, free expression is needed to run a democracy in a public sense. Within a democracy, citizens need to speak up to disclose concerns. In theory, this disclosure should also help prevent corruption.

This concept contributes by quite literally creating identity, allowing people to express who they are – verbally and physically. It is vital for one to shape an identity that is separate from society. People can only begin to think for themselves once they can start conceptualizing on their own, separate from their community.

Free expression is worth protecting as it is a human right. Article 10 already protects these rights. There is no feasible or realistic way to completely prevent people from sharing their opinions anyway, and that type of society and environment would be unjust.

The concept of parrhesia, or fearless speech that offends those in power, is relevant here: I do not believe all free expression is equal. For example, unnecessary and cruel hate towards individuals is personally intolerable. The law unfortunately does not agree with this stance in all circumstances.

According to the American Library Association under an article about hate speech it is disclosed that, “Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group.”

Referencing Plato, Michel Foucault’s lecture includes the passage, “..the problem of the freedom of speech becomes increasingly related to the choice of existence, to the choice of one’s way of life.” While there can be many problems involving freedom of speech, I found it interesting that existence is described as being a choice. There also exists the choice to use our words to not spread hate.