Free speech has been stretched too far. In the times of the founders, free speech was implemented so the individual would be permitted to speak against those in rule. The freedom to speak brought diversity into the opinions of the people and allowed growth in a developing society. Latent ambiguity has played a vital role to many of our governing politics but in terms of free speech, our country has regressed. Because of the largely unregulated spectrum of free speech, tabloids are now the poster-child for American culture and burning the country’s flag is legal.
Free speech gives media the power to say almost anything they want. We are showered daily with the opinions of writers on the “War in Iraq” or “the latest movie release” or “how parents should treat their children.” Although “confronting the problems of unfiltered content” creates better citizens, this showering of opinions creates a bias in the content provided to the reader because the content released by media is controlled. The large media businesses like New York Times or CNN all release or discuss content that favors their points of view. Because of competition rooted in capitalism, the media is now controlled and express no diversity in opinion. Therefore, free speech is flawed.
On the internet, we can view blogs, forums, and chats. These online resources are the essentials of free speech. They provide a common place for people to banter, support, and refute opinions. This open source, “forum” style of free speech should be the model of free speech.
3 comments:
Right to free speech get us to believe to the fundamental of freedom, which brought historically respect and continues to be an idealized fiction legally and socially. Yes. Free speech gives media the power to say almost anything they want. But it will bring the bad influence to us, especially to the children. When, media have power to say whatever they want, this means that can show or come out with any articles or stories without a proper filter. We might prone to the bad influence, such as pornography, violence, and so forth. This situation becomes even worse when it involve with a big source of media, like internet and television. The danger is media intend to speak over the limited they should be. They tend to come out with the sensitive issues which consequently cause anger to certain part of community. It is good to give an open thought, but we should consider the issues that we talk about, maybe it might goes beyond the limit.
I do agree that the idea of “free speech” is rooted in the American Constitution, and yes, when prompted, I believe that most educated Americans will cite media publications such as television broadcasts and printed newspapers as the main “users” of this freedom. These means of speech have the broadest scope. For this, I assume that many think that they also have the largest impact. While this may be true for the uneducated America—the part of the population that eats dinner nightly in front of the television set, believing all information the media spoon feeds. I think that many others watch these broadcasts, take the opinions “with a grain of salt”, and then compares this information to other articles they read in a newspaper, in an economic magazine such as The Economist, or conversation on a discussion board between those with opposing views. Overall, the media broadcasters should have the same weight as those who write for online journals, create websites, etc. But unfortunately, this cannot hold true for those individuals who do not read these online journals, websites, or discussion forums. So until the population as a whole has access to these outlets and utilize them, the influence of television media will be inappropriately heavy.
The media effectively controls and biases the information that is received by the vast majority of the United States. Though this is certainly regrettable, it is the responsibility of the American citizen, not the media, to ensure that information pertaining to all sides of an issue is assimilated. Yes, it is true – in the most recent election, media air time for President-elect Obama heavily outweighed that of Senator McCain, which, when compounded with the dramatic leftish bent of many major news organizations, significantly contributed to Obama's successful campaign. It is no surprise that the typical American receives nearly all of his news from such sources as CNN, ABC, or CBS, unwittingly learning of the world through the paradigm approved by the controlling editors. Despite this, I do not fault the aforementioned organizations – their viability is entirely contingent upon their ability to produce a profit, not their ability to fairly convey national and global happenings.
It is the very existence of the internet and the "process" Lessig describes that makes this more acceptable. Without the blogs, forums, and other sources described by the original poster, the media's vice grip would only prove tighter. The resolution of ignorance is not the responsibility of the media; it is the responsibility of the ignorant.
Post a Comment