Republic 2.0 Chapter 8

 Chapter 8 Freedom of Speech

Chapter 8 discusses how the first amendment right to freedom of speech applies to television. Though it is fairly easily understood that freedom of speech is meant to give individuals the right to voice whatever opinions they may have, it is less clear how it should be enjoyed by groups. Sunstein declares that there is a distinct difference between the two, and that the first amendment rights were created to protect the rights of individuals.

Because T.V. networks are not people, Sunstein argues that they should not enjoy a total freedom to say whatever they want without regulation. The government enforces laws that benefit T.V., such as in copyright laws, creating a give and take relationship between the two. The government gives protection of the law, so Broadcasters must give the government a small amount of input.

This chapter also discusses situations when freedom of speech is taken too far, and ought to be restricted. For example, some people use freedom of speech on the Internet to create directions of how to create a bomb, when, where, and even on whom. Another example is when a site posted a list of doctors who had performed abortions, and posted on the site when two of the doctors had been murdered. These are both cases in my opinion when people should not be able to claim innocence due to first amendment rights, and go to show that freedom of speech should not be absolute.

Now to deal with these issues we must ask, “how can we make it legally clear that the first amendment has limitations without losing the freedom of expression it was intended to provide us with, and what limitations should we specify”? It is one thing to decide what we believe is morally right, but also another to decide how the government can facilitate it. There are countless scenarios where we must decide if freedom of speech is being exercised or abused. This, perhaps, is why we have left these decisions to the court system, so that each case may be looked at individually. However, isn’t it unfair to never state that the first amendment has limitations, and then to hold people responsible for over-stepping its boundaries? Isn’t it also unfair to expect judges to decide each case without giving them something that legally says, there is a limitation to free speech?