I don't know what to say. The truth is, history proves that whatever freedom of speech is, we have never had an easy time defining it. When is it right to share something because it is true? And when do you withhold something because it is...something else...personal feelings, offensive, slander, hysteria, or would cause some of these things?
The US, Supreme Court case Near v. Minnesota of 1931, was such a issue where multiple people of the state of Minnesota claimed that a newspaper, The Saturday Press, was publishing libel about public officials of the state. The Minnesota state court upheld this, saying that The Saturday Press must stop printing such "defamatory and scandalous" articles. (Case Briefs) However, some saw this court order as contrary to the freedom of speech, and brought the case to the Supreme Court. In their review, the Supreme Court stated that the Minnesota court order was a "previous.." or "prior constraint" on the newspaper's publication, it was, therefore, unconstitutional in light of the First and Fourteenth amendments. (Notable First Amendment Court Cases)
This "prior constraint" or prior restraint is "Government prohibition of speech in advance of publication." (Prior Restraint) Can you imagine what would happen if this was allowed? Historically, people understood that freedom of speech meant no government entanglement at any level, but this case, if decided otherwise could have lead to a greatly censored and different press and media than what we know. Basically, government would have an opening to change what we hear, see, and know about; we would be ignorant about things, not because we don't have time for it, but because we aren't allowed to know. Eventually, we would look like the countries around us, where the government has almost no checks from the civilians.
Following this case, there have been instances where the government thought it would be best to keep information from the public to keep them from hysteria. Should they do that? Presidents F. D. Roosevelt and Truman both kept the atomic bomb a secret from the public for more than a year. Was that in the people's best interest, or was it restricting freedom of speech? Again, what is the definition of our freedom of speech?
Quite frankly, we will probably never have a clear, well-written, or word-for-word definition. But, that is the way a freedom works. If we let it alone, or let it go, we will see it morph into whatever our superiors(or self-allowed superiors, as is the case with our government) want it to be. Yet, when we remain vigilant to see that we are free to share what is true as well as gracious. And we rebuke those who would abuse it by slander, trying to scare others, silencing opposition, etc. When we do this, having such a clear definition will not be necessary, we will know what is right without governmental instruction, and we will have real freedom of speech.
Works Cited:
Near v. Minnesota. Case Briefs. website; http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-sullivan/freedom-of-speech-how-government-restricts-speech-modes-of-abridgment-and-standards-of-review/near-v-minnesota-3/
Prior Restraint. The free dictionary.com, website;
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Prior+Restraint
Notable First Amendment Court Cases. American Library Association. website;
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorshipfirstamendmentissues/courtcases#fes
