Eight Values Of Free Expression

After learning about the Eight Values of Free Expression, there were a few that stood out in relevance to today’s society, which I quickly connected to current events. These principles help ensure a functioning society with high levels of involvement in government. The central meaning of the First Amendment is that it acts as a mechanism for participation in self-government. The Eight Values of Free Expression work to continue promoting participation in government and society. 

First is the Marketplace of Ideas by John Milton. Milton claims that when truth and false information are left without interruption, the truth will win out and shine clearly. This makes me think about "fake news" and how social media channels, such as Instagram and Facebook, used to try to censor and block fake news. Now, they are shifting to a community-based reporting system to block inaccurate information rather than 3rd-party fact-checking. In my opinion, this clearly shifts the goal to align more with Milton’s ideas: let truth win out over falsehoods.

It is clear that Participation in Self-Government is essential to a productive election and society. Elections are important because they give the public the opportunity to drive change. If you do not like a policy or how someone has acted in office, the election gives you the opportunity to keep that person out of office. If candidates were unable to share each aspect of their policies, then voters would be blind to essential issues that may change the outcome of the vote. At the end of the day, if you don't have access to the full picture, the value of a voter decreases instantly. Presidential debates before elections are key to this theory, allowing candidates to speak about whatever they would like in moderated yet open-ended debates.

I believe that a world where people can't share their "crazy" ideas is a world that never changes. Benedict Spinoza seems to agree with his idea of Stable Change. I believe that people sharing and saying what others see as stupid—or even evil in some instances—helps others create their own ethical framework. One example is the California mayor who suggested in a town hall to "give the homeless all the fentanyl they want" which would directly purge the homeless population. This comment immediately spread online and the mayor received mixed reviews; most were highly negative, but there was also some positive feedback. While some said his comments were inhumane, others claimed it would help shrink the homeless population. This is what Benedict Spinoza wanted: he wanted people to be able to share their crazy ideas so others had the ability to fight back against them. Due to the negative backlash the mayor received, it is nearly impossible for him to move forward with the idea. 

When I read C. Edwin Baker’s idea of Individual Self-Fulfillment, I thought back to high school and the story a teacher told us about students who wore armbands to protest the Vietnam War. She told us the story because many students planned a march during the school day to protest the lack of protection plans in case of an emergency. While the situations are very different, our teacher told the story as a way to support her students' thinking and planning without going against school rules by telling students it was okay to miss class. Upon thinking back to the story, I did some research to discover the story was incredibly famous: the case of Tinker v. Des Moines. The suspension of the students was argued all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was ruled that the students were well within their constitutional rights. This aligns closely with Baker’s idea that people need to be able to express themselves and create their own identity, just as the students did when they decided to protest the war. 

One of the most currently debated topics is the Check on Government Power. Many Americans feel as though President Trump has continuously overstepped his power as a president and, due to this, many want to see a change in office. While some are hoping for more immediate change, others just want to make sure they are made aware of any choices made in the Oval Office, especially any that people view as power oversteps. The press has been sure to highlight and share any power oversteps with the public, such as this article from CNN sharing a list of times "experts" feel Trump overstepped his power.

Very similar to how I view Stable Change as a way to help people create their own ethical framework, I view the idea of Promoting Tolerance from Lee Bollinger. The example that popped into my head almost immediately is how, legally, people can still claim they are members of the KKK or Neo-Nazis. Everyone can look at them and see their ideas are wrong and full of hate, but it’s essential for the world to not fight legally against those people so society can persecute them socially. Seeing those individuals helps others see how wrong their ideas are and helps them shape ideas and moral safeguards for themselves.

Promoting Innovation quickly reminded me of a story I heard as a kid and recently watched as a movie, The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind. The story is about a young man who, after being forced to drop out of school during a drought, decided to spend his time in the library looking for solutions. He finally made a makeshift wind turbine that inspired local villages to take a second look at everything and find ways to reuse and better use what was around them. Many people in his village, even his own mother, called him crazy for collecting scrap metal, but then he did it and inspired everyone. This story displays how promoting innovation will always help society move further and advance quicker.

While similar to the check on government power, I feel that Protect Dissent could be used to describe why people become "whistleblowers" on government missteps. No one wants to go toe-to-toe with or be on the bad side of the government. However, it happens when people learn of government wrongdoing and have the ability to create change and share that with the public. This is similar to when military officials criticize how specific groups of troops have been used. The ability to do this—and the fact that it is so strongly protected by the First Amendment—helps ensure the government is held in check and unable to make choices without the fear of retribution by its citizens.