Memorandum on Free Speech

In its basest form, freedom of speech is the right to attempt to communicate irrespective of the content of that speech. In practice, this is a tricky concept for sure. One does not have the right to flash one's genitals at a bunch of children. Nor to dox somebody online or credibly threaten to murder them. But for the sake of this post, I'm going to assume that we generally agree on a few exceptions to free speech and move on.

In American law, there likewise seems to be a link between speech and property, with a higher level of expression allowed on one's own property and a lower level on somebody else's.

^This is where recent controversy has arisen. Twitter, Facebook, etc. are "private property". This itself is an iffy term, given that all of these are publicly traded companies, but whatever. Any use of these services is interpreted as being "on their property".

Generally speaking, users aligned with right or right-leaning politics stand a greater risk of being banned or otherwise censored for their political speech, and for speech unrelated to politics after something political has been uttered. The traditionally pro-corporation party has paradoxically taken to complain about this, while the traditionally anti-corporation party has gleefully denied any problem and stood with the social media giants, citing the fact that they are, again, "private property".

There are two separate ways to resolve this. Though I skew right, having been on the receiving end of this I would in good faith support and strive to protect the same rights I'm about to espouse for all Americans.

Take the small town of Greenville, Green State. The town has a rich history of public discourse in town squares, libraries, etc. However, as if a strange fairy cast a strange spell over the whole town, now people meet at the local Walmart to discuss matters of public importance.

Suppose that the town has two political factions: the Populares and the Optimates. Walmart has sided with the Optimates and banned any political activity by the Populares from their property.

Suppose that, as another condition of the fairy's spell, almost no one has interest in doing or receiving anything political outside of Walmart. The Populares used to distribute their magazine on city streets. Today, their sidewalk distributors are rendered magically invisible to all but a few elderly citizens who've always taken an interest in sidewalk magazines. They can try knocking on people's homes, but this method is, for a number of reasons, dramatically less effective than what used to happen.

The Optimates, on the other hand, are free to distribute their magazine at Walmart. People notice the magazines and many will take a copy home.

In real life, of course, there is no such thing as fairies. Rather, the existence of social media platforms has by nature made communication by traditional alternatives, namely magazines, newspapers, local gatherings, or even cable news, much less effective. By virtue of driving/drawing people away from these outlets, a manner of deprivation happens unless those who would communicate by these outlets have access to wherever the public has since been driven/drawn. Therefore, it is neither freedom of speech nor of property for these giants to deny access to some but not others on political grounds. Rather, it is the active suppression by them of another's speech, even if by admittedly elaborate means.

This raises another issue: not merely the ability to communicate but access to a reasonable platform for it where that speech can be heard. In the past, that was by way of mouth or by writing. But today more advanced platforms exist, and by the fact that speech today necessarily competes against other people's speech (in a variety of contexts, not merely political), unequal access to advanced platforms is a legitimate issue. Next, we'll discuss an ideal framework for speech and means of that speech being heard, AKA its "amplification".

What I'm arguing is this: that, generally speaking, speech ought to be separated from unnatural amplification or diminution.

And what is speech's "natural" merit? It is that which it would have stripped of resources that the average person lacks. For example, if the content which you provide to some segment of the public has proven appealing to them, you might naturally build an audience. Your speech is amplified by nothing but its merit. Or if, for example, you're a celebrity and people naturally want to hear what a celebrity has to say. Likewise, if you're a boor and very few people find you interesting, then your speech will by its own merit be ignored.

Speech can presently be amplified with money.  For example, suppose that the next $200 million Pixar production proves a smash hit. Its producer includes a certain message that in today's climate is considered political, and many young people take that message to heart because of the characters in the awesome movie who enunciated it.

Were that same producer merely to tweet about his political values, millions of children would not be influenced by it. Nor would they if, say, he made a movie on a budget of $70,000 dollars that was seen by only a few people because it wasn't blockbuster quality. Which is to say that money amplified his speech in plainly unnatural ways.

Speech can also be amplified unnaturally through the uneven use of algorithms. For example, a tweet that by its own merit wouldn't reach very many people does because the algorithm for that given website is tweaked.

Additionally, what I'm saying is inversely true as well. Or that is, speech can be unnaturally diminished. For example, a producer with different political values who only has the budget for a $70,000 dollar movie cannot convey his ideas remotely as effective as the other producer. Or take an online commenter who's shadowbanned and his content is not seen by anyone, even though some or many people would see it were the given digital infrastructure and its algorithms applied normally.

Now, this is an ideal. But it has obvious exceptions. For example, political candidates must campaign and spend money campaigning. Were they limited to spending no more money on the endeavor than the average Joe has in his pocket, our electoral system would quickly become unworkable. And from 2016, it's clear also that the presidential candidate who spends the most money won't necessarily win. For practical reasons, elected officials or those running for elected office would have to be some kind of exception. However, this could be a rule of thumb for civic discourse among ordinary people, and for speech that might be considered corporate or connected to big money that's not immediately associated with elections or a political party.

Thoughts? Critiques?