In another case, Nyabwa v. Facebook, the Southern District of Texas, also confirmed that private companies are not subject to the First Amendment. There, the plaintiff had a Facebook account that talked about President Donald Trump`s business conflicts of interest. Facebook decided to suspend the account so that the plaintiff could no longer access it. The plaintiff decided to sue Facebook because he believed the company was violating his First Amendment rights. The court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the First Amendment prevented Congress and other government agencies from restricting free speech, not private entities. The concepts of freedom of expression can be found in early human rights documents. [5] The Bill of Rights of England of 1689 legally established the constitutional right to freedom of expression in Parliament, which is still in force. [8] [9] The 2003 Declaration of Principles of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) explicitly refers to the importance of freedom of expression for the „information society“ by stating that while the public has a right to freedom of expression when it comes to the US government, the public does not have this right when it comes to private entities. Companies and private employers can regulate speech on their platforms and in the workplace, as the First Amendment only applies to government.
This right allowed Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to ban President Donald Trump from their websites in 2021 without legal effect. Companies like Facebook and YouTube were also able to ban misleading information about Covid-19 during the 2020 pandemic. The most fundamental element of freedom of opinion is the right to freedom of expression. Freedom of expression can be exercised directly (words) or symbolically (actions). Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right to freedom of expression allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide a substantial justification for infringing on freedom of expression when seeking to regulate the content of speech. In general, a person cannot be held criminally or civilly liable for anything written or said about a person or subject, as long as it is true or based on honest opinion and statements. Eric Barendt called this defense of free speech on the basis of democracy „probably the most attractive and certainly the most fashionable theory of free speech in modern Western democracies.“ [21] Thomas I. Emerson expanded this defence when he argued that freedom of expression helps strike a balance between stability and change. Freedom of expression acts as a „safety valve“ to let off steam when people would otherwise seek revolution.
He argues that „the principle of open discussion is a method of achieving a more adaptable and at the same time more stable community in order to maintain the precarious balance between healthy division and necessary consensus.“ Emerson further asserts that „opposition fulfills an important social function in balancing or improving the normal process of bureaucratic decadence.“ [22] Richard Moon developed the argument that the value of freedom of expression and opinion lies in social interactions. Moon writes that „through the communication of an individual, relationships and associations are formed with others – family, friends, colleagues, church and compatriots. By engaging in conversation with others, a person participates in the development of knowledge and the orientation of the community. [25] The framers of the Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and opinion to the citizens of the United States with the First Amendment, which reads in part: „Congress shall not legislate. restrict freedom of expression.“ However, almost since the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the judiciary has struggled to define speech and expression and the extent to which freedom of expression should be protected. Some, like Justice Hugo L. Black, believed that freedom of speech is absolute. But most lawyers, as well as most U.S.
citizens, agree with Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who believes that the Constitution allows for certain restrictions on free speech in certain circumstances. To illustrate this point, Holmes wrote: „The strictest protection of free speech would not protect a man who falsely shouts fire and causes panic in a theatre“ (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 pp. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]). Governments have a duty to ban hate speech and inflammatory speech, but many abuse their authority to silence peaceful dissent by passing laws criminalizing freedom of expression. This is often done in the name of fighting terrorism, national security or religion.
Recently, freedom of expression has been threatened by the authorities` crackdown on activists, NGOs and people helping refugees and migrants. The Supreme Court recently confirmed that private entities are not limited by the First Amendment in Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck. Manhattan Neighborhood Network is a non-profit organization that has been licensed by the City of New York City to operate public access canals in Manhattan. The organization decided to suspend two of its employees after receiving complaints about a film the employees had produced. Staff argued that this was a violation of their freedom of speech under the First Amendment, as they would be punished based on the content of their film. The Supreme Court ruled that the Manhattan Neighborhood Network was not a government agency or state actor, so the nonprofit could not be subject to the First Amendment. The Court also upheld laws governing speech activity where such laws do not restrict the content of speech and constitute only an indirect burden on freedom of expression. In such cases, the court applies a less stringent test and balances the interests of the individual in freedom of expression against the interests of the government promoted by the law in question.
In O`Brien v. United States, 393U.S. 900, 89 p. Ct. 63, 21 L. Ed. 2d 188 (1968), the Court held that a law prohibiting the destruction of design cards did not violate the First Amendment, since the government`s interest in maintaining a viable selective pool of services outweighed the law`s accidental violation of freedom of expression. Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects free speech.