Disinformation and the First Ammendment

by Will Lyon

The First Amendment is immediately recognizable to most Americans, and perhaps to most people around the world. Among many things, it guarantees freedom of speech. With this protection, America has become the center of mass media. Whether it be the newspaper empires that dominated the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the often under-appreciated Drudge Report, or the seemingly endless social media services hoping to follow in the footsteps of Facebook, Americans have been subject to constantly evolving media innovations. However, in the last year in particular, there seems to have been a growing obsession and paranoia over disinformation among the media. With so many different new outlets and platforms that are available instantaneously, people’s perceptions of the world have become individualized. Every news source and media outlet has its own agenda and biases, this has been consistent throughout American history, but what is becoming more alarming is the lengths people are willing to go to in order to ensure to themselves that what they believe is correct. That being said, there have obviously been some periods of extreme tension in America’s history.

When I analyze the political and social tension of today, I often compare it to two other tense times in American history: the Civil War and the anti-racism and anti-war protests of the 1960s. However, the overarching questions behind these conflicts were different from the ones we are faced with now. Though there were many layers to the Civil War, the question that drove the Civil War was essentially “Should slavery be legal or it not?” Similarly, the driving questions behind the protests of the 1960s were “Should everyone have the same social and civil liberties?” and “Should we be fighting in Vietnam?" These questions, at their most basic levels could be answered with a “yes” or a “no”, and relied on people’s individual morals and opinions.

However, what makes these historical issues different from the ones we face today is that a handful of divisive topics currently are based on statistics or scientific fact as opposed to opinion or morality. For example, one of the most politically tense topics at the moment is the last Presidential election. Ultimately, the election comes down to whoever gets the most electoral college votes. It comes down to numbers, to mathematics. And when we consider the polarization and denial of the Covid-19 pandemic we are currently facing, it's strange to acknowledge that a topic that should be based on scientific evidence has become so heavily politicized. That's what is so concerning about decisive issues today as opposed to past ones: where past topics for debate were mostly opinion-based, today we are disagreeing with facts that should be standardized.

We are often quick to blame the actions and rhetoric of a few political actors for the spread of disinformation and political tension. But can we really place all the blame on a handful of people when in reality millions of people disagree with one another? When we look at the entire scope of media history, people are ultimately becoming more involved in politics. Every major advancement in the news cycle, whether it be newspapers, radio, television, email and social media, ultimately brings more news to the individual quicker than before. Some social media sites, specifically Twitter, give politicians the ability to directly speak to their constituents, then gives constituents the ability to respond back directly to their elected officials. Obviously, America is still a representative democracy, social media has given citizens the opportunity to express their own political views as well as directly communicate these views with politicians. Because of this, one can argue that America is more democratic than ever before. At first, this sounds like a good thing, but it seems as though the more people are becoming involved in politics, the more divisive it becomes.

As technology expands, so does the freedom of speech. We have more ways to express our political beliefs, opinions and morals to an audience of other people. So this raises the complex question of whether or not disinformation and political disagreement are just symptoms of free speech and democratic societies. It seems as though this phenomenon is just a natural occurrence, not something that can be blamed on a select few people. This also raises the question of how we address disinformation. Is it possible to do this while ensuring free speech, or do we need to violate this, as well as other democratic values, in order to do this? And if we do choose to do this, is it worth violating our country’s principles to ensure accurate information? This is a complex scenario that requires a complex answer, an answer that we will likely need to find in our lifetime.