Under the first amendment of the United States Constitution, individuals are granted the right of freedom to speech amongst other rights and liberties. However, specifically for the right of freedom of speech, it follows in the Constitution as “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” (“4.2 Securing Basic Freedoms - American Government 2e,” OpenStax). With this broad statement encouraging individuals to share their thoughts and opinions without fear that the government will act to restrict it, it is not surprising that there has been great debate about the extensiveness of this right and furthermore, many interpretations of what this right means. For instance, while many people may believe that this right does have restrictions in certain areas and at specific times, some people still tend to believe that this amendment protects all forms of speech. However, Congress has acknowledged this controversy in some ways as they have expressed over time what forms of speech are not protected by the Constitution. Some of the forms of speech that are not protected as free speech include, defamation of character, also known as libel or slander, perjury, “fighting words” or threats, along with sedition, forms of obscenity such as those that express sexual information, and speech that includes copyright violations infringement. While this list greatly covers many areas, the expression or promotion of “fake news” is not covered and therefore has been deemed as permissible or protected under the first amendment. Still, the counterargument that fake news should not be protected greatly prevails, especially in today’s times where social media has made the spread of fake news and false information extremely easy to share and gain recognition.
According to a study shared by ABC News, “It took the truth about six times as long as falsehood to reach 1,500 people.” In all, seeing how quickly and more likely information that lacks factuality will spread to people and the negative consequences it can have on public safety, challenging the “general welfare” that the Constitution states it will promote, I do not believe that fake news should be protected as free speech. In the first place, I believe it is important to establish some definition of what fake news is. Broadly, fake news according to a scholarly article by Harvard University is news stories or articles that although “mimic” the content of credible news stories, they lack the processes that ensure that the information presented is accurate, therefore, increasing the risk that the information shared is falsified. Yet, despite that these news stories or articles lack credibility, they nonetheless still have the ability to greatly manipulate their readers. Additionally, while some may find the previous definition of fake news straightforward, it is still a term that can be confused or misinterpreted for other issues that appear similar in some aspects. Therefore, it is also important to separate what fake news is not. Fake news is not “unintentional mistakes in reporting” or opinionated biased pieces that do not share false information.
Furthermore, despite Former President Donald Trump using the term towards known news sources such as CNN, and The New York Times that share stories that may contradict his beliefs about such things as the crowd turnout at his inauguration, news cannot be classified as fake because the reader does not agree or approve with what is being said. In all, fake news should not be interpreted by people as what satisfies their beliefs but rather on the merit of the factuality of the information being presented and the intentions of those who present it. While already seeing how the topic of fake news has been of discussion in recent years even by people of perceived credibility, fake news is not an issue that has just recently emerged. Taken from the Misinformation Age, one is able to see just how early the issue of fake news goes back and importantly, how rapidly it could spread among populations even before the addition of modern technology. Early in the reading, the reader is taken back to the mid-14th century and exposed to the fake news story known as “The Vegetable Lamb of Tartary.” This story focuses on the belief that plants in areas such as Asia Minor and India bore animals, specifically lambs, and although harmless in the text, it already illustrated the danger that fake news has in its spread, its ability to affect everyone of all educational backgrounds and its ability to persist even in the face of no evidence. For example, it was noted how even scholars believed this story, and with exclusively their personal claims to go on, the story was still believed by the public and persisted for around 400 years.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Fast forward to a more recent and harmful event covered in the text known as “Pizzagate,” this story included political figures such as Hillary Clinton and claimed that they were tied to a child-trafficking ring with one of their locations being at a Pizzeria in Washington D.C. With it now being 2016 and social media quite established, the clearly known fake news story took off online with sources such as Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook sharing this story nationally and internationally to foreign countries. Yet, other than social media now being involved, a major difference between the two fake news stories is that this one very much involved a serious issue that if not accurately addressed by credible sources could lead to many serious consequences for those involved, which it did. Still, while both fake news stories did not lead to any deaths, the current issue of COVID-19 proved differently for the seriousness and harmful effects of allowing fake news or misinformation to persist and be protected as free speech. COVID-19, a deadly virus that has affected the lives of millions and taken the lives of over 700,000, particularly in the United States has been unavoidable on both social media websites and the news around the world. With its quick emergence around the world, people were lost on whether this virus was a hoax, if there were any ways that they could protect themselves, and if the recently approved vaccines for the virus were truly safe. Although public officials and esteemed doctors continued to educate people around the world, people still had uncertainties and so, with more time than ever to search the web, many turned to do the research themselves and unfortunately have fallen into the many traps of fake information that had taken over the internet; an “infodemic.”
Therefore, any news concerning this topic is important because if told without factuality, the consequences for those who believe the information could be fatal. For example, early in the emergence of COVID-19 in America when the death rate from the virus was still in the low numbers, a host from Fox Business Network pushed the fake news story of the virus being a democratic scam to remove then President Trump. Although her claims lacked any factual evidence, having a news reporter share such a fake story could have possibly delayed many individuals who watch this news station from realizing the seriousness of this virus and taking measures to protect themselves. In all, this possibly increases the number of cases in America. Adversely, those who see the virus as extremely serious and yearn to find solutions to this issue, have also been negatively influenced by fake stories from online where people have stated to have a “cure” for COVID-19 or treatments for this issue. However, unfortunately, in this case, a direct link to death was found. An article by The Guardian from last year shed light on how fake news could have led a couple in their 60s to ingest a product that they found within their homes that contained chloroquine in an attempt to help prevent themselves from acquiring the virus. Although serious complications were stated to occur immediately for both individuals, the husband sadly died from the ingestion of this product. Nevertheless, even with the previous examples of “Pizzagate” and “miracle cures treatments” for COVID-19 that proved fatal in some instances, the many people who argue that the first amendment does not mention or cover any aspect of “fake news” being unprotected, they are essentially correct. However, they must also recognize how the interpretation of free speech has again, changed over time from when the Constitution was first written and how one of the Constitution’s main goals is to ensure the general welfare of the public which fake news does not.
In all, the right to free speech under the first amendment is in no manner absolute. As covered in the introduction, there are forms of speech or expression that are not protected under the first amendment and therefore, stand vulnerable to the interference and control of the government if they cross certain barriers. Take, for instance, the early Supreme Court Case in 1942 known as, Chaplinsky v New Hampshire which illustrated how “fighting words” were not protected as free speech. Before this case, much like in the arguments of “fake news,” people may have believed that despite the threat that these words have to the well-being of others, it was protected as free speech. Overall, this is to say, one must not rely on the notion that all speech is protected under the first amendment and understand that the government can institute restrictions for this right when it comes to ensuring the well-being or general welfare of the public. Altogether, the right to free speech gives people the right to express themselves, even if it is controversial. However, I believe fake news is more than controversial speech or expression, it is a deliberate threat to the public’s safety, a threat to the public’s ability to decipher between fake and factual news, and a threat to people understanding the importance of honesty as the people who promote fake news may escape legal penalties because this issue has yet to be excluded from the right of free speech in the United States. For the public’s safety, reflecting again on the types of speech that the government does not protect, fake news has one major characteristic in common with many of these forms of speech and that is, it has the ability to harm. Fake news and theories have the ability to ignite anger in individuals, push lawless actions, and overall, make many people suffer whether that is mentally, emotionally, or physically. For example, I believe I am able to support this statement with the major fake news story of “Pizzagate.” As Edgar Welch read the many fake stories of a child-trafficking ring at Comet Ping Pong pizzeria, a completely baseless story, the story still strongly infuriated Welch to the point where he pursued the pizzeria in D.C. with an assault weapon to investigate the situation further. Despite that there were no fatalities from the matter, it has been learned that Welch had communicated to his friend beforehand that he was willing to, according to New York’s Daily News.“sacrifice the lives of a few for the lives of many.”. From this, I believe it can be taken that this statement by Welch illustrated how even though he did not harm anyone physically, he was prepared and willing to take the lives of the workers in that restaurant to save captive children who weren’t even there. Furthermore, it is worth noting as well that before Welch made his public move, the pizzeria, as well as its neighboring businesses, had started to receive violent threats via calls and social media early on by followers of this story, not only stating how they would harm the owners of the businesses but also their staff. “Pizzagate” was and still is a clear definition that fake news has real costs for the world.
In conclusion, under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution people are granted the liberty of free speech, fostering a democracy where individuals can freely share beliefs and ideas with others, even if it may be controversial. However, Supreme Court cases have served to represent that this right is not absolute and for many forms of speech such as, “fighting words,” obscenity, and slander or libel, are not protected under the first amendment. Fake news, not a new public issue, but one that is truly gaining momentum over the years with the advancements of social media, is news that can greatly manipulate its readers through its resemblance to factual news but in actuality, lack any sort of truth. While people argue that this issue should be allowed and protected under the first amendment, I put forth that fake news embodies the issues seen with other forms of speech that have been deemed as exclusions from this right, such as “fighting words” and that is, fake news through its influence has the ability to cause harm to the public, going against the Constitution’s mission to promote the public’s well-being. Therefore, I do not believe that it should be protected as free speech under the first amendment. Time and time again fake news has shown to be a weapon to cloud the judgment of individuals, guiding them to believe fake information, and threatening the public’s safety because of it. I believe that it is important to stop protecting this form of speech as free speech for the sake of helping to keep people safe.
Stuck on your essay?
