There are two primary concepts of the ancient Greek; Isegoria and Parrhesia, which influence the common aspect of free speech. Isegoria refers to the freedom of all the citizens to participate in public debates while parrhesia is a license for them to say whatever, whenever and to whoever they would like to say (Bejan 2). The two principles form the basis on which freedom of speech is regulated.
In social media, businesses and private universities, fellow citizens act as the censors to speech as opposed to the state. For instance, member speech can be regulated by private entities like Facebook, Twitter, and Yale (Bejan 3). Freedom of speech is controlled by the social tyranny rather than the state. Therefore, the conflict in freedom of speech arises from the two concepts of free speech as discussed above.
Of the two concepts of free speech, Isegoria is older and originated from the Greek. According to them, the idea means equality in public participation. The concept allows for all the people to talk freely in the social setting such as the marketplace (Cain 230). The extrapolation of the Isegoria concepts in Athens shows that not all the individuals would participate in the debate but a few, who in normal circumstances had an excellent standing to persuade fellow citizens. In Athens, Isegoria made the fundamental equality, which was enjoyed by almost all the people except slaves and women (Bejan 4). It was primarily political and was even incorporated in court where jurors could give their opinion freely.
On the other hand, parrhesia is a concept of freedom of speech that encouraged speaking the truth and openness irrespective of the consequences. Politically, parrhesia was associated with speaking the truth in public setting, as seen by the philosophers who were entitled to speak their mind even if it was found offensive (Bejan 4). Parrhesia poses the challenge of offensiveness and was likely to breach the conflict between the speaker and the audience if the audience least tolerated the offense. Applying parrhesia often makes the speaker risk the consequences when he/she tells the audience the truth.
The two concepts of free speech both present the idea of equality and capability to speak one's mind. However, the question of telling the truth as risking the consequences is only expressed in parrhesia in which the speaker has the freedom to speak what they deem correct irrespective of the consequences. Parrhesia does not go hand in hand with democracy because, in majority rule, a speaker can be punished by speaking contrary to the desires of the majority, who can drag them off the stage and can be tried and sentenced (Bejan 4).
The internet does not have a regulating authority, and the people participating in the internet platforms present an opportunity to air their opinions in a free manner, which is per the Isegoria concept. For every topic that is discussed in the social media, each participant has a chance to present their views equally without discrimination. In the recent past, the internet has also become one of the media of communication just like television, radio, newspapers, and books even if its approach is different from that of traditional media (Bejan 5). Most importantly, it is among the interactive model that allows people to freely give their opinion to others. However, issue of regulation of access to information has become a significant one.
The internet offers a unique platform to advance free speech. However, there is a significant debate on what can be tolerated and protected under the first amendment and what should be regulated (Cain 228). For instance, there is an increasing concern on hate speech, obscene material, false adverts, and child pornography over the internet and a greater call for regulation even though this would look as undermining the freedom of speech as guaranteed by the first amendment.
Therefore, there should be a regulation to free speech over the internet. For instance, material harmful to minors should be regulated under the online protection act for children (James 34). Similarly, the Communication Decency Act (1996) governs the publishing of indecent, offensive material over the internet. Such regulations should be implemented by the government, individuals, and the respective service providers of the site under consideration (Cain 228). For instance, many countries filter the content that is exposed in social media, especially, material accessed by the children. For example, cyber-patrol is one of the software that monitors internet content, ensuring that it meets the criteria of decency expected by the viewers (James 39).
Therefore, the concept of perrasia does not apply when it comes to social media because according to the idea, all individuals are allowed to say whatever they may feel irrespective of the resultant consequences. On the other hand, the internet is adopting a policy of regulating the content exposed over the internet because of the profound effect it has on the users. As such, the concept of free speech is not integrated on the web because the content exposed is censored.
The freedom of expression causes many other effects such as propagation of hate speech through the communication channels, which may lead to physical problems like war and genocides. For that reason, many countries have criminalized some aspects of speech freedom such as hate speech. Under the Isegoria concept of free speech, censorship is regulated by the society rather than the government. As such, it is the responsibility of communities to monitor hate speech by checking the usage of words, which incite violence (Godwin 226). For instance, the internet has exposed dangerous information to the society such as a bomb-making manual and the address of abortion providers among other details which can intensify social crimes. Throughout history, man violence acts have been attributed to public expression of hate speech as in the case of the Rwandan genocide, and the Nazi Holocaust.
The concepts of free speech advocate for the freedom of expression for all. However, the question of spewing hate in the audience should be regulated on a repeated basis, and the perpetrators held criminally responsible for it (Godwin 231). There are influential people in the society who are likely to misuse the freedom of speech to influence their audience negatively. They include politicians, online forum hosts, radical groups, and bloggers. As such, the freedom of expression according should be checked especially for people in responsible positions such as government employees, company executive officers, and religious leaders. Assigning liability to a speaker depending on the expression of their views is always a dilemma. However, it can be analyzed based on the possible consequences of those that have already matured.
The dilemma of the fundamental extent of free speech arises from the effects of offensive speech, while some people argue that offensive speech is harmless, it incites undesirable behavior in the audience. Statement utilizes language, whose general role is communication. Words influence actions as evident in political, motivational, religion, and advertising industries (Massaro 68). While free speech is allowed for all, the majority of the content reflects hate speech perpetrated towards specific religious or social groups. For instance, hate speech can be committed towards religious minorities, gays, specific ethnic groups, and women. For those that take the message of the speaker to heart, it can promote intolerance and discrimination. Moreover, unchecked free speech can potentially cause armed conflicts and genocides, which are usually preceded by hate speech.
Unchecked free speech creates a situation of lifetime endurance of hatred, which can make some individuals take a toll on other (Massaro 78). Hate speech perpetrated towards specific people creates social boundaries, separation, depression, and increase the risk of conflicts. Hate speech breaches the concept of social safety among the endangered in case violence erupts in the society. Democratic societies often recommend a situation of equality and freedom for all values, which are breached when the freedom of expression is turned into hate speech. It can escalate political and economic prejudice, and the consequences of discrimination and violence are too costly for any society throughout the history.
Free speech cannot be a solution to the challenges associated with unchecked freedom of expression (Blackford 128). For instance, vulnerable groups do not have to defend themselves on communication platforms when prejudice is directed towards them but rather hate speech should be dealt from the side of the offender. In addition, uncontrolled speech is always directed at a minority, outnumbered and out-resourced and is always on a disadvantaged group in the society (Blackford 132). Therefore, they may not utilize their freedom to speak because the community may not listen to them. For instance, in the Persia concept of free speech, all individuals are entitled to say what they perceive as a right, but in most instances, an audience is likely to disregard speakers that they do not like and listen to those that they want. Therefore, more free speech does not give the minority a chance to express themselves because the society may not listen to them.
Isegoria, a concept of free speech requires all the individuals to be given a chance and participate equally in public debates reflects the fundamental principle of democracy. On the other hand, parrhesia, which requires all the individuals to express their thoughts irrespective of the consequences freely, is not desirable because it can bring about evils such as hate speech, which in the long run can result in armed conflicts and genocides. In conclusion, free speech should be allowed but should be checked in all environments for the actions that they are likely to cause.
Works Cited
Bejan, Teresa. "The Two Clashing Meanings Of 'Free Speech'." The Atlantic, 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/two-concepts-of-freedom-of-speech/546791/. Accessed 16 June 2018.
Blackford, Russell. "Free speech and hate speech." Quadrant45.1-2 (2001): 10.Weinstein, James. Hate speech, pornography, and radical attacks on free speech doctrine. Routledge, 2018.
Godwin, Mike. Cyber rights: Defending free speech in the digital age. MIT press, 2003.
Massaro, Toni M. "Equality and freedom of expression: The hate speech dilemma." Wm. " Mary L. Rev. 32 (1990): 211.
Cain, Rita Marie. "Embedded advertising on television: Disclosure, deception, and free speech rights." Journal of Public Policy " Marketing 30.2 (2011): 226-238.
