FREE SPEECH IN THE DIGITAL AGE — A STRUGGLE FOR TRUTH

BY WALLACE CALEB BATES

It is hard to believe that the COVID-19 pandemic's onset is now five years in the past. I will never forget the painstaking experience we endured as a collective people during that time. We faced a public health challenge and an issue involving disinformation unparalleled to any other era in American history. 

I try not to compare our modern days to bygone eras. The world has always been dysfunctional, and people have always lied and perpetuated harm against others with whom they disagree. However, social media platforms have only existed for a relatively short time. Social media, serving in its often-watchdog capacity, could have prevented some of our most widespread stains against humanity. 

Perhaps world leaders would not have turned their backs on the horrible occurrences in Hitler's Germany during the late 1930s; possibly, the slave trade would have never unjustly brought oppression to generations of African people and their descendants in the Americas. And, if it had not prevented the trade's formation, perhaps it could have prevented the unfair, unjust treatment of people of color during the Jim Crow era. 

There is no way to know. However, we are seeing the fruits of social media's existence through increased awareness of issues across society. Many people perceive this as a negative thing. Regardless, social media has done a lot of good. As a public relations professional and marketing agency owner, I rely on platforms to spread the word and reach new audiences. In other words, my livelihood depends on it. 

Regardless of one's connection to social media or opinions regarding it, it is best to assume that we are not moving away from it anytime soon. Well, I thought so, anyway. 

The Supreme Court has been in the headlines frequently in the past several years. During the ravaging of the COVID-19 pandemic, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away on Sept. 18, 2020, paving the way for Justice Amy Coney Barrett's appointment and a cascade of events that followed. 

Now, five years later, the Supreme Court has heard oral arguments regarding TikTok. Although falsely attributed to Justice Ginsburg, recent headlines regarding the state of freedom of speech in our country have reminded me of the quote, "Speak the truth, even if your voice shakes." 

As someone who has social anxiety, that quote has long provided me comfort amid my anxious spells. As a communication scholar, I have long heard that the medium is the message, which I took to mean my shaky voice devalues what I might say. However, I do not believe that is the case any longer. A shaky voice no longer constitutes a weak argument but a courageous one. 

In recent years, we have witnessed journalists speak the truth with shaky voices, often to influential figures who yearn to distort it and stoke the flames of division and hatred. This occurs on both sides of the political spectrum. While yellow journalism and other forms of propaganda have long resulted in public confusion, the freedom of the press — including satirical outlets — is fundamental to the existence of democracy. 

I may disagree with the perspective from which an opinion article is formed or the priorities that some outlets use when developing their stories. However, I do my best not to delegitimize their existence or call for their outlawing. In other words, something is not fake news simply because I disagree with it. 

Freedom of speech is the same case: a fundamental element of democracy. As mentioned, the COVID-19 pandemic shed light on an issue involving disinformation unparalleled to any other era in American history. Rather than searching for information from leading scientists, recognizing that the scientific process requires an ever-evolving trial-and-error that is sometimes self-contradictory, many chose to spread lies that COVID-19 was a hoax. 

In response to the lies about the pandemic, many social media platforms instituted fact-checking software to determine the legitimacy of claims. This resulted in concern among people who felt their truth was under fire. That is where our society faces a dilemma: Truth has become subjective because we have been taught to "live our truths" for so long. 

It is not easy to balance protecting free speech and allowing disinformation to spread via social media. I advocate for our collective commitment to prioritizing unbiased truth, but I know that the fairytale world does not exist before us. 

As an educator, I value the importance of critical thinking and media literacy. My middle and high school social studies teacher, Mr. John Baker, taught me how to think, not what to think. As I walk in his legacy and the legacies of the educators who came before me, I aim to do the same, recognizing the crucial role that our thinking plays in analyzing situations. 

Any student should learn to seek a myriad of perspectives on a given issue, verify information through reputable outlets, and step outside their personal reference frames to engage with those whose viewpoints differ. 

Also, it is critical for each of us to live our lives as we please and to do so without fear of discrimination or persecution. However, we must agree on some collective form of truth, an objective truth, that supersedes lines of difference and allows our society to come to an agreement on some issues of substance. While personal truths help us navigate our individual identities, a collective, objective reality is essential for societal understanding. Without it, we risk losing any semblance of common ground needed to address our most pressing issues. 

Our Declaration of Independence advocates for a collective truth, emphasizing their collective beliefs: 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." 

What does this mean for the future of social media? I don't know. In a book I have been reading entitled Thinking 101: How to Reason Better to Live Better by Woo-kyoung Ahn, I have learned so much about the way people interpret the world around them. For example, Ahn presents information about biased interpretations and one study's findings:

"... opponents ... became even more negative about it after having read details about the studies that supported the deterrent effects. That is, evidence that contradicted their original beliefs resulted in even more polarization" (p. 175).

Our awareness of this should inform our approach to disinformation. We should understand that our society is both hyperpolitical and hyperpolarized across lines of difference. Instead of directly confronting someone, we must empathetically consider their perspectives before interacting. Doing so allows us to reason with them where they are, even if that place is much different from our own. 

We must also be critical of our political leaders, at least in terms of their behaviors, policy endeavors, and actions, regardless of their party. Rather than viewing our elections as a game to win, we must view our elections as fundamental to the safekeeping of our democracy. 

As we elect officials, we must consider their willingness to participate in open dialogue about their stances on issues that matter to us. Just as we must urge them to speak publicly about their stances, we must offer them space to do so candidly without fear of retribution. 

When political leaders engage in open dialogue with their constituents, they set the tone for a society that values accountability and transparency. As citizens, we have the responsibility of encouraging this openness. Truth and integrity still matter despite the blurred lines that exist within our society now. 

Free speech is not just a right; it is a responsibility. To safeguard it, we must consider our cognitive biases, how we interact in our digital echo chambers, the challenges of being incorrect and correcting courses, and seeking collective understanding around issues of importance. Instead of viewing each other as enemies to destroy, we must view each other as neighbors to love. 

To move forward, we must approach our conversations empathetically, prioritize critical thinking, and commit to the collective pursuit of truth that transcends our differences. While social media is a powerful tool, it must be used responsibly to ensure it builds bridges rather than walls. 

Each of us holds the power to shape the conversations that define our society, our government, and our collective human experience. Let us use our voices, shaky or firm, not to silence others but to speak the truth with courage, listen empathetically, and protect the freedoms that enable democracy to thrive. The future of free speech depends on us listening with courage, seeking truth with wisdom, and uniting with empathy.