I understand why the oldest theory of free speech is to help us find the truth and that at the time that John Milton and John Stuart Mill were thinking about free speech this seemed like the most prominent reason for it. However, I think that the marketplace of idea concept is not realistic or attainable today as this open debate idea because of the use of social media and honestly human nature in general. In both our online presence and our physical presence in the world, everyone selects who they want to listen to, talk to, follow, or even watch. Although it may seem easier online because these algorithms are programmed to prioritize what individuals like or gravitate towards opposed to what they don't. However, the same can be said for an individual walking down the street, sitting in a busy public setting or even listening to the radio or news.
I also think this idea isn’t attainable even if social media and technology were not so prevalent in our lives. Unless an individual is living in or working in an area that has some diversity this idea that so many different views and opinions will be prevalent, let alone discussed, seems unrealistic. As well people tend to gravitate towards others who have similar interests, ideas and morals so I’m skeptical that this melting pot of opinions and thoughts will meet the same complexity that was thought of when this marketplace of ideas concept came to be. Although distortion is and always will be prevalent, I think it ultimately comes back to the individual on how open they are to seeing/hearing other views and also be skeptical on what they see or hear to be true.
You're right. I'd add, though, that while the theory doesn’t guarantee exposure to every viewpoint, it assumes we can seek them out if we choose to. The challenge now is that while access has expanded more than ever, our habits and algorithms often make it harder to actually exercise that choice.
In recent years, I have found myself less and less convinced by this "marketplace of ideas" theory and I find it strange that some people are obsessed/fixated on this notion that there was ever a time in American history that people just randomly congregated in public settings with the goal of transacting ideas. And I find it even more strange, given the lack of a historical precedent for this idea, the people who believe in "the public square" or "the marketplace of ideas" also often believe that people nowadays are entitled something that never truly existed in the first place. Travel to any major American city and you will inevitably find someone on some street corner shouting into a megaphone about how some group of people is going to burn in Hell or how some major catastrophe was actually orchestrated by a malevolent group of the world's wealthiest. This is, in essence, the last/only vestige of the "public square" that some people are so obsessed with resurrecting. And when you see this person shouting conspiracies on the street corner, you will also notice that every single passerby does exactly that: pass by. They walk right past the person without ever acknowledging their existence, let alone stopping to engage a thoughtful, nuanced discussion with the person. Because that's exactly what you do when a stranger is doing that. If you were to go back in time to the Nation's founding, I imagine that the situation would play out similarly. People have jobs, families, and other obligations to attend to. On a practical level, it is silly to think that someone is going to spend their already-limited free time to stop and artfully discuss politics, religion, philosophy, etc with a complete stranger on a street corner. This version of "the marketplace of ideas" has never existed. People more often engage in fruitful political discussions among friends/family in informal settings not viewable to the public, and that still occurs to this day.
With that in mind, I think of free speech as being an important vehicle for self-expression, and government restriction on speech should be scrutinized because of the theory of distrust. I am ambivalent about the self-government theory, mainly due to how easy and fast misinformation circulates nowadays.
Yes, the “marketplace of ideas” was never really a historical fact, but more of an idealized story about how speech should work in a democracy. In practice, people never gathered in public squares to debate truth; they’ve mostly talked within their own circles. I like how your comment calls out that disconnect between myth and reality.
You’re also right that misinformation today makes the “marketplace” idea even harder to believe in. Free speech as self-expression and as a safeguard against government abuse is a more realistic and still very strong justification. And it raises an interesting question: how far can those values carry the First Amendment in an age of misinformation — can they do the same democratic work the marketplace was supposed to do?
As I was reading this portion of the reading on Tuesday, I had just finished a TikTok of Jake Tapper talking about how all major news networks have refused to sign the Pentagon's new restrictions on the press. Not only does it remind me of the licensing of printing press, but this restriction reminds me of exactly why we need the First Amendment in the first place.
First, in the context of truth - If the Pentagon media rule actually sticks, there will be no way for me to trust what is coming out of the press room. When the publication requires approval and can only discuss certain topics, it makes me wonder what they're hiding. I'm obviously not asking for our nation's deepest national security secrets, but I think there is a level of transparency required coming from the Pentagon. When we're only getting one pre-approved side of the story, and there is no way for people to develop their own ideas and come to the truth.
Second, in the context of self-government - If a major arm of our government is silencing the press and only allowing certain information out, how can anyone come to a conclusion on the state of the country or if the military's actions are justified and ethical? We should be able to get this information (within the bounds of what is unclassified) to make informed decisions and shape our views for upcoming elections.
What's most concerning to me is that the news outlets that don't sign will have their press passes taken away. If this actually happens, the channel of communication will effectively shut down and Pete Hegseth and OAN will become our only source (and I don't necessarily trust their "fair and unbiased" view). It's alarming to me that this hasn't gotten more widespread criticism because it seems to be a clear attack on the First Amendment.
You make a strong case, and I think you’re right to see the danger in restricting press access. The legal picture is a little more complicated, though. The key constitutional question isn’t simply whether this “feels” like censorship, but whether the Pentagon’s rules are genuinely about protecting national security or whether they’re being used to suppress scrutiny. Courts give the executive broad deference in classifying military information, but if the restrictions cross into viewpoint discrimination (limiting coverage to control criticism), that would trigger serious First Amendment problems.
Legally, there’s an important difference between prior restraints (which are almost always unconstitutional) and conditions on access (which are often upheld). The government doesn’t have to grant every outlet a press pass, as long as the rules are content-neutral and tied to legitimate security needs. The danger, as you note, is if “neutrality” becomes a cover for managing the narrative. In that sense, this situation tests the boundary between secrecy and censorship. It’s always a balancing act between protecting national security and preserving the public’s right to hold power accountable.
I understand why the oldest theory of free speech is to help us find the truth and that at the time that John Milton and John Stuart Mill were thinking about free speech this seemed like the most prominent reason for it. However, I think that the marketplace of idea concept is not realistic or attainable today as this open debate idea because of the use of social media and honestly human nature in general. In both our online presence and our physical presence in the world, everyone selects who they want to listen to, talk to, follow, or even watch. Although it may seem easier online because these algorithms are programmed to prioritize what individuals like or gravitate towards opposed to what they don't. However, the same can be said for an individual walking down the street, sitting in a busy public setting or even listening to the radio or news.
I also think this idea isn’t attainable even if social media and technology were not so prevalent in our lives. Unless an individual is living in or working in an area that has some diversity this idea that so many different views and opinions will be prevalent, let alone discussed, seems unrealistic. As well people tend to gravitate towards others who have similar interests, ideas and morals so I’m skeptical that this melting pot of opinions and thoughts will meet the same complexity that was thought of when this marketplace of ideas concept came to be. Although distortion is and always will be prevalent, I think it ultimately comes back to the individual on how open they are to seeing/hearing other views and also be skeptical on what they see or hear to be true.
You're right. I'd add, though, that while the theory doesn’t guarantee exposure to every viewpoint, it assumes we can seek them out if we choose to. The challenge now is that while access has expanded more than ever, our habits and algorithms often make it harder to actually exercise that choice.
In recent years, I have found myself less and less convinced by this "marketplace of ideas" theory and I find it strange that some people are obsessed/fixated on this notion that there was ever a time in American history that people just randomly congregated in public settings with the goal of transacting ideas. And I find it even more strange, given the lack of a historical precedent for this idea, the people who believe in "the public square" or "the marketplace of ideas" also often believe that people nowadays are entitled something that never truly existed in the first place. Travel to any major American city and you will inevitably find someone on some street corner shouting into a megaphone about how some group of people is going to burn in Hell or how some major catastrophe was actually orchestrated by a malevolent group of the world's wealthiest. This is, in essence, the last/only vestige of the "public square" that some people are so obsessed with resurrecting. And when you see this person shouting conspiracies on the street corner, you will also notice that every single passerby does exactly that: pass by. They walk right past the person without ever acknowledging their existence, let alone stopping to engage a thoughtful, nuanced discussion with the person. Because that's exactly what you do when a stranger is doing that. If you were to go back in time to the Nation's founding, I imagine that the situation would play out similarly. People have jobs, families, and other obligations to attend to. On a practical level, it is silly to think that someone is going to spend their already-limited free time to stop and artfully discuss politics, religion, philosophy, etc with a complete stranger on a street corner. This version of "the marketplace of ideas" has never existed. People more often engage in fruitful political discussions among friends/family in informal settings not viewable to the public, and that still occurs to this day.
With that in mind, I think of free speech as being an important vehicle for self-expression, and government restriction on speech should be scrutinized because of the theory of distrust. I am ambivalent about the self-government theory, mainly due to how easy and fast misinformation circulates nowadays.
Yes, the “marketplace of ideas” was never really a historical fact, but more of an idealized story about how speech should work in a democracy. In practice, people never gathered in public squares to debate truth; they’ve mostly talked within their own circles. I like how your comment calls out that disconnect between myth and reality.
You’re also right that misinformation today makes the “marketplace” idea even harder to believe in. Free speech as self-expression and as a safeguard against government abuse is a more realistic and still very strong justification. And it raises an interesting question: how far can those values carry the First Amendment in an age of misinformation — can they do the same democratic work the marketplace was supposed to do?
As I was reading this portion of the reading on Tuesday, I had just finished a TikTok of Jake Tapper talking about how all major news networks have refused to sign the Pentagon's new restrictions on the press. Not only does it remind me of the licensing of printing press, but this restriction reminds me of exactly why we need the First Amendment in the first place.
First, in the context of truth - If the Pentagon media rule actually sticks, there will be no way for me to trust what is coming out of the press room. When the publication requires approval and can only discuss certain topics, it makes me wonder what they're hiding. I'm obviously not asking for our nation's deepest national security secrets, but I think there is a level of transparency required coming from the Pentagon. When we're only getting one pre-approved side of the story, and there is no way for people to develop their own ideas and come to the truth.
Second, in the context of self-government - If a major arm of our government is silencing the press and only allowing certain information out, how can anyone come to a conclusion on the state of the country or if the military's actions are justified and ethical? We should be able to get this information (within the bounds of what is unclassified) to make informed decisions and shape our views for upcoming elections.
What's most concerning to me is that the news outlets that don't sign will have their press passes taken away. If this actually happens, the channel of communication will effectively shut down and Pete Hegseth and OAN will become our only source (and I don't necessarily trust their "fair and unbiased" view). It's alarming to me that this hasn't gotten more widespread criticism because it seems to be a clear attack on the First Amendment.
You make a strong case, and I think you’re right to see the danger in restricting press access. The legal picture is a little more complicated, though. The key constitutional question isn’t simply whether this “feels” like censorship, but whether the Pentagon’s rules are genuinely about protecting national security or whether they’re being used to suppress scrutiny. Courts give the executive broad deference in classifying military information, but if the restrictions cross into viewpoint discrimination (limiting coverage to control criticism), that would trigger serious First Amendment problems.
Legally, there’s an important difference between prior restraints (which are almost always unconstitutional) and conditions on access (which are often upheld). The government doesn’t have to grant every outlet a press pass, as long as the rules are content-neutral and tied to legitimate security needs. The danger, as you note, is if “neutrality” becomes a cover for managing the narrative. In that sense, this situation tests the boundary between secrecy and censorship. It’s always a balancing act between protecting national security and preserving the public’s right to hold power accountable.