Two second-graders, little Timmy and Billy are playing on the playground during recess. Timmy is playing with his toy car, and Billy comes up and grabs it out of his hands. Timmy starts crying and goes and tells the teacher. The teacher tells Billy to give the car back, and Billy says: “NO! I can do whatever I want! This is a FREE country!” Although this example is a little extreme, many Americans know about the rules of the United States Constitution, but they do not understand exactly why they were created. Several people ponder the usefulness of free speech when it is impossible for our voices to be heard by others without the access to TV networks. Few people realize that the first amendment of the United States Constitution was written to protect citizens from being incarcerated due to their beliefs or thoughts, but not to ensure every American’s voice can be heard by as many people as they want. This right is still valuable even though getting others to hear your voice without having money or power is difficult.

One of the central themes of the United States is freedom of speech. The first amendment to the United States Constitution was written over 200 years ago, but is still useful today:

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



The reason that this was so important to our founding fathers was because it was a problem which drove them from England. The idea of free speech was virtually unheard of during the time the constitution was created. At the time, in other places around the world, people were being persecuted for what they said. It was unlawful to practice specific religions, hold certain beliefs, or speak out against the government. Citizens faced prison sentences, torture or even death for violating any of these laws. Even today, some countries exist which do not have the basic privilege of freedom of speech. An American soldier tells us about one of these foreign lands: “’I'm trying to help provide to the Iraqi and Afghan people the same rights that every American has, which some take for granted. I believe in the right of free speech and people's right to protest and express concerns to their leaders.’” Most of us Americans are guilty of taking some of our basic freedoms for granted. We are born and raised here, with no experiences of living in a place without these freedoms. Some of us can’t even imagine what it would be like: “In reality, by Western standards, freedom of speech and a free press are severely restricted in Qatar. Public criticism of the ruling family or of Islam is forbidden. Even after formal censorship was lifted, newspapers have been shut down twice for publishing articles that ran contrary to Qatar’s interests.” Although it may be tricky to be heard by the masses, Americans can still benefit from the legal protection that our freedom of speech laws provides for us.

The term “Free Speech” implies that all speech is free of charge, which is untrue. Obviously, there are some forms of speech which are not protected, such as slander, obscenity, and speech that presents a clear and present danger, but other forms are “free”. For example, we have the freedom to walk down the street, announcing anything we desire. It costs nothing to express our opinions through whatever free means we have available. Some may argue that this right is useless unless enormous amounts of people can hear what you have to say. They point out that not all Americans can afford to get their voices on network television, so it is unfair that some people can utilize this, and not others. If network television time is something that is desired, the cost will be enormous. TV stations cannot just give away free airtime to whoever wants it. Network airtime is only valuable because people want to watch the programs that are put on. These companies spend billions of dollars on the production of shows, which gather the masses around the television in the first place. They cover these costs with the revenue generated by the limited advertising space they have, sold to the highest bidder: “Advertisers are shelling out a record $705,000 per 30-second spot on Fox's American Idol, $560,000 for ABC's Desperate Housewives, $465,000 for CBS' CSI, and $350,000 for Survivor on CBS, Lost on ABC and The Apprentice on NBC.” Even after these enormous costs to place ads, the networks are only going to accept advertisements with messages that do not conflict with the interests of the company. For example, they are not going to run an ad for another network’s programs. The networks are profit-driven companies, just like most other businesses in this capitalistic economy. The only entities which can afford to purchase advertising space only do so because they believe that there will be some sort of economic return on their investment. Network advertising is expensive due to the demand from other competitive businesses, which all desire the same publicity. Due to the price of advertising, many Americans forget to appreciate their basic right to express their own opinion, without being punished by the law.

Advertising on network television is not the only avenue to the goal of expressing an opinion to the masses. From national issues to local campus matters, the underdog group with lesser means to inform the public of their opinion can still effectively come out victorious. A perfect national example of people expressing ideas who didn’t have control over the media was in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960’s: “Sit-ins, freedom rides, the March on Washington, and Dr. King’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech captured public attention and support for the blossoming civil rights movement.” This shows the public’s power to share its opinion with the rest of the world, without having to spend millions on advertising space. A prime local case where a dissenting group was able to overcome adversity and change the majority opinion despite having the lesser means of advertising was the fee referendum that was voted down here at Cal Poly by students last spring. Associated Students, Inc., or ASI, proposed an increase in student fees to fund the building of new facilities. They took a poll to see what kind of support they would have: “66% of students surveyed said they would pay to renovate ASI facilities.” They started spring 2005 quarter with a highly publicized “Yes” campaign. This consisted of signs and posters everywhere around campus, ASI student employees and staff members wearing “Yes” shirts, buttons and pins, advertisements in the school newspaper, and flyers with convincing statistics as to why one should vote yes. ASI had communication resources that no other organization on campus had access to. Finally, in the last few days before the opening of the polls, one club on campus, the Progressive Student Alliance, printed a few flyers, which were then distributed around school. These flyers contained very convincing information as to why students should vote against the proposed fee referendum. Once the results of the vote were in, many students were shocked to hear that the fee referendum was voted down, despite ASI’s campaign efforts. The school newspaper, the Mustang Daily, reported that ASI spent well over $50,000 on their campaign, a budget that no other club could afford. It would be faulty to assume that the United States is similar to a college campus, but concept is the same. An organization may have the dominant means to communicate their ideas to the majority of the population, but this does not mean that their opinions will be accepted, or even considered by everyone. Without the freedom of speech, the underdogs wouldn’t even be able to express their opinion to anyone. Dr. King would have been arrested for his opinion. The Progressive Student Alliance could have been expelled from school for expressing public dissent of the proposed project. Our founding fathers intended to grant equal legal protection to everyone with an opinion.

The principle of free speech is still valid, but the implication is much more complex today than it was 200 years ago. The first amendment was written in the 18th century, when there was no television, radio, or internet. We were a country with only thirteen states, and since then, we have grown in area and population: “The population of the United States has grown continuously, from 4 million at the first national census in 1790, to 76 million in 1900, to 281 million in 2000.” It is hard to tell whether or not our founding fathers expected this growth, but we can be certain that there was no way for them to have any knowledge of upcoming advancements of television, radio, or internet. Had they foreseen this development, and intended to write the first amendment laws not only for protection, but also to ensure each citizen had equal opportunity to express their opinion freely, the implications would be nearly impossible. Say, for example, the United States government decides to create or buy a television network that is intended for the use of citizens to state their opinion free of charge. If they intend to distribute an equal amount of time to every citizen each year, every person would only get about one tenth of a second of air time per year. Even if you could do something with your tenth of a second, it would not be fair to give one person their time at four in the morning, and another person their time on a Sunday evening. Also, how many Americans would actually be watching this network, instead of the season premiere of American Idol? The idea of free speech is just as valid today as it is was 200 years ago. The concept of creating equality in the means we use to get our voices heard is still as impossible and impractical as it was 200 years ago.

Our founding fathers created this country with the belief that everyone’s opinion should count equally. That is why they chose the system of voting to help our country make decisions. They knew that this structure would be the most fair and efficient means of hearing each citizen’s voice uniformly, while still allowing for a capitalistic economy. One belief which had a strong influence on the way the constitution was written is that the proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things. The right to publish each person’s opinions equally may be possible in a socialist country, but the outcome would still be questionable at best. It would be practically impossible to prevent the people with money to have greater power and influence than the people with less money, especially in a nation with as many freedoms as this one. We must forget to appreciate the freedom that we have, including our freedom of speech.