Response to "Fear spoils freedom's promise"

Question: What are the most pressing communication justice issues today?

Answer:

Some people might argue that we are less free in terms of how we can voice our opinions today than ever before. Between the increasing number on online forums & blogs such as this one, people can say what they want about almost anything. As Paul K. McMasters states, "Constant and rapid advances in new forms of media provoke new modes os speech and thus more anxiety". Whether that information is correct or not is a different story but it can still be broadcast via the internet.

At the same time I have difficulty in understanding why these new modes of speech cause more anxiety? The same anxiety and political pressures of what is seen as socially acceptable has always been there. The difference is that now you can say something and everyone with access to the internet can read it and make a judgment about what you say as being politically correct or incorrect. Perhaps this is the anxiety that McMasters is referring to in his article?

For me the most pressing communication justice issue today is the censorship of what people say by government organizations. Yes, some people are going to be racist, sexist, crude & a whole host of other labels but in the United States its still their right to voice their opinion. The most pressing justice issue is the thought that what people say can now be taken off the internet, the web page closed down and the person prosecuted to the full extent of the law for using the internet as a mass communication device to harbor ill will toward other people. Who has the power to determine that? It is the reason why humanity still debate today. Why should one government organization be able to have so much power that they shut that information off? That is no different than when our founding fathers gave public speeches in the square the only difference is that the square is now the world wide web. Somebody, some where is always going to get offended and I will grant you that some subjects such as racist remarks, broadcasting of porn and etc are most definitely questionable in terms of being politically correct. That is still the right of the individual to say what they feel. I think that with the internet more people have been silenced than heard. After all "when we encounter speech that doesn't square with our view of the world, we prefer punishment to persuasion". That still doesn't make the punishment justified.

In the end I agree that some kind of REGULATION is needed, but my question is: who would the watch dogs be without freedom of speech? How could anyone possibly influence or impact the government if that government were to turn bad and they had COMPLETE REGULATION OF THE MEDIA? Can you say George Orwell "1984" big brother is watching? You know how the saying goes: "ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY". So, why give that to a government? Besides, if a government organization were to limit or define what "indecencies, violence, hate speech, commercial speech and dissent" are what would we have to talk about? The fact is that people will always voice their opinions, if you take them off the internet they will organize and give public speeches. In one way or another people will always be heard. I consider our founding fathers to be VERY SMART INDIVIDUALS, and yes media has changed but hate speech or not, it should still be allowed. If not for the reason of generating debate on the topic as to what is right or wrong it should be allowed because it gives us something to talk about. These discussions are the very basis that allow certain societies to create conceptions of what is socially acceptable or not acceptable. When you take that away you actually create more chaos then good. In the article I think Hugo Black sums it up best. " If we are to pass on that great heritage of freedom, we must return to the original language of the Bill of Rights. We must not be afraid to be free".