The public benefit of free expression lies in its ability to bring suppressed histories to the surface and question prevailing narratives. Gayatri Spivak contends that much radical critique emanating from the West does so by maintaining the subject of the West, erasing the "other" by negating geo-political specificity. She says the colonial or nationalist elites have constructed the history of the nationalism of India, and the subaltern, the diverse classes outside the elites, have little say. When the knowledge of the people of the colonies gets filtered through imperialist lenses, it amounts to what Spivak describes as epistemic violence, a "subtext" of imperialism, where suppressed knowledge gets pushed into the margins. Free expression has a public benefit because it makes space for repressed experiences to enter collective memory, preventing the erasure of entire communities (Spivak, 1988).
The lesson plan "When Rivers Were Trails" demonstrates the possibilities of free expression. Games produced without the input of Indigenous people may confirm colonial perspectives, where players are rewarded for "finding" or "claiming" territory. By comparison, the game When Rivers Were Trails was co-created by the Indian Land Tenure Foundation, Indigenous authors, and visual and musical creatives. The game transforms the Lessons of Our Land curriculum, utilized by hundreds of schools in the United States to learn of the fullness of history and to pay reverence to tribal nations. By providing Indigenous people with agency over narrative, artistic, and game design, the game represents the possibilities of free expression (LaPensée, 2019).
Free expression also contributes profoundly to personal identity. Spivak stresses that the subaltern subject is “irretrievably heterogeneous” and that identities are fluid and cannot be reduced to a single voice or representation. Without the ability to speak, identity is imposed from above. In colonial contexts, the subaltern “has no history and cannot speak,” and subaltern women are “even more deeply in shadow” (Spivak, 1988).
Is the right to free expression worth defending? Both authors recommend the defense of expression as necessary. Spivak warns us that merely "making visible" the invisible reproduces domination unless the subjects are not reduced to becoming the object of study. Free expression would have to be matched by reform so that oppressed communities have the power to define their own narratives.
Overall, free expression is both a public good and an individual necessity. It supports deliberation in democracies, enables marginal histories to emerge, and allows individuals to construct their own identities. Referring back to the analysis of the silence of the subaltern by Spivak, expression remains fundamentally political, and where it does not exist, violence thrives. The When Rivers Were Trails lesson demonstrates how collective, community-based media can be an expression of free expression by setting the record straight and teaching history according to the perspectives of the Indigenous people. Safeguarding free expression is not merely the rights of the collective searching for truth, but the self-determination and the dignity of communities long silenced. In today's environment, we must be diverse and experienced in these areas of knowledge.
References
LaPensée, E. (2019). Films for the Feminist Classroom - Issue 9.1. Twu.edu. http://ffc.twu.edu/issue_9-1/lesson_LaPensee-and-Emmons_9-1.html
Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? Die Philosophin, 14(27), 24–28. https://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~sj6/Spivak%20CanTheSubalternSpeak.pdf