Recent events have me asking myself: What does freedom of speech mean to me? Should there be an established line of what freedom of speech can and can’t encompass?
In the United States, there are established lines to how far free speech extends to citizens. For instance, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect speech that incites imminent lawless action.
This is a fair request. If someone called for some form of imminent lawless action, in this case we will refer to a call for violence, people could get hurt. The intent of the message is to incite violence so, to prevent such action, messages like that are not protected. Such logic follows, to me at least.
Now, bear with me as we take a step into a more obscure form of media law, something that anyone who has had a media class should recognize: the Miller test. The purpose of the Miller test is to analyze a form of expression or speech to determine whether it is obscene. If found obscene, the expression or speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
I promise there is a reason why you are getting this lesson in media. The Miller test has three central prongs: whether the “average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, applies to the prurient interest”; whether “the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by state law”; whether “the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”
The Supreme Court uses this test when cases of obscenity arise. Why do you care? Just look at the test. It is subjective. The first two prongs explicitly apply to local or state law, meaning that the definition of obscenity can vary between one local government and another throughout the U.S.
Now, apply this globally. What passes for freedom of speech in the U.S. might not be as free as that of another nation, say France. The freedom of speech in the U.S. might be far more open than in other countries, too.
I understand, you are probably through with hearing about Charlie Hebdo, but once again, bear with me. Even though I am a media student, even though I have strong beliefs about freedom of expression, I cannot claim Je Suis Charlie Hebdo. I am not Charlie Hebdo, and I must explain why.
As Americans, I feel we laud ourselves over all of our freedoms, speech obviously included. We are the land of the free, home of the brave, are we not?
That said, we could work on a few things.
Recall the threats brought down on Sony pending their release of “The Interview” just last month. Initially, they chose not to release it. Please note the word “chose.”
The Sony executives chose not to release the film, self-censoring themselves for fear of the repercussions purported by cyber terrorists. Everyday-people, actors, even the U.S. president condemned Sony for not releasing the film. They are a bunch of hypocrites.
Self-censorship is a regular practice for media in the U.S., unfortunately. A large portion of U.S. media are privately owned. Media have also become increasingly and increasingly dependent upon advertising dollars as a source of revenue. If a company is buying ad space from your news organization, would you feel so inclined as to publicly criticize a practice of that company? Probably not. You might lose your job for calling out someone who is paying you. You might lose the advertiser.
The Federal Communications Commission does not tell every radio station what words to censor, nor which phrases DJs can not say over the air. It is up to stations to determine whether their content could be considered indecent. The threat of being reported for indecency hangs over any content outside of “safe harbor hours,” a time between 10 pm and 6 am when indecent material is permitted. Notice the vague definition of indecency, according to the FCC.
Out of the fear of a fine or worse, these stations steer clear of any content that might even skirt the lines of being indecent, regardless if the content really is or is not. Are media so afraid of fines that they will think twice about producing certain messages or content? Of course they are!
Even The Independent self-censors. We recently had to adjust our ad policy. We previously ran marijuana ads in our news magazine. Based on administrative pressure, as well as a refusal to distribute our news magazine in the admissions office at FLC, we decided to discontinue running the marijuana ads.
This presented itself as quite a touchy issue because, regardless of state law, recreational marijuana is still federally illegal, and FLC is a federally funded campus. Our editors mulled it over, and our editor in chief at the time, Ayla Quinn, made the final decision.
The Independent is partially funded by FLC, and as the saying goes, “You do not bite the hand that feeds you.” For fear of cut funds or other punishments, The Independent was guilty of self-censorship in this instance.
We started publishing a sex column in our news magazine last semester, written skillfully by
Remi Majeski, who graduated this Fall. It received both criticism and applause from our audience. A group of students attempted to censor this column.
Thankfully, our administration took action to protect our First Amendment rights, defending our freedom to publish that column.
This will not always be the case. Maybe this editorial will bring down the hammer. Maybe The Independent’s faculty advisor will receive an email denouncing my opinion, while also promising cuts to our funds. Will I risk it? Will I publish this? I will. I have said nothing patently offensive. My subject matter is not obscene. As passionate as I feel my writing is, I am not taking any risks that outweigh the message communicated here.
The more I learn about media, the more experience I gather, the more I am forced to wonder: How free is my speech, really? And with how the world is moving, will I have the same rights in future as I do now?