Post #2

 The First Amendment protects American rights that many other countries' constitutions do not grant to their citizens, we as Americans have the freedom of speech, expression, and religion. Although these freedoms were established in the late 1780s, they are just as, if not more, important now. The idea of free expression can be broken down into eight smaller parts. These are considered to be the Eight Values of Free Expression.  These eight values are as follows:

Participation in Self-Government

Marketplace of Ideas

Individual Self-Fulfillment

Check on Government Power

Protect Dissent

Promote Tolerance

Stable Change

Promote Innovation

After thinking about these eight values for some time I realized that not just me, but almost everyone in the United States can relate to the value of Participation in Self-Government. At the age of 19, I was given the chance to vote in the 2020 Presidential Election. This vote not only allowed me to partake in the decision for the next president but also several local positions within my state, county, and even some city positions. Before I arrived to fill out my ballot I researched the candidates so that I could make an informed decision.

Some of these theories also can be seen and leave an impact in the real world. Consider the theory of Check on Government Power and how it can relate to the American government. Looking retrospectively over the Trump administration there were many attempts to impeach President Trump while he was in office, whether it was being used as a way to weaken his support for re-election or substantially founded accusations. President Trump was the kind of president that people either loved for his actions to help the American economy or hated for his Tweets. Returning to the 2020 election, Trump lost at his bid for re-election to the now current president Joe Biden. This is a prime example of citizens making changes to the government through voting and self-governance. 

The theory of Stable Change is that if aggravated citizens are able to vent then they will be more likely to make use of peaceful protests and boycotts to make their issues heard. The theory goes further, noting that allowing disgruntled and angry citizens to speak out about their concerns helps the government monitor potentially dangerous or radical groups. In terms of the real-world application of this theory, I think that it is only partially successful. I’ll use the example of the Black Lives Matters movement. The BLM movement recently had a major boom after the murder of George Floyd. Around this time BLM protests took a more violent turn as city-wide riots erupted across the country with storefronts being damaged and merchandise stolen. Situations such as this show that it is not always enough to let upset citizens speak their opinions against the government. 

Another of these theories that I see in the real world is Promote Tolerance. The concept is that our freedom of speech allows us and in many ways encourages us to speak about things that may be heavily controversial or seemingly harmful. Because of this, we as a society could become more tolerant and thus become a healthier society. To point out some of the practical flaws of this theory though, we currently have what is being called cancel culture. The idea of cancel culture is that we try and “cancel”, or block the statements of, anyone or anything that supports an idea that many may feel is wrong or harmful. It would be similar to when people boycott a business because it is revealed that said business is using unethical business practices. Some might feel that cancel culture is a helpful tool in exposing negative and demeaning behavior, it is not necessarily always used in a positive way. Many times, it has been used as a way of suppressing or forcing out unpopular and/or controversial opinions through the threat of public shaming. In our current age where the saying “the internet is forever” is more true now than ever before, we live in a consistent state of worry that others on the internet will be upset or angry at us based on the things we say or post. The reality of this is that, although the freedom of speech is protected for us from our government, it is not shielded from public backlash.