This is America; love it or leave it is a phrase that has been said throughout our history to those who have questioned the government even when it was unpopular to do so. In Dissent, Injustice and the Meanings of America, Steve Shiffrin argued that the First Amendment protects minority views, no matter how unpopular. The rules and system that have been established protect everyone’s right to disagree with the government, no matter how ridiculous the majority may feel it is. In fact, as citizens, it is our patriotic duty to criticize the government. Throughout our country’s history, dissent has been a driving force for our evolving democracy. In fact, one could argue that dissenters gave birth to our country. Going all the way back to the 1600s, the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock due to religious dissent. Dissenters did not just land in Plymouth. For example, the Quakers laid claim to lands in Pennsylvania, while Catholics found refuge in Maryland. Our nation was formed out of dissent. After the French and Indian War, the British government levied taxes such as the Stamp Act and the Tea Tax to pay off war debt. Disagreeing with these taxes because there was a lack of colonial representation in Parliament, they started to protest, utilizing the power of the press and boycotts. After the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers viewed the power of dissent as important and ensured the passage of the First Amendment protecting the freedom of speech, press, and assembly (Shiffrin, 2000). While the government enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, Madison and Jefferson played the role of dissenters. (For a brief history of dissent in America, check out Dissent in America)
Throughout history, the role of citizen dissenter has moved our country forward. Shiffrin argues that the government should promote dissent because it lies at the core value of freedom of speech. He further claims our major institutions, including the media and Supreme Court, are wrongly limiting dissent. He believes society and the law should change to encourage nonconformity, and in turn, this would strengthen freedom of speech. Shiffrin adds that a dissent-based approach reveals weaknesses in the approaches to free speech taken by postmodernism, Republicanism, deliberative democratic theory, outsider jurisprudence, and liberal theory. To ensure that more voices are heard, he argues, the country should take such steps as making defamation laws more hospitable to criticism of powerful people, loosening the grip of commercial interests on the media, and ensuring that young people are taught the importance of challenging injustice (Shiffrin, 2000).
Currently, protecting the dissent has transformed from the local protester or newspaper to social media. There have been debates regarding “bad” speech or what can or cannot be posted on social media. We see this on both sides of the political aisle. There is criticism of the cancel culture, that if someone says or posts something that is not accepted by the powerful majority as correct, someone will be “canceled.” Being canceled can cause one to become a social pariah and, in some situations, cause one to lose their job or career. For example, a venue in Minneapolis refused to schedule a show with comedian Dave Chappelle over what critics said were transphobic jokes. (See more about The Faces of Cancel Culture).
“The stakes are very high in regard to how we answer the question because it is now evident that much of public discourse about public issues has migrated onto this new technology and is likely to continue that course into the future” (Bollinger & Stone, 2022). There have been arguments and discussions about banning outspoken people on Facebook and Twitter. It has been suggested that this is a slippery slope for freedom of speech. Where do we draw the line? Who decides what should be allowed and what should be banned?
We have seen Facebook come under fire for allowing misinformation to be posted during the last Presidential election as well as issues with posts in Myanmar. (Clark & Kocak, 2019). We have also seen people use Facebook to organize a revolution in Egypt and Black Lives Matter Protest. (See Facebook and Protest).
Depending upon one’s point of view, a text, a post, or a video can be seen as positive or negative. If we want freedom of speech, we all should have it. This should be freedom of speech as long as we agree with what is being said. As a society, government and those in power should not choose who can and cannot speak up. If this were the case, women would not have the right to vote, the civil rights movement would have never occurred, college students would not have helped end the Vietnam War, and the United States would not exist. Without the dissenter, our country will not move forward. For the good of the country, we need to protect the dissenter.
Bollinger, L. C., & Stone, G. R. (Eds.). (2022). Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of Our Democracy. Oxford University Press.
Clarke, K., & Koçak, K. (2019). Eight years after Egypt’s revolution, here’s what we’ve learned about social media and protest. Washington Post, 25.
Shiffrin, S. H. (2000). Dissent, injustice, and the meanings of America. In Dissent, Injustice, and the Meanings of America. Princeton University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment