I always try to argue for the freedom of expression rather than the freedom of speech, and for two reasons. First, the freedom of expression is a broader term, in which the freedom of speech is included. Second, using the term freedom of expression, I’ve felt, is less likely to limit the argument to the first amendment — and here experience has appeared to have proven me dead wrong.
So why does this increasingly agitate me and deplete my sense of hope?
While the first amendment to the US Constitution is important, it is, after all, only a declaration that the government recognizes a right we already have, that we were born with, and does not constitute the act of “giving” us that right. If I argue for the freedom of expression online, for instance, there are sure to be people who will jump in and argue that Facebook or Twitter don’t fall under the first amendment, that they have a right to limit what can be displayed on their platforms, and so on — they argue law, societal game rules, in other words, not rights, and so few fail to see the distinction.
Laws are superficial. Rights go deeper. And let me be clear: I am arguing rights.
If there were no first amendment in the US Bill of Rights, would such individuals feel the same way about the freedom of speech in general as they evidently do with respect to it in the context of social media platforms — in other words, would they seem to have no value in it at all, and argue that its not a right because its not law?
It disturbs me to think this might be the case.