61.6 F
Sunday, June 23, 2024
HomeCommentaryFree Speech Isn't Always Free

Free Speech Isn’t Always Free


Related stories

Foolishness As a Mirror

Explore the ancient spiritual concept of "holy fools" - eccentric figures who renounced worldly possessions to challenge society's norms and promote deeper faith across religions like Christianity, Eastern Orthodox, and more. Discover their radical role.

A Pilgrim Returns from Catholic Pilgrimage, Heart and Faith on Fire

A profound personal account of spiritual awakening and miracles experienced at the historic first Catholic National Eucharistic Pilgrimage in Idaho. The author shares how encountering the Blessed Sacrament in procession reignited their love for Jesus and the Eucharist, sparking a renewed hunger to deepen their faith journey.

Jewish Voices Protest Israeli Violence, Build Interfaith Solidarity in Spokane

Jewish Voice for Peace Spokane led an interfaith rally protesting the escalating Israeli violence against Palestinians and 76 years of ethnic cleansing and apartheid policies. The activists challenged local ties supporting the Israeli occupation, while building solidarity across Muslim, Christian, and diverse community groups against white supremacy threats.

Apology from U.S. Catholic bishops falls short for traumatized Indigenous families

Learn about the U.S. Catholic bishops' apology for the mistreatment of Indigenous families in American Indian boarding schools and how little it matters.

Machine guns and domestic violence: What is the future of gun control legislation?

Insights into the differences between two crucial gun control cases and their potential impact on future legislation. A must-read for those passionate about gun rights and public safety.

Our Sponsors


Free Speech Isn’t Always Free

Commentary by Becky Tallent

We have the right to say whatever we want, right? Isn’t that what the First Amendment says?

Not necessarily. While the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the right of free speech, there is no such restriction on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Both Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have placed limitations on what people can and cannot say, especially in public forums. Long gone are the days of people standing on a soapbox in a public square being allowed to say whatever they like.

In 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hague v. C.I.O., free speech in a public place has been limited because the court said the government has the right to control the time, place and manner of speech in a public forum. But, the court added, the government can only do so if there is a good reason and reasonable regulations are in place.

It begs the question: Has the internet become our new public forum? Maybe. Congress passed Section 230 (part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996) that protects internet providers from liability, but not the person making the speech.

Another limitation is someone making a “true threat,” or a statement directed towards a specific person and meant to frighten or intimidate another person and make them believe that they will be seriously harmed by the speaker or by someone acting on behalf of the speaker (Watts v. US, 1969).

Other restrictions to free speech mean people cannot libel or slander (defame) someone, use speech that would harm others (the “clear and present danger” or “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” (Schenck v. US, 1919) or using hate speech to encourage violence (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969)).

Why bring up this subject now?

Social media is sometimes called a bastion of free speech, but often people ignore the laws and say whatever they want. This often causes harm – either physically, economically, socially or emotionally – on another person or people. The case of four murdered college students in Moscow and the collateral damage created by it is a prime example.

Students working at the Argonaut student paper have been harassed by internet trolls and social media stalkers. Students generally have a significant online footprint, so it is relatively easy to find them. From there, the stalkers and trolls can make life miserable for the students who are just trying to do their reporting and editing jobs of telling the truth about what is happening.

What these trolls are doing by demanding the students report rumor and innuendo could be construed as a true threat and a form of fighting words, but it could also be argued they are violating other restrictions such as found in the Hague ruling. The problem is the perpetrators are usually anonymous and using an online forum instead of a public park.

Perhaps the most damaging cases being seen are the trolls and stalkers do not like what the police are saying, so they make up their own scenarios and accuse innocent people.

The case of Rebecca Scofield is an illustration. While Ashley Guillard, a Texas woman who claims to solve crimes using tarot cards using TikTok as her forum, may have the right to consider who she thinks might have perpetrated the crime, to call out and name someone to millions of TikTok viewers, a person who is not being investigated nor has any association with the students, can be construed as libel or slander in addition to a true threat.

Any journalist who has taken media law knows to prove libel or slander you must be able to prove damage has been caused. In her December 21 federal lawsuit, Scofield said she has been threatened by Guillard’s followers, she fears for her children’s safety and her professional reputation is damaged by Guillard’s statements.

Paraphrasing a Moscow resident, who used much more colorful and profane language, people seem to have “lost the plot” when it comes to spewing things online. It points up the fact most Americans strongly believe they have an absolute right to free speech.

What people do not realize is no speech is absolute and there are limitations to everything, including freedom of speech.

Becky Tallent
Becky Tallent
An award-winning journalist and public relation professional, Rebecca "Becky" Tallent was a journalism faculty member at the University of Idaho for 13 years before her retirement in 2019. Tallent earned her B.A. and M.Ed. degrees in journalism from the University of Central Oklahoma and her Educational Doctorate in Mass Communications from Oklahoma State University. She is of Cherokee descent and is a member of both the Indigenous Journalists Association and the Society of Professional Journalists. She and her husband, Roger Saunders, live in Moscow, Idaho, with their two cats.

Our Sponsors

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x