Participation in Self-Government and the “Watchdog” Role of the First Amendment

Self Governance in the Colonies

The American foundational idea of democracy has always rested on the idea that citizens must play an active role in governing and fighting for themselves. That participation is not possible without access to information, freedom to debate, and the ability to openly criticize and discuss those in power without risk of prior restraint or subsequent punishment. 

Alexander Meiklejohn

The First Amendment and its protection of free speech and free press is not an immediate guarantee to individual expression. Rather, as individuals like Alexander Meiklejohn and Vince Blasi have argued, it’s central to a self-government. Without the First Amendment, government power could have the ability to become unchecked and citizens would be scared to advocate their needs and beliefs.

In Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government, written by American philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn, an argument that the core purpose of the First Amendment is to enable citizens to govern themselves wisely is made. He also argues that the entire system of democracy doesn’t work if the media and politicians provide material which is manipulated and untruthful. If citizens are kept in the dark about important topics and people, voters become uninformed and unable to make important decisions regarding policies and who is in office. 

Meiklejohn’s perspective brings about the idea that free speech is more than an individual freedom, but also a necessity for a truthful functioning government where every voice is heard. Protecting freedom of speech and freedom of press is necessary to citizens contributing to the marketplace of ideas. If individuals can’t see competing arguments because some are silenced, the entire voting population becomes uniformed and silenced. When only government approved and created messages reach the public, elections become a waste of time rather than actual acts of self-governance.

We can see Meiklejohn’s perspective play out in modern politics. Debate over constant moderation in social media, campaign restrictions, and laws limiting the discussion of controversial topics in schools raise the same questions Meiklejohn asked decades ago. Are we capable of fostering an environment where voters are informed? One example of social media moderation right now is in the EU. The digital services act, similar to a hate speech law, has been enacted, and on average, 30 people a day go to jail in Britain for things they post online disagreeing with the government.

The EU is also trying to pass something called Chat Control, which hinges on Germany’s decision. Introduced by Denmark, Chat Control would allow regulators to screen your messages before they are sent and encrypted in text. These acts have direct consequences for how citizens are able to voice their ideas and participate in political life. 

Vince Blasi

While Meiklejohn focused on the role of speech in democratic participation, Vince Blasi brought light to another important function of the First Amendment. Checking government power was written about in his article The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory. In this article, Blasi argued that the press serves as a sort of “Watchdog”, exposing abuse of power so that citizens can respond in ways they see fit, especially for something as important as political leaders and matters.

The historical record of multiple “gates” such as Watergate, Irangate, and Clintongate, further support Blasi’s point. Without journalists and freedom of speech and press, these abuses of power may have never been known to the public. These scandals highlight the importance of the broader system of checks and balances. 

Sources:

Michigan Law Review, Meiklejohn: FREE SPEECH AND ITS RELATION TO SELF-GOVERNMENT, 47 MICH. L. REV. 734 (Accessed 9/17/2025). 

Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol47/iss5/26 

Blasi, Vincent. "The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory." American Bar Foundation Research Journal 2, no. 3 (1977): 521-649. http://www.jstor.org/stable/827945. (Accessed 9/17/2025)