Synthesis

Originating from a country where freedom of speech-- whether expression or action-- is limited, I have come to appreciate learning the fundamentals of freedom of speech in our Communication Rights & Law class. Reading about different cases and getting familiar with different philosophers definitely opened my horizon in terms of gaining knowledge about the freedom of speech here in the United States.

Looking back through my blog posts, I noticed that I am a big believer in freedom of expression. However, if the expression would harm people, create violence and cause breach of peace, then I would not protect it. In my posts, I have enumerated multiple times that an individual has a right to their own beliefs as long as they are not harming anyone. Also, I admit that my posts are not consistent which goes to show that the notion of freedom of speech is really in the eye of the beholder. I think that what is morally or ethically correct to one person might not be to another.

Looking back through my posts and responses, I have failed to back up my arguments with philosophical groundings and this is what I want to dedicate my synthesis on. With my stance on an individual or group being able to express their beliefs as well as themselves, I highly base the foundation of my synthesis to Thomas I. Emerson's: The Expression Action Theory. His theories are as follows: (From Freedom of Speech in the United States)“(1) achieving individual self-fulfillment, (2) discovering truth, (3) making decisions democratically, and (4) achieving a more adaptable and hence a more stable community, maintaining the precarious balance between healthy cleavage and necessary consensus”. (Tedford & Herbeck, 438) Emerson also proposes that the definition of “expression” could become blurry and therefore we must make a distinction whether to label a case “action” or “expression”. He adds on that “Expression must be freely allowed and encouraged” (438) as action can be controlled where areas expression cannot unless demonstrated.

As an extension to Emerson's theory, Zechariah Chafee Jr.'s protecting speech that serves social interest resonates too. Emerson's two types of of expression are individual interest- what's important to me, and social interest- what would help the public have a better knowledge of things. (435)

Both in my Ecce Homo Exhibition/ Jyllands- Posten cartoon case and Westboro Baptish Church posts, I think that Emerson's theories could be highly applied.

For the former post, I protected the Ecce Homo Exhibition and the Jyllands- Posten Cartoons because they were expressions that did not harm. Also, it justified Emerson's 4^th theory of serving balance. As for the latter post, I did not protect the Westboro Baptist Church perhaps because it was a familiar case to me before starting the class. Though the picketers did not cause physical harm to their targets and only voiced their opinions about the homosexual community, I felt like it was an attack and therefore did not look at it as an expression but an action to as a means of attacking a group of people. Also if taken into consideration, they were picketing outside the funerals of fallen soldiers and this was definitely a breach of peace. I know this might be a bias stance due to personal reasons.

The last couple of topics we tackled were Child Pornography and Animal Cruelty. Both topics were on the notion of expression where Chafee's types of expression could be used.

In the child pornography topic, I protected The Tin Drum movie because it was clearly not an act of child pornography due to the considerations that it constituted, one of them being it's a movie and not porn. Though some scenes were offended people, it did not harm them. I believe that being offended and being harmed are two different things. I also protected the Sally Mann's photo collection because I believe that it had an artistic value. Again, it was an expression that did not harm anyone but offended some people. It is something that was of importance to her as an artist and did not mean malice by any means.

For the animal cruelty topic, I protected the United States v. Stevens case due to the fact that Stevens wasn't directly involved in the making of the videos. However, I had difficulties deciding whether to protect the “crush videos”. But in the end failed to protect it as I felt like pleasure was found in hurting animals through people's fetishes on stepping on them.

In regards to my notion of freedom of expression, an interesting clause, the SLAPs value came about. We discussed that applying the SLAPs value would grant First Amendment protection. This to me is still a bit perplexing but interesting at the same time. I understand that if the SLAPs value is given, it would make the speaker come in and defend the case wherein the plaintiff does not expect to win. However, I think that the plaintiff would be confident as the SLAPs value threats the defender thereby having to come up with compelling argument in order to win the case. I am still not quite sure where I stand on applying the SLAPs value. As mentioned before, I believe everyone has a right to their own beliefs and artistic expression. The clause would be able to attend to this. However, if it was always applied, then there would be an overwhelming amount of offensive things surrounding us.

Through this whole class, the saying “each to their own” really captured me. I would protect anyone expressing their beliefs as long as they didn't cause harm or violence due to my peace keeping nature. I also highly value artistic expression though it may be controversial and offensive in some ways. I am also considerate in terms of what may be of no importance to me is something you feel strongly about. I'm also about boundaries. Fact remains, I am still an inconsistent thinker (depicted through my writings) which I think is totally okay.