Archbold/Ewing
Free speech has been a vital part of the United States since its founding, but lately, the issue has become progressively more polarizing and divisive. A key part of this has been the creation and increasing use of social media and artificial intelligence. According to UNESCO“Between 2020 and 2025, 1.5 billion people gained access to social media and messaging platforms, expanding civic participation and new avenues for expression.”Source
This massive influx of public speech has raised questions about what people can say on a public platform. The online community completely changes what free speech means. A common analogy is shouting "fire" in a crowded room. What can be limited for safety reasons, and what is a constitutional given right? In this press release, we are going to look at the problems in the current status quo, the Vision party/Archbold/Ewing stance, and the advantages of the values held by the Vision party and Archbold/Ewing.
It takes time for our political process to catch up to new technology and social media is a key example. Currently, the United States has taken the approach that the industry will self-regulate and has chosen to pass relatively little guidance surrounding it. As a result of these policies, our freedom of expression has been suffering. Freedom of expression has dropped globally by 10% since 2012—an erosion not seen since the world wars and the Cold War era. At the same time, self-censorship has risen by 63%, as journalists increasingly avoid reporting on corruption, human rights, and environmental harm.” Source Not only is our freedom of expression suffering, but journalists are afraid to write because of the possible backlash and the prevalence of cancel culture. This is a sign of our increasingly divisive society.
Because of all the problems within the status quo, the Archbold/Ewing ticket stands with the vision party in believing that free expression must be equally accessible to all people online and that neither governments nor private corporations should have the power to censor public discourse. We need to create policies ensuring that neither the government nor a private corporation has the right to limit freedom of speech or expression. Now, how specifically would we do this?
Your phone carriers have no authority over what you say over the phone because of the Communications Act of 1934, which holds that phone carriers must provide services to the public on a nondiscriminatory basis. The Archbold/Ewing ticket would reclassify social media apps as common carriers, thus subjecting them to the Communications Act of 1934. This would ensure that social media companies would have no power to censor what's said on social media and have less justification to perform content moderation. Does that mean there's absolutely no content moderation? If those opinions being expressed are dangerous, a person would not have the right to express them in a public space. In a perfect world we could have completely free speech, but because we live in a society and have a government, there must be consequences to some types of speech. Freedom of speech does not include the right to incite imminent lawless action, as seen in Brandenburg v. Ohio (Source ). To ensure everyone has access to free speech online, the Archbold/Ewing ticket would establish a regulatory path for lawmakers seeking to ensure those online are accessing freedom of speech, and are liable for alleged viewpoint discrimination against and censorship.
As social media becomes more integrated into our everyday lives, the Archbold/Ewing ticket will ensure that freedom of expression remains a fundamental American right.