Anthology of Ideas

The line between safe and free speech is quite thin, or so Susan Estrich claims. In reality the line is actually non-existent because in stopping free speech you also stop the basic foundation of the constitution. However occasionally, under the correct circumstances it is more important to stop the speech, for whatever reason, than ensure the right to the same speech. Because even if it does deny the freedom of speech, it can also prevent the spreading of speech that would likely cause death or injury.

History has shown us that it takes as much government influence to protect free speech as it does to deny it. The government sometimes seems like a spinning top; one moment it is denying a form of free speech and another it is protecting a different form of free speech. For a large part of the last century the government, more specifically the FCC, had a policy called the Fairness Doctrine, this policy forced the media to be unbiased and give fair and balanced reports on political issues.

The line between safe and free speech is quite thin, or so Susan Estrich claims. In reality the line is actually non-existent because in stopping free speech you also stop the basic foundation of the constitution. However occasionally, under the correct circumstances it is more important to stop the speech, for whatever reason, than ensure the right to the same speech. Because even if it does deny the freedom of speech, it can also prevent the spreading of speech that would likely cause death or injury.

History has shown us that it takes as much government influence to protect free speech as it does to deny it. The government sometimes seems like a spinning top; one moment it is denying a form of free speech and another it is protecting a different form of free speech. For a large part of the last century the government, more specifically the FCC, had a policy called the Fairness Doctrine, this policy forced the media to be unbiased and give fair and balanced reports on political issues.