So as you are all aware, we are to attend another deliberation among the fifty that Rhetoric & Civic Life is sponsoring. To get a better feel for how my deliberation would go on Wednesday and to get some insights into the process, I attended one Tuesday night at the New Leaf Initiative downtown. The deliberation, titled To Speak or Not to Speak: A Deliberation about Freedom of Speech and National Security (sorry Tessa! Your time didn’t work unfortunately), was centered on how emerging social media and widespread, all encompassing Internet access has led to concerns regarding our nation’s national security.

I don’t really know quite what I expected, for these deliberations or for the venue in general. After passing the passing the fancy State College borough council chambers, you enter a space that is decidedly unfancy….in a good way. New Leaf is a very creative area with lots of open space, brightly colored walls, and comfortable couches, in other words, the perfect space for a free-flowing public forum. And this deliberation was just that. I had my concerns that the process would be very mechanical but it went well. Each moderator asked the proper amount of leading questions, too many sometimes, and got us to a level of deep thinking that I hadn’t experienced on the topic before. I’ll be honest, I went to this particular deliberation more out of convenience than interest but I can honestly say that my eyes are open to the topic of how limited/unlimited our right to free speech is or should be.
Now to the meat of matter: the talking points of the deliberation. The introduction started off with examples of how the idea of free speech and democracy is changing now that the Internet and other forms of social media are empowering whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. The other major focus was on how the government (not just ours) and the media have handled situations like The Interview and Charlie Hebdo, the tragic, terrorist-driven shooting at the satirical magazine office in Paris.

Approach one was on the extreme liberal side of the spectrum and involved complete and pure free speech for the public and the media.

Approach two was rooted in the idea that the media should self-regulate its own information instead of having government oversight.

Approach three was the most conservative approach and allows the government to intercede in withholding and censuring information it deems sensitive.

The discussion throughout the deliberation was quite stimulating. Once we quickly got over the initial awkward phase where people were reluctant to talk, the discussion really picked up the pace. There was never really a lull in the conversation from then on. Thankfully, people had some inciting, possibly inflammatory views. This really added some spice to the conversation because it’s not very fun when all people do is agree. We eventually came to the final conclusion during the reflection section that the way the world works is a mixture of all three and varying segments of time, depending on the political and public atmosphere of the age.

Overall, the deliberation really achieved its goal. I left the deliberation thinking much more deeply about the topic and with a sharpened opinion with which to further discuss the topic.

So I’m anxious to hear what you guys think! Both about this topic and the process of deliberation in general. Since all our deliberations happened already, we have lots to talk about! Thanks guys!