Social media has certainly forced governments and institutions to recalibrate their positions on free speech. With the United States Supreme Court recently upholding the law banning TikTok over national security concerns, some experts and pundits are quick to point out how this development has struck a blow against a constitutionally-guaranteed right.

There used to be a time when freedom of expression was almost absolute. In fact, in a long line of cases, our own Supreme Court, obviously influenced by American jurisprudence, has emphasized the primacy of free speech being a preferred right. As the Court aptly stressed, this freedom stands on a higher ground than some substantive economic rights and other liberties and is an indispensable condition for nearly every other form of freedom. The belief is that if the law allows people to have access to all kinds of information, they can better assess and evaluate issues and therefore form their informed opinions.

This is why a person can practically say anything he wants without fear of reprisal or even being prevented from doing so. Except for libel or inciting to sedition, one can engage in all forms of utterances as they are considered protected. For the longest time, this was the prevailing paradigm.

And then came the internet and social media. Suddenly, there’s a barrage of critical information which the traditional media in the past did not allow to be disseminated pursuant to its gatekeeping function and its role as the Fourth Estate.

In a recent study, some concerns over alarming contents allowed in social media are identified. These would include national security issues which show instructions on bomb-making or illegal drug production or even promotion of terroristic ideologies. In fact, experts point out that child pornography also became easily accessible while breach of information security and violation of data privacy became rampant.

Then there’s fake news. Unlike traditional media whose ethical code would not allow false stories and narratives to be shared, apps like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram routinely permit users from spreading false information. In one study done in the US, it was revealed that 61 percent of US adults access information through social media; hence, making it a breeding ground for fake news.

Interestingly, fake news remains protected speech unless it is libelous. As the Supreme Court did not really anticipate that false and harmful contents would ever be shared publicly, much of our jurisprudence points to free speech as an almost absolute right.

But now, both Congress and the Court are trying to figure out how to strike a balance between protecting free speech on the one hand and regulating harmful contents shared in many social media platforms on the other. In fact, there has been a number of pending bills that seek to regulate fake news and other damaging contents.

On the part of social media platform owners, they have also attempted to do their own regulating with Facebook, for instance, appointing fact checkers. The problem though is that these accredited groups ended up focusing their attention instead on censoring contents based on ideological grounds so that they can promote their own respective political agenda. This is why Mark Zuckerberg was forced to remove them instead of sucking it up.

Only time can tell how our institutions would be able to judiciously respond to the effects of technological breakthroughs which have basically altered how we view and do things. At some point, our own laws would be modified be modified so we can extricate ourselves from this seemingly complicated wilderness called social media.

In the meantime, fingers crossed!