Is Freedom of Speech Really Free?

   Progressive Era corruption is shown through “Class Privilege,” “Trust,” “Monopoly,” “Bribery,” and “Rule or Ruin.”

                                                                                  Anti War Reflection 

    Through learning about the history of the Progressive Era, a period when Americans fought for social and political reforms, I feel like we have come so close, yet are still so far away. When the United States entered WWI, people who spoke against the war could be punished under laws such as the Espionage and Sedition Acts. More than 2,000 people were charged under these laws, showing how strongly the government restricted dissent.

    WWI became an important period for defining how much protection the First Amendment actually gives people when their speech challenges the government. For example, in Schenck v. United States, the decision showed that “free” speech was not totally “free.” Charles Schenck opposed the military draft and handed out flyers encouraging people not to participate. He was arrested under the Espionage Act because the government believed his actions could interfere with the war effort. The Supreme Court ruled against Schenck and said that the First Amendment does not protect speech when it creates a serious and immediate danger. This case is important because it showed that free speech can have limits, especially during wartime.

  Similarly, to the end of WWI, I still feel that tension exists in 2026 over individual rights and freedom of speech. For example, websites such as Antiwar.com and The American Conservative provide detailed accounts of wars happening not only in the U.S., but around the entire world. Each article includes links that take readers directly to sources with additional details about the events, as well as video explanations.

    This further poses the question: Why have we never seen this in mainstream news? After thinking deeply about this, I have concluded that maybe these stories are not shown as often because journalists focus on the details of the physical war rather than the opinions of protesters and people who oppose it. I also considered a recent concept I learned in my media writing class: gatekeeping.

    Gatekeeping is when journalists and editors decide which stories and voices receive attention, essentially giving them the power to decide what information is shared with the public. In the past, antiwar voices have also faced criticism, which can make people less willing to speak publicly. Although these reasons are valid, I do think some events should be published by mainstream news sources.

    Seven-year-old Abdulrahman Azzam is traumatized after surviving a building collapse in Gaza that killed his pregnant mother and three-year-old brother, leaving him and his sister as the only survivors. This was a recent story published on Antiwar.com that absolutely broke my heart. I think if this story were published by more mainstream news sources, it would not only shed more light on the circumstances in Gaza, but also make Americans more grateful for their own living situations.

    In summary, I feel helpless thinking about the number of stories that may not receive the attention they deserve, but I am hopeful that some news sources continue to cover these important topics.

AI DISCLOSURE: The post was strictly checked and edited through Microsoft Copilot to ensure proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation.