The internet has made the issue of freedom of expression incredibly prevalent and complicated. Traditionally, the average individual’s communication with the rest of the world occurred on a relatively localized scale, with the mass of the population being filtered through editors. The internet makes it easy, even for individuals in the most remote places in the world. As Jack Balkin argues in his article "The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age," the central choices that shape the conditions of freedom of expression take place not in courts but at the intersection of code and its various business models, which determine who speaks and how information flows. This development certainly presents clear benefits. People who have traditionally had their rights violated can now form groups and share their own stories of experience without being dependent on the mass media’s agenda for reporting on their issues. International movements on issues like Black Lives Matter and MeToo cannot happen without the power of networked communication. A study published by UNESCO on the issue of freedom of connection and freedom of expression highlights that connectivity, or being online, is the prerequisite of communication freedom. This implies that being offline results in being unheard. However, the internet has also altered the nature of the danger associated with putting oneself out there. Harassment campaigns, doxing attacks, and bullying campaigns can go on indefinitely and on an enormous scale. As PEN America puts it, it poses a direct and immediate danger to freedom of expression because it makes individuals afraid to express their opinions.
Understandings of freedom of expression have had to adapt to this reality. The First Amendment tradition that prevails in the U.S. recognizes the freedom of both information receivers and speakers. Online, that listener’s right is at stake when governments block platforms, when companies over-filter content, or when harassment effectively prevents people from participating in public conversation. The internet has broadened the scope of freedom of expression from “can I speak?” to also “can I be heard?” and “can I safely listen?” Based on these tensions, I believe that there is a need for an active prioritization of values and rights in the context of the Internet age. At the pinnacle of this ranking should remain the right to freedom of speech and its close cousin, access to the opinions of others.
The effects of someone’s speech on others, including the damages of harassment, incitement, directed disinformation, and demeaning stereotypes, are clearly very real and serious. Researching abusive speech on the Internet clarifies the way these damages can cause individuals to leave forums or disrupt the equality of who speaks. Where the principle of “harm” can so easily be misused, this principle should only be acted upon if the danger of potential harm proves significant and is based on reality. The internet has expanded free expression, but it has also made it more complicated and easier to disrupt. Having a clear order of priorities, protecting free expression first, ensuring people can access information second, protecting privacy next, and addressing harmful speech only when truly necessary, helps us handle the challenges of the digital world without weakening the core democratic value of free speech.