Freedom of Expression

Blog #3-MCO 428/528

It has become more frequently clear that across the United States, state-level legislation is reducing various aspects of freedom of expression over recent years. These laws affect multiple aspects of public life more broadly like online discourse, protest activity, voting access, and political speech. Certain measures stand justified as they are necessary for public order, altogether, it perpetuates a increasing comfort with limitations on expression when politically inconvenient. This trend is hard not to deem concerning.

Voting and civic participation explicitly show this. Many states have introduced changes to voting laws, new restrictions that strengthen difficulties on political participation, more specifically on marginalized communities. Expression becomes limited when access to the ballot is limited. Procedural barriers, as tracked in recent voting legislation research, outline how they can subtly off-put civic engagment. If citizens are less willing, or able, to actively participate in elections than their voices are substantially silenced before they are even heard.

Freedom of expression is another area that feels as thought its growing fragile. Current events and reporting on arrests to protest-related happenings display how states have increased policing powers and penalties in reaction to demonstrations, particularly during times of social unrest. The possibility of surveillance or arrest, even with lawful protests, creates a higher risk when exercising that right. As pointed out in The Atlantic, the First Amendment matters most when speech challenges those in power, not when it is in support of them.

Now, is policy an appropriate method towards regulating speech? In theory, sure, but history has made it clear how simply regulation moves beyond. Decisions such as the one made in the case of Butler v. Michigan explicitly outline that by only appealing to morality or public welfare, states cannot restrict expression. Additionally, the case Cohen v. California strengthens the notion that speech that is uncomfortable or offensive cannot simply be suppressed. Both of these cases highlight that the Constitution works to protect expression simply due to it being disruptive.

Silmutaneously, not all regulation is unconstitutional. When harm is involved, States have legitimate reasoning to regulate expressive conduct. However, it is notably warned that modern legislation frequently blurs lines between preventing harm and suppressing dissent. With the politically polarizing climate, that contrast is more important than ever.

These developments are unsettling because of the wider patterns they form. Freedom of expression becomes conditional when public discourse, voting, and protest are restricted all at once. Policy should adhere, protect, and sustain democratic participation rather than forcing the public to hesitate in speaking out.