Protecting Our Freedom of Speech in a Flat, Digital World (Essay Sample)

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Protecting Our Freedom of Speech in a Flat, Digital World
Introduction
Freedom of speech means refers to the ability for one to be able to express his or her opinion on matters affecting them whether political, economic or social freely in the society. In the global community today, the internet has played a significant role in promoting the ability of people to air their opinions at a local, regional and global context. With this, people critic issues which at times leads to conflicts among them and those being criticized. Quinn adds that, freedom of speech does not mean that individuals should publish their opinions without considering the effects it has on the parties involved, especially if the information is defamatory. This paper will, therefore, review how limitations and censorship can be imposed which can restrict one’s ability to have true freedom of speech efficiently online and how the topic relates to the Canadian context. It will also examine the matters concerning preserving one’s fundamental right to freedom of speech apart from the protections that are initially provided for in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Censorship and other limitations on true freedom of expression online
Speech is the same whether it is delivered online, at a public square, in private or in public websites. The law clearly defines how freedom of expression should be utilized by individuals. Since the internet undergoes frequent changes, laws need amendments which are the case with the United States’ Supreme Court laws. One way in which the censorship can be applied is the lack of obligation by the privately owned websites to allow one to post anything freely on their space. It is evident from the defamation case between Kinney and Barnes in the US where Barnes was being accused of writing abusive messages alleging that Kinney, who happens to be an ex-employee of his company, was trying to offer a bribe a law firm in a bid to employ one of Barnes’s applicants through two private websites (Crocker). The court always bars the person from posting such information online again if found to have posted defamatory messages.
Another limitation is that, even though companies know that it is to their interest to allow freedom of speech where customers can freely comment about their services, it does not make it one’s right to do so. If a company realizes that some of the reviews made are defamatory, a lawsuit may ensue. This in itself, is a limitation though other corrective comments from clients may not be abusive suggestions on what can be done to better their services. For instance, lawyers accused the Virginia Court of Appeals of ordering the reveal the identities of the reviewers who made false Yelp defamatory reviews (Crocker). They termed it as a failure by the court to fully protect the freedom of speech of the individuals and a way to silence them. It is evidence on how the law enforcement agencies can hinder freedom of speech.
It is, therefore, important to note that legal challenges thrive on this issue where many of which try to define what is protected and what is not in an era where the line between private and public is unclear. According to Leatherman, the fact that people treat the use of the internet as an open space makes it a challenge as well. Most costs in the United States have a tried to come down on the side of ensuring that the use of private services is subject to their moderation and rule. However, the government and individuals cannot interfere with one’s private speech or silence one’s speech because they do not like it.
How the topics are related to the Canadian Context
The topics relate to the Canadian context with the reasoning that, in Canada, freedom of speech is protected and treated as a fundamental freedom. In relation with the United States’ Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian’s does not make the freedom of speech absolute. According to Kott, there are limitations and censorship that governs how individuals express themselves concerning issues affecting them be it in public or private online spaces. The first section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms permits the government to impose limits on the freedom of speech as long as those restrictions can be justified and are reasonable. The same applies in the United States and is done through the court.
Many at times, the issue becomes controversial both to those individuals in the US and those in Canada because some people may feel that are considered for the reasonable justifications are vague in a way. Just like the lawyers who claimed that the Virginia Court of Appeals failed to protect the freedom of speech in the case of the Seven Yelp reviewers, many cases as such has been experienced in Canada (Quinn 147). It grants the government the enormous power to regulate and influence the freedom of speech. However, in the United States, the government has less influence unless when it comes to infringement of the government processes by a statement made either in a public or private space, though the same is arbitrated through the court system like in Canada. Therefore, it is evident that the topic relates to the Canadian context in some ways as stated above.
The issue of preserving our fundamental right to freedom of speech
In the bid to prevent abuse which threatens the whole civilization, to create an environment that makes all people happy, and to prevent immense unjustified suffering, people are granted their rights in each and every civilized society (Barton). For these to be realized, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the freedom of speech of every other citizen in a country. It is also important to note that despite the protection provided by the Charter, Liberty plays a major role in ensuring that certain restrictions do not prevent an environment or individual’s state of body and can never be deni...