Last week, we were talking about free speech and the power of words. Free speech and a free press lie at the very heart of democracy.
This is why it was enshrined in the first amendment of the American Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Taken in the context of the times, the authors were afraid of government tyranny and the power to suppress the will of the people by stifling free thought and expression.
The United States was born of revolution against a system of government in which citizens had no power or authority. It is not surprising the Constitution and the Bill of Rights seek to put restrictions on the power of government to interfere in the daily lives of citizens or to restrict their ability to speak out.
In essence, everyone should be entitled to their private opinions and have the right to publicly express them.
When the first amendment was crafted, the options for public expression were limited. A person could stand on a soapbox in a crowded market and proclaim their views, for example, but they would only reach a small crowd of those willing to stop and listen. Speaker's Corner in London maintains this practice to this day.
A person could perhaps convince a newspaper to carry an article or a letter on a particular topic. This is why newspapers maintain their "letters to the editor" section with such passion. It is a core value for free speech.
A person could have written a pamphlet or a book for distribution.
In essence, the methods for dissemination of information in the early 1800s relied on either print or an actual speech. And these came with checks and balances.
After all, if you stand on a soapbox and profess a point of view, you might be speaking to no one. If you published your ideas, they might not be read or worse, they might be ridiculed by a subsequent writer.
Today, we have so many more venues for the dissemination of information. It started in the early 1900s with the invention of radio and subsequently television. These were reasonably well controlled in the beginning through requirements for ethical standards and truth in advertising.
They maintained the integrity of the press.
But as we have moved to the 100-channel universe and the digital age, we have also moved to a plethora of voices all proclaiming their own truths. With the rise of the internet we have freedom of expression like we have never had before.
Anyone can say pretty much anything at any time to everyone willing to read or listen to it.
This is both a good thing and a bad thing. The digital age allows anyone to express their views and as long as net neutrality was in place, those views would sink-or-swim based on their merits. No likes or no views leads to internet oblivion. On the other hand, lots of followers means some ideas receive consideration where they might have remained obscure writings before.
But with this good comes the bad. Increasingly, the internet is demonstrating confirmation bias.
People tend to read the sources which already agree with their point of view. They then use this as justification for their stance because there are other people who agree with them. Circular reasoning ensues.
The worst part of our new found freedom of expression lies in the ability to make statements - patently absurd statements - with little accountability for the authors. Most recently, this was evident in the aftermath of the shootings at Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida.
Thousands of students stood up afterwards and loudly proclaimed "No More." The responsible media carried coverage of marches and speeches by students wanting change. But some media outlets declared, without providing a stitch of evidence, the students were hired actors reciting speeches prepared by the extreme left and Hollywood elite.
We live in a world where media credibility is being shredded. Expressions of opinion are being taken as fact and echoed through networks of like-minded individuals. Ideas are not examined for their logical fallacies.
Without logically examining what is being said, Syrian President Bashar-al-Assad can get away with declaring over 55,000 photographs of tortured dead as evidence of a conspiracy against his government.
"We're living in a fake news era" he said, adding "everybody knows this."
Freedom of expression comes as a cost. It allows anyone the right to say anything.
We need to think critically, though, about what is being said, by whom, and for what reason.
Otherwise, I fear, democracy might be dead.
