Blog Post #3: The Eight Speech Theories

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a theory can be defined as a multitude of things. In summary with every definition I found combined, a theory is a principle offered to explain unusual circumstances and poses as a hypothetical set of facts. Theories exist to give us a filler answer until we are able to reach a real one or just deem the theory ridiculous and forget about it with no further investigation. 

The Eight Values of Free Expression, or Eight Speech Theories, are a set of filler answers brought about to offer an explanation as to why human beings behave the way that they do under certain circumstances. In this case, the theories seem to revolve around the government, politics, and philosophy. 

After carefully reading through each of the eight speech theories, I believe that Marketplace of Ideas, Stable Change (also known as Safety Valve), and Protect Dissent resonate with me the most personally and are the three most important theories on that list. 

The Marketplace of Ideas theory is all about embracing the truth. The main idea is that when caught between true and false information, the truth will always win. Trying to argue for the side of falsehood is only going to strengthen the truth. In an article written by Christopher T. Wonnell for the Law Journal Library, Wonnell mentions something interesting. He wonders whether free speech can lead to the discovery of truth and whether the two are intertwined with one another. When it comes to freedom of speech, a person does not necessarily have to always speak the truth. Would it be preferred? Yes, most likely. However, there is nothing preventing someone from lying or spreading false ideas as long as they are harmless and not seen as a threat. 

Even still, some people are going to make threats regardless. The Constitution does not contain limits on what kind of speech is free in the United States. When people are given the general right to speak their minds, they have the right to lie. This theory resonates with me because I grew up knowing there was (and still is) a long list of words and phrases that if I were to say publicly would get me in trouble and maybe even arrested. For example, you cannot shout that there is a bomb in a movie theater or on an airplane. It may be false information or it may not, but either way, it presents itself as threatening and harmful speech. Therefore, there is an unspoken, unwritten but assumed limit on free speech. 

This leads us to the Stable Change theory. Stable Change, or Safety Valve, puts emphasis on letting the people speak their minds for the greater good. The general consensus of the theory is that if angry citizens are given the right to complain and voice their concerns, society will become more stable and less violence will ensue as a result. I have seen this theory in action today throughout the WGA writers' strike. Under the First Amendment, U.S. citizens have the freedom of peaceful assembly. The strikers, whether they have been actors, writers, and/or directors, have all done nothing but assemble peacefully, create signs voicing their complaints, and make fair demands for better pay. No one has resorted to violence. 

I think it is very important that the writers' demands are met, because if not, what will that say about the U.S. government to its citizens? That they don't care about our well-being and livelihood unless violence occurs? With the writers of a ton of popular television programs on strike, many of America's favorite shows are on pause. If the shows aren't airing, the big bosses are losing money, and the economic status of America is declining. It doesn't look good for anyone, and I'd like to think no one wants to lose money. 

The Protect Dissent theory is short and sweet, but it really ties everything together. The overall message of this theory is that it is your protected right and especially your duty as an American citizen to disagree with and criticize the government. America is a democracy, and should always be treated as such. In a country where you are allowed to point out flaws with no repercussions, I think you should do it. As long as you are not causing harm, making a threat, inciting violence, or doing anything illegal, go right ahead! An opinion cannot be right or wrong, and if the U.S. government is willing to actually accept constructive criticism from its citizens, maybe expressing those opinions can help make America better.