LIBERAL ECONOMY AND FREE MARKETS VERSUS FREEDOM OF SPEECH: A MODERN ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATION CHANNELS AND SOCIAL MEDIA PROPAGANDA

APA full citation: Filho, C. I. (2024, October 23). Liberal Economy and Free Markets Versus Freedom of Speech: A Modern Analysis of Communication Channels and Social Media Propaganda. EBS I&D Centre. https://www.ebscentre.org/law-and-politicalscience/

Abstract

In contemporary political and legal discourse, the relationship between a liberal economy, free markets, and freedom of speech has become increasingly complex. With the rise of social media as a dominant communication channel, propaganda and misinformation have emerged as powerful forces that challenge democratic values. This article explores how the principles of a liberal economy and free markets intersect with freedom of speech, analyzing the impact of social media on public discourse, political polarization, and the propagation of propaganda. It further examines the legal challenges and policy considerations that arise from balancing market-driven media platforms with the protection of free speech in democratic societies. By drawing on political science and legal literature, this article critically engages with the tension between economic liberalism, freedom of expression, and the growing influence of private media corporations in shaping public opinion.

Keywords: liberal economy, free markets, freedom of speech, social media, propaganda, political polarization, communication channels, legal regulation

Article - Liberal Economy and Free Markets Versus Freedom of Speech.pdf

Download PDF • 123KB

---

Introduction

Liberal democracy is built on two foundational principles: the promotion of free markets and the protection of individual liberties, including freedom of speech. In a liberal economy, markets are expected to function without excessive government intervention, allowing for the free exchange of goods, services, and ideas (Friedman, 1962). At the same time, freedom of speech is a core value of democratic societies, ensuring that citizens can express their views and opinions without fear of repression (Mill, 1859). However, in the age of social media and digital communication, the intersection of these principles has given rise to new challenges. This article explores how the liberal economy and free markets interact with freedom of speech, focusing on the role of social media and communication channels in shaping public discourse and the spread of propaganda.

The dominance of social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter (X), and YouTube in modern communication has transformed the way information is disseminated and consumed. While these platforms promote free expression, they also operate within a market-driven framework that prioritizes user engagement and advertising revenue (Zuboff, 2019). This economic model has allowed misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda to proliferate, raising concerns about the impact on democratic processes and public opinion (Benkler, Faris, & Roberts, 2018). The tension between economic liberalism and the regulation of speech is further complicated by the fact that these platforms are owned and operated by private corporations, which have the power to shape public discourse by moderating content and controlling access to information*.

* Also highlighting their power to address and drive political matters within State level (public policy).

This article aims to examine the relationship between liberal economies, free markets, and freedom of speech in the context of social media and propaganda. Drawing on both political science and legal literature, it explores the implications of market-driven communication channels for free expression, democratic governance, and the regulation of speech in the digital age.

Liberal Economy and Free Markets

The liberal economic model is based on the idea that markets should be free from government interference, allowing individuals to pursue their economic interests through voluntary exchanges (Smith, 1776). In this framework, competition and innovation are seen as key drivers of economic growth and prosperity. The role of the state is limited to enforcing property rights, ensuring fair competition, and protecting individual freedoms, including freedom of speech (Friedman, 1962).

In theory, free markets are conducive to the free flow of ideas and information, as individuals are free to express their views and opinions in the marketplace of ideas. John Stuart Mill (1859) famously argued that a free exchange of ideas is essential for the pursuit of truth and the functioning of a healthy democracy. In a liberal economy, speech is seen as a commodity that can be bought and sold, with individuals and media companies competing to provide content that attracts the attention of consumers.

However, the rise of digital communication channels, particularly social media, has complicated this relationship. Social media platforms operate within a market-driven framework, where the primary goal is to maximize user engagement and generate advertising revenue. This economic model has incentivized the spread of sensationalist and polarizing content, as algorithms prioritize content that generates clicks, likes, and shares (Tufekci, 2017). As a result, the marketplace of ideas has become increasingly dominated by misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda, raising concerns about the impact on democratic discourse and political polarization (Benkler, Faris, & Roberts, 2018).

Freedom of Speech: Legal and Political Foundations

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in democratic societies, enshrined in both domestic constitutions and international human rights treaties. In the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" (U.S. Const. amend. I). Similarly, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) affirms that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression" (United Nations, 1948).*

This supra-constitucional guarantee is vastly present in most of actual constituent charters from States across the globe.

From a legal perspective, freedom of speech is not absolute. Governments have the authority to regulate speech in certain circumstances, such as when it incites violence, promotes hatred, or undermines national security (Schauer, 1982). However, in liberal democracies, the regulation of speech is generally limited, as excessive government control is seen as a threat to individual liberty and democratic governance.

In the context of social media, the question of how to regulate speech has become increasingly contentious. On the one hand, social media platforms are private companies that have the right to moderate content on their platforms, in accordance with their terms of service. On the other hand, these platforms have become central to public discourse, and their decisions about which content to allow or remove have significant implications for freedom of speech (Keller, 2020). The challenge for policymakers is to strike a balance between protecting free expression and preventing the spread of harmful or misleading content.

Social Media as a Marketplace of Ideas

The concept of the "marketplace of ideas" is central to liberal theories of free speech. According to this metaphor, ideas compete with one another in a free and open marketplace, with the best ideas rising to the top through reasoned debate and critical examination (Mill, 1859). In the digital age, social media platforms have become the primary marketplace for the exchange of ideas, allowing individuals to share their views with a global audience.

However, the market dynamics of social media differ significantly from traditional media. Whereas newspapers, television, and radio are subject to editorial oversight and regulatory frameworks, social media platforms rely on algorithms to curate content for users (Tufekci, 2017)*. These algorithms are designed to maximize user engagement by promoting content that is likely to generate clicks, likes, and shares, regardless of its accuracy or reliability (Zuboff, 2019). As a result, misinformation, conspiracy theories, and extremist views often gain more visibility than factual or moderate content, undermining the marketplace of ideas (Benkler, Faris, & Roberts, 2018).

In light of this, algorithms have emerged as the new standard for measuring and driving a company's profitability.

The economic incentives of social media platforms also raise questions about the commodification of speech. In a liberal economy, speech is treated as a commodity that can be bought and sold, with individuals and companies competing to capture the attention of consumers. This has led to the rise of "clickbait" journalism and the spread of sensationalist content, as media companies seek to maximize advertising revenue (Fuchs, 2020). The commodification of speech has had a profound impact on public discourse, contributing to political polarization and the erosion of trust in democratic institutions (Sunstein, 2018).

Propaganda and the Spread of Misinformation

Propaganda and misinformation have always been tools of political manipulation, but the rise of social media has amplified their reach and impact. Social media platforms provide an ideal environment for the spread of propaganda, as algorithms prioritize content that provokes strong emotional reactions, regardless of its truthfulness (Tufekci, 2017). This has led to the proliferation of "fake news," conspiracy theories, and other forms of disinformation, which have been used by both state and non-state actors to influence public opinion and undermine democratic processes (Benkler, Faris, & Roberts, 2018).

From a political science perspective, the spread of propaganda on social media raises concerns about the health of democratic discourse. In a liberal democracy, free speech is supposed to promote reasoned debate and the pursuit of truth. However, when misinformation and propaganda dominate public discourse, it becomes difficult for citizens to make informed decisions and hold their leaders accountable (Sunstein, 2018). This undermines the very foundations of democracy, as voters are more likely to be influenced by emotional appeals and false information than by reasoned arguments and factual evidence.

The legal challenges posed by the spread of propaganda on social media are equally complex. While governments have an interest in preventing the spread of harmful or misleading content, efforts to regulate speech on social media often raise concerns about censorship and the suppression of free expression (Keller, 2020). In the United States, for example, attempts to regulate online speech are often met with resistance on First Amendment grounds, as courts have consistently upheld the right to free expression, even when it involves false or misleading information (Schauer, 1982).

The Role of Private Corporations in Shaping Public Discourse

One of the most significant developments in the digital age is the increasing power of private corporations in shaping public discourse. Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are not just passive intermediaries for the exchange of information; they actively shape the content that users see through their algorithms and content moderation policies (Zuboff, 2019). This has raised concerns about the role of private companies in controlling access to information and shaping public opinion.

From a legal perspective, the role of private corporations in regulating speech raises important questions about the limits of free expression. While social media platforms are private companies that have the right to set their own content moderation policies, their dominance in the digital marketplace gives them significant power over public discourse(Keller, 2020). This has led to calls for greater transparency and accountability in the way these platforms moderate content, as well as debates about whether social media companies should be treated as public utilities, subject to government regulation (Balkin, 2018).

From a political science perspective, the concentration of power in the hands of a few private corporations raises concerns about the erosion of democratic governance. When private companies have the power to shape public discourse, it becomes difficult for citizens to hold their leaders accountable and participate in meaningful democratic debate (Sunstein, 2018). This has led to calls for greater regulation of social media platforms, as well as efforts to promote alternative models of digital governance that prioritize democratic values over market-driven incentives (Balkin, 2018).

Conclusion

The relationship between liberal economies, free markets, and freedom of speech has become increasingly complex in the age of social media. While the principles of economic liberalism and free expression are foundational to democratic governance, the rise of market-driven communication channels has created new challenges for the regulation of speech and the promotion of democratic discourse. Social media platforms, driven by the pursuit of profit, have become breeding grounds for misinformation, propaganda, and political polarization, raising concerns about the health of democratic processes.

The legal and political challenges posed by these developments require a nuanced approach that balances the protection of free expression with the need to prevent the spread of harmful or misleading content. Policymakers must consider the role of private corporations in shaping public discourse and explore new models of governance that promote transparency, accountability, and democratic values.

Carlos I. Filho

References

Balkin, J. M. (2018). Free speech is a triangle. Columbia Law Review, 118(7), 2011-2055. 

Benkler, Y., Faris, R., & Roberts, H. (2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford University Press. 

Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press. 

Fuchs, C. (2020). Social media: A critical introduction (3rd ed.). Sage. 

Keller, D. (2020). Internet platforms: Observations on speech, danger, and money.Hoover Institution Aegis Paper Series, 2008. 

Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. John W. Parker & Son. 

Schauer, F. (1982). Free speech: A philosophical enquiry. Cambridge University Press. 

Smith, A. (1776). The wealth of nations. Strahan & Cadell. 

Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press. 

Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press. 

United Nations. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights.