I will not talk about politics. As a journalist, somebody who works for a large internet publishing company, who is a contributing editor to a local media company (I was the editor-in-chief of a county-wide newspaper for 10 years) and who worked for about 10 years shooting TV footage,
I would like to share a bit of information about something that people seem to be very confused about.
After I share my thoughts and concerns, I’ll tell you why I think it’s critically important for preppers (at least American preppers) to understand these ideas.
Freedom Of Speech & Freedom Of The Press – Not The Same Thing
1) Freedom of the press and freedom of speech are NOT the same thing. At all. Let me help by sharing the relevant part of the First Amendment: “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.”
Note the very, very important comma in “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;” This is a BIG distinction, and an important one. It separates the two under the law.
Freedom Of The Press Belongs To?
2) Freedom of the press, in reality, belongs to the person or company that owns the press. What do I mean? Let’s use newspapers because they are easy to understand (but the same example’s logic applies to all media).
A newspaper can publish anything they like. Period.
If somebody considers what they have published libelous (libel is a written or published defamatory statement) they can sue the paper, and that newspaper can face big damages. But… the important thing is they can say it. Well, they can in 2020; it hasn’t always been that way, and I’ll come back to this in the Tyranny section below.
The paper can, however, choose what it will and won’t print. The government (or any individual on the outside of the company) does not have the right to force them to print anything.
Period.
You can’t force a commercial organization to publish something they do not want to. You can’t stop them from publishing something if they do decide to do so. Freedom of the press, that’s what it means.
Freedom Of Speech… You Can SAY Anything You Like (Well, Almost)
3) Freedom of speech is, literally, that. You can say anything you like. Again, if it’s slanderous (the spoken form of defamation) you can get sued, and possibly face damages. There are limits (such a shouting fire in a crowded movie theater) but those limits are pretty well defined and are generally accepted by anybody who isn’t a nut. That is freedom of speech.
Shout As Loud As You Want! (But You Can’t Make Anybody LISTEN)
4) You can write anything you like, and publish it yourself. Freedom of speech and press combined. Nobody, however, can force you to include their comments and thoughts in with what you are doing.
A perfect example is
3BY right here. You can choose to write any response you like to this story, but I am under ZERO obligation to publish it. If I don’t like what it says, if it violates my posted rules (no profanity, no politics, no personal attacks, etc.) or for any doggone reason I feel like — I don’t have to publish it.
Why? I pay for this place. It’s mine.
This is in no way different than any other privately owned bit of social media. NOBODY has a right to tell me what I must publish, or force me to publish something I don’t agree with.
What they have a right to do is to go to a platform that welcomes what they want to say, or start their own website/outlet/whatever.
Freedom Of Speech In Social Media Doesn’t Exist
5) Private companies can choose what speech/writing they wish to allow because this is America, and they are a form of the press. They have that freedom, it’s right there in Amendment 1.
I write this because some people seem to be confused what “free speech” actually means. It, literally, means you can say anything you like. It does NOT mean that a company has to allow you a platform to publish what you are saying.
Understanding Tyranny
Tyranny is not a Conservative vs. Liberal, Democrat vs. Republican thing. The United States has a long list of actions done by its government towards its people that show that tyrannical behavior has been done by politicians whose views are all across the political spectrum.
In my efforts to keep politics out of this article and off of this website, I’m going to reach far back into history for a couple of examples. Frankly, nobody can get all that mad about things that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson did because everybody who voted for any of those people is long-since dead.
Fortunately for an example of governmental tyranny over free speech (not so fortunate for people like Eugene “Gene” Debs, one of the many victims of US governmental tyranny) we don’t have to go all that far back in time for perhaps the best example of the government crushing the First Amendment.
“Espionage” and “Sedition” Acts – Talk Wrong? Go To Prison
The two acts, enacted in 1917 and 1918 to quiet any opposition to the USA going to war in Europe, were used to crush opponents of the Woodrow Wilson administration, most famously Debs who was sentenced to ten years in prison.
Ten Years.
Hard Time.
His “crime”? On June 16, 1918, Debs made a speech in Canton, Ohio urging resistance to the military draft of World War I. He was arrested on June 30 and charged with ten counts of sedition.
That’s right, folks. The man was sentence to ten years in a high-security federal prison for making a speech, saying he was opposed to the draft.
Really.
I’m not making this stuff up.
This Is Why Free Speech And Freedom Of The Press Is Critically Important To Preppers
Simply put, when the government can arrest anybody they want to just because that person doesn’t agree with a certain policy, we have tyranny. Governmental tyranny is really, really high on a lot of our prepping “Watch Out For” list.
This holds equally true when it comes to freedom of the press. In the modern age, the press includes social media.
When we allow the government to dictate to a private company what can and cannot be said on their websites, in their programs, then again we have tyranny, WHICHEVER part of the government (executive, legislative or legal branches, states, local authorities, whomever) is doing it.
But Salty, Social Media Isn’t Fair!!!!
Using social media is a choice, and you can choose to participate in it or you can show them what you think by using your feet and walking out on them.
Regular media isn’t fair either. Everybody knows that virtually every major news outlet out there (both mainstream and “edge” media) isn’t fair. Some slant left, some slant right. Some are absolute leftist propaganda sites and some are absolute rightest propaganda sites.
I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts* that every person reading this has their favorite places for getting news, and I’ll even bet that your political leanings color where you choose to make your main information sources.
C’mon, ‘fess up (if only to yourself)… you go to Fox or CNN or wherever because their coverage most matches the viewpoint you agree with… unless, of course, you are like me.
Personally, if I’m checking the news, I have a list of six different online sources (four of them “main stream” and two much more “edge”. I chose this list after a careful study of their bias ratings and my own thoughts on their biases.
I chose one each of left-wing and right-wing edge, then one fairly right wing and one fairly left wing mainstream media outlet. The other two are international. If I find a critically important story (say for example COVID-19) a check on all six of these sights gives me a MUCH more broad overview of the story.
That’s My Story And I’m Sticking To It
I’ve said my piece, being as non-political as I can be. If you would like to share this, feel free. If you disagree, that’s fine. If you would like to comment below on whether my argument holds water, I would encourage you to do so.
Having said that, any response that mentions any current-day political party, politicians, viewpoints (i.e. “conservative” or “liberal”) will go straight into the trash can and not be approved. A few of you are auto-approved, but any violations of the “no-politics” rule mean I will cancel the account’s auto approval.
We are here to offer prepping advice and information to ALL, no matter who those people are. I want us to be as inclusive as possible, and there are plenty of places on the internet to share political beliefs. This is a “safe haven” from having to listen to that stuff.
p.s.
*That expression worked much better in the ’70s, when a dollar bought a baker’s dozen doughnuts.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Well spoken, and tyranny is absolutely on my “watch out for” list.
There is plenty of nasty speech going on.
That being said, there is a “if you see something, say something” thing going that is coming up a little too close to “informing on your neighbors” to suit me.
The best that I can do is refuse to participate.
I really don’t like the “I’m offended for that person over there” that is often used to smash people.
That “offended” thing is damaging even if all the participants in the conversation know they are talking about subject “A” and the one seemingly offended construes the conversation about subject “B”.
I have not been personally caught up in such things but it is only a matter of time because my mouth filter is permanently disabled.
Excellent. Hopefully this will help people to see through the mess.
Thanks for a well written article. Interestingly, in recent years the legal standing of a publisher has been differentiated from that of a platform. Much of this has to do with the changing nature of where the majority of discourse occurs, and its speed of dispersement – ie digital. Platforms are supposed (aside from well litigated exceptions) to have a light touch with regards to editorial control of what members post. In exchange, platforms are given exemptions with regards to liability to what appears on their sites. Publishers retain complete editorial control, but cary potential liability exposure. Unfortunately, many social media organizations insist they are platforms, while exerting the intrusive behavior of a publisher. Whether the judiciary and or congress will clean up this mess, remains to be seen.