The internet has changed the freedom of expression mostly due to its influence on how people are allowed to exercise their right to the First Amendment in online spaces and online communication. Prior to the increase of internet usage, the regulation of free speech was much more simple as the main sources of online communications were media sources such as broadcasts, radio stations, and television. The FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978) case set an example by ruling that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has the authority to regulate content in which appears indecent, but not obscene content that appears in public broadcasts. The focus of this case was that indecent language appearing in broadcasts could be regulated for the protection of children that may potentially be listening as to protect them from exposure to offensive material. During this time, the ruling was made based on the current form of media, which online content was only viewed by a smaller group of radio and/or media companies.
The current state of the internet and the online media that comes with it makes it so that many of the cases and rulings on previous, older media regulations are outdated or incorrect. In today’s time, the limited channels that existed in the past are no longer as the access to a wide variety of online platforms has grown as well as peoples’ ability to access these platforms. Online content has also changed in the way that unexpected exposure, as discussed in the FCC v. Pacifica Foundation case, is almost nonexistent as television content is not randomly broadcasted into homes in the way it was in the past. The internet has given users the ability to seek out and select the content that they wish to view, rather than selecting from a handful of channels.
An example of this change is clearly demonstrated in the United States, et al. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc (2000) case. The court recognized that digital media environments require a more clear First Amendment protection and ruled that a federal law that required cable operators to limit sexually explicit programming to only late-night hours or completely scrambling the signal was unconstitutional against the First Amendment. The emphasis of this ruling was that adults have a right to access lawful content and that the government must take action to find less restrictive practices rather than completely suppressing the content altogether. The principles found by the court in this case can be found in popular platforms used today such as YouTube, TikTok, and X. These platforms allow users to have their own control over the content they wish to view, and the restrictions imposed by the government are much less than they were in the past, partly thanks to cases such as United States, et al. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc (2000)
With the current state of the internet and its popularity, a ranking of values and rights may be useful for identifying resolutions in cases that concern free expression versus privacy and safety. This ranking should be broad to make sure it can adapt to keep up with the progression of technological advancement and the constant changes that are introduced to the internet. At the top of this ranking should be freedom of expression as it is the foundation of the First Amendment and keeps the ability for people to freely express themselves safely. Following this could be the right to access information/privacy rights. The purpose of freedom of expression is so that people can express themselves without the fear of facing suppression for doing so. A major aspect of this is peoples’ right to access the information, as long as the content they are viewing is not breaking the rights of someone else’s privacy. This loose ranking of values can be useful for establishing what is important when discussing the protections and rights that people have when using the internet themselves